Speeding up Vista, reducing memory footprint

Scream And Fly

Scream And Fly

Gawd
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
821
This isn't a Vista bashing post - I prefer XP, but I have Vista on my laptop and I was wondering what I could do to speed it up a bit. My laptop is a 1.83GHz Core Duo Centrino, 1GB of RAM, and a GeForce Go 7400. I know adding 1GB more would help, but I would like to speed it up the way it is for now. I already disabled Aero. Is there anything else I could do?

Thanks
 
Disable indexing ( it is using 20 - 50MB RAM).

Best thing to do would be to add RAM;)

 
Disabling Aero does nothing for speed, believe it or not. It has nothing to do with your processor nor ram. Aero is fully dependent on your video card which isn't doing anything when not playing games.

You'll be surprised how much faster your computer will be merely adding another gig of ram. I suggest you wait until you get your upgrade, then allow Vista a couple weeks of learning how you use it. Then come and revisit your question. :)
 
http://www.tweakhound.com/vista/tweakguide/index.htm

This guide got my laptop down to around 36 processes with an antivirus and all that good stuff. Much more responsive too. Though, you have to know what you're doing before you start disabling services. Though, with the price of RAM right now, it's best to bite now before prices go up.
 
so why don't you want to buy more ram? it's soooo cheap...I've seen 4GB for $100...I have a similar setup and my system flies with that much ram. It's even better than with 2GB (duh).
 
Azhar said:
Disabling Aero does nothing for speed, believe it or not. It has nothing to do with your processor nor ram.
Click to expand...

Well, the Desktop Window Manager does have to keep a bitmap of each window, which uses up a fair amount of RAM? I'm not sure if Basic still uses DWM though.
 
Mithent said:
Well, the Desktop Window Manager does have to keep a bitmap of each window, which uses up a fair amount of RAM? I'm not sure if Basic still uses DWM though.
Click to expand...

but doesn't it use RAM on the graphics card? it's basically just a snapshot of what's in memory..I think it's like a pointer and not a new allocation...but someone could prove me wrong on that.
 
Azhar said:
Disabling Aero does nothing for speed, believe it or not. It has nothing to do with your processor nor ram. Aero is fully dependent on your video card which isn't doing anything when not playing games.
Click to expand...

Why do people persist in perpetrating this myth? Funny, looks like DWM.exe which is Aero's control manager is running whether Aero is not, but it does require a wee bit more RAM when Aero is actually enabled and functioning. DWM.exe requires CPU time to execute (there's that processor usage) and it requires RAM to function (there's that RAM usage). So, looks like you're wrong on 3 counts: speed (it helps Vista run faster), processor usage (it does use CPU time), and RAM (it also needs RAM to run).

Also, considering the video card is responsible for the GUI, Aero-enabled or not, I'd say it's doing quite a bit even when not playing games. Go figure...

Seriously folks, learn something about Vista before spouting this stuff out will ya. Disabling Aero can actually slow the system down because when it's not running your CPU is handling all the GUI aspects, just as it does in XP. With Aero enabled, at least you offload a considerable amount of the graphics workload to the GPU on your video card (assuming of course your video card is capable - I'd bet the OP's laptop has a GMA950 in it more than likely which is perfectly acceptable).

To the OP:

More RAM will help, obviously, that's been stated already. There's no need to load on things like a third-party defragger (Vista does this automagically now and keeps the fragmentation level <= about 5% almost constantly), no need to really bog it down with malware/spyware garbage (Windows Defender does fine), definitely get some AV software (UAC can help with a lot of stuff but it's not godlike in its abilities - be proactive, get some decent AV software - NOD32 tops the list), and read more about it and learn what you can do and can't do.

If you listen to about 95% of the people that'll answer your questions, they'll end up suggesting vLite at some point to gut Vista down to size, somewhat. Highly not recommended as it would require a clean install of your entire machine and I don't suspect that's what your intentions are at this point.

Vista gets faster over time, if it has enough RAM to work with, that is. 1GB is barely going to cut it long-term, really. But if you can't add more actual RAM at this point, at least find yourself a 1GB USB stick and use it for ReadyBoost duties. ReadyBoost has been proven to help low-RAM systems, and 1GB these days definitely places your laptop in the low-RAM category.
 
1GB is the bare minimum and you can't expect great performance unless you cut down on pretty much everything that makes Vista, well.. Vista.. At which point it makes more sense to install XP anyway.

Adding another 1GB of RAM is really the only way to go, but you could try getting a fast enough 1 or 2GB USB flash drive and see if that helps. I'd recommend leaving Aero on.. My system feels much snappier with it, drawing windows faster, and moving them without tearing or the hall of mirrors effect.
 
Add another 1GB of RAM. I have a laptop with 2GB of RAM running vista home premium 32 bit. It runs perfectly.
 
There's no substitute for actual memory. While Joe Average's suggestion for a Readyboost drive would work, you'd probably be able to double your memory for only a few bucks more than the drive would cost. If you have a Readyboost drive already, it would work in a pinh, but I'd still upgrade the memory.
 
I have a Toshiba R25 Tablet PC that's almost two years old with a Core Duo 1.66 running Vista Ultimate. I wiped it and installed Vista. I've got a lot of development stuff on it IIS, SQL Server, and at 1GB it chocked. The things you need to do to make Vista run better:

1. Did you do a clean install of the OS yourself? Its very well documented how crapware slows stuff down. I just don't understand why vendors do this. Toshiba and Sony are really bad about this. Find the drivers for everything and do a clean install if possible. I know that easier said than done with a retail machine as they only give you images now and not the OS. That's not cool.

2. If it can take 4GB of RAM, then put 4GB of RAM in it, even if its a 32bit machine you'll get about
3.25GB of usable memory. Vista loves memory, the more the better, especially as you install more software. I got 4GB for like $80 back in December. Don't now what its going for but it should still be about the same, even with high gas prices!

3. Get a 7200RPM hard drive. This is make a noticeable difference in booting and shutdown especially. Once again, retailer love to put 5200 and even 4200 drives in non-ultra portable types of laptops, I guess to keep the cost down, but 7200 RPM drives are not a lot more.


Do these three things and that laptop will sing with Vista. I guarantee it!:D
 
heatlesssun said:
3. Get a 7200RPM hard drive. This is make a noticeable difference in booting and shutdown especially. Once again, retailer love to put 5200 and even 4200 drives in non-ultra portable types of laptops, I guess to keep the cost down, but 7200 RPM drives are not a lot more.
Click to expand...
They often use 5400 and 4200 rpm drives to extend battery life and keep the heat down a bit. Adding a 7200 rpm drive will give a small performance boost, but it will lower battery times and will make the laptop run hotter.
 
DeaconFrost said:
They often use 5400 and 4200 rpm drives to extend battery life and keep the heat down a bit. Adding a 7200 rpm drive will give a small performance boost, but it will lower battery times and will make the laptop run hotter.
Click to expand...

Many of the new 7200 RPM drives claim to run no warmer and use no less power than 5400 RPM drives. This is the claim Hitachi made for this drive and I believe them: http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=10005818&prodlist=celebros. It would depend obviously which specific 5400 & 7200 drives you were comparing but the better 7200 seem to do well with heat and power.

As far as performance, I noticed a big difference in booting up. It was very noticeable for me but I have a lot of startup services so I would notice it more than others. Bottom line for me, it was faster, no more power and no more heat than my 5400 RPM drive.
 
Like everyone else is saying, add more RAM. It is cheap and Vista, like OS X, does more work now with RAM instead of a physical swap file on the hard drive. Both operating systems love RAM so the more the better.

Considering that you can load up on 4GB for around $100 these days, there is absolutely no reason not to. Once the initial indexing is complete you will have absolutely nothing to worry about as far as speed goes now that SP1 is out.
 
Joe Average said:
Why do people persist in perpetrating this myth? Funny, looks like DWM.exe which is Aero's control manager is running whether Aero is not, but it does require a wee bit more RAM when Aero is actually enabled and functioning. DWM.exe requires CPU time to execute (there's that processor usage) and it requires RAM to function (there's that RAM usage). So, looks like you're wrong on 3 counts: speed (it helps Vista run faster), processor usage (it does use CPU time), and RAM (it also needs RAM to run)

If you listen to about 95% of the people that'll answer your questions, they'll end up suggesting vLite at some point to gut Vista down to size, somewhat. Highly not recommended as it would require a clean install of your entire machine and I don't suspect that's what your intentions are at this point.
Click to expand...
^^^ Right about Aero. DWM.exe uses very little processor/RAM utilization though (but as obviously stated OP should still get 1GB or more of extra RAM).

As far as vLite- don't try it. Generally more of a PITA than it is worth.
I'm reading (one on this forum here not too long ago) more and more folks having issues stripping down an install, and either needing those components later (which you CANNOT selectively install back) or their systems going to crap...

heatlesssun said:
As far as performance, I noticed a big difference in booting up. It was very noticeable for me but I have a lot of startup services so I would notice it more than others. Bottom line for me, it was faster, no more power and no more heat than my 5400 RPM drive.
Click to expand...
I really can't compare speeds, my old laptop had 512MB of RAM and my new one has 3GB...
However, I can tell you the 5400 to 7200 is no hotter. No more noisy, either.
 
Joe Average said:
Why do people persist in perpetrating this myth? Funny, looks like DWM.exe which is Aero's control manager is running whether Aero is not, but it does require a wee bit more RAM when Aero is actually enabled and functioning. DWM.exe requires CPU time to execute (there's that processor usage) and it requires RAM to function (there's that RAM usage). So, looks like you're wrong on 3 counts: speed (it helps Vista run faster), processor usage (it does use CPU time), and RAM (it also needs RAM to run).

Also, considering the video card is responsible for the GUI, Aero-enabled or not, I'd say it's doing quite a bit even when not playing games. Go figure...

Seriously folks, learn something about Vista before spouting this stuff out will ya. Disabling Aero can actually slow the system down because when it's not running your CPU is handling all the GUI aspects, just as it does in XP. With Aero enabled, at least you offload a considerable amount of the graphics workload to the GPU on your video card (assuming of course your video card is capable - I'd bet the OP's laptop has a GMA950 in it more than likely which is perfectly acceptable).
Click to expand...

It's not a myth. DWM is not Aero. It runs with or without aero. The arguement is really twofold, one that Aero is fully offloaded to the GPU and two, that shutting down Areo speed up vista.
When Areo is active it uses the GPU and GPU ram. Since DWM is not areo we are not talking about that. Even you say that it offloads a considerable amount to the GPU. You also say that enabling Aero increases DWM ram usage a "wee bit", though I think that is debatable. Aero makes no difference in DWM resources on my computer. Though a "wee bit" depending on how you define it, would make no difference whatsoever on system performance. It either offloads everything as was stated in this thread, or it offloads almost everything or rather a "considerable" amount as stated by you. Either way it probably makes no difference.
And you also say that disabling Aero can slow system performance so you do agree at least that shutting down aero does not increase system performance. Which is why the advice is often given that one should not shut it down to speed up a computer as doing so really does nothing(or can slow it).
It seems like your post is to argue another post but it seems like throughout your post you actually support that which was originally stated. So i'm somewhat confused.

If one right clicks on a game icon and goes to compatibility, DWM can be shut down when a game launches which makes more sense for conserving resources while gaming.
 
Archer75 said:
It's not a myth. DWM is not Aero.
Click to expand...
No? http://www.processlibrary.com/directory/files/dwm/71288
"3D effects, live windows previews and windows transperancies." = Sounds a hell alot like Aero to me.

Archer75 said:
It runs with or without aero.
Click to expand...
Yup- we already got that covered:

Joe Average said:
Aero's control manager is running whether Aero is not
Click to expand...


Archer75 said:
And you also say that disabling Aero can slow system performance so you do agree at least that shutting down aero does not increase system performance.
Click to expand...
Yes- I guess we can all agree on this. However, to be fair, you weren't all that specific:
Azhar said:
Disabling Aero does nothing for speed
Click to expand...



Running Aero, GIVEN you have a capable graphics card, benefits you. And once more, Vista is smart enough to know when to shut it off, if it would run your system better (another reason why you leave Vista the hell alone...)

Bottom line is Vista changed about everything.
Disabling processes, RAM utilizations, defragmenters, graphics, etc, etc ,etc... People should stop trying to "tweak" it.
 
Archer75 said:
And you also say that disabling Aero can slow system performance so you do agree at least that shutting down aero does not increase system performance.
Click to expand...

Man, you should be (and probably are) either a law student or a lawyer outright with that twisted logic. Thanks for putting words in my e-mouth there, bub.

Just for the record: I don't agree with one fucking thing you've said in this thread. That's my disclaimer, and I'm stickin' to it.

Aero is a 3D GUI - everything you see when Aero is operational is a 3D texture, with given 3D geometry, hence the requirement for the video card's GPU to be called into play. Same principle as Beryl/Compiz on Linux distros, same principle as Quartz and Core Effects/Core Image on OSX.

I'm just gonna go back to my now-standard statement about Windows, any edition you want:

Leave it alone. It can take care of itself just fine.

TechieSooner said:
Bottom line is Vista changed about everything.
Disabling processes, RAM utilizations, defragmenters, graphics, etc, etc ,etc... People should stop trying to "tweak" it.
Click to expand...

QFMFT.
 
Number of processes doesn't effect the CPU nearly as much as the old days with XP and single core CPU's. Aero is run off the video card and so doesn't cause any slow downs unless you're using onboard video.

It's definately RAM, I wouldn't advise running it without 2Gb.

RAM is dirt cheap now a days, you should be able to pick up a 1Gb stick for little mroe than the price of a going to the cinema or buying a DVD or something like that, money well spent.
 
TechieSooner said:
No? http://www.processlibrary.com/directory/files/dwm/71288
"3D effects, live windows previews and windows transperancies." = Sounds a hell alot like Aero to me.
Click to expand...

But it isn't. If it were then shutting down Aero would shutdown DWM, which it doesn't. They are not one and the same. Aero requires DWM, but DWM does not require aero.

Joe Average said:
Man, you should be (and probably are) either a law student or a lawyer outright with that twisted logic. Thanks for putting words in my e-mouth there, bub.
Click to expand...

Your words not mine. I don't know how I put words in your mouth:

"Disabling Aero can actually slow the system down"

Joe Average said:
Aero is a 3D GUI - everything you see when Aero is operational is a 3D texture, with given 3D geometry, hence the requirement for the video card's GPU to be called into play. Same principle as Beryl/Compiz on Linux distros, same principle as Quartz and Core Effects/Core Image on OSX.
Click to expand...

I am well aware of this.

You say you disagree with me, but then everything you post agrees with me. Very confusing. I don't say to shut aero off, I say leave it on. I said shutting it down won't speed up your system. Your comments agree. The GUI is processing Aero. You say so yourself. Where do we disagree again?
 
Hate to sound like a parrot here: buy more RAM. I put Vista Business on my laptop with 1GB in it, that sucked majorly so I upgraded to 2GB.
 
mystykmax said:
so why don't you want to buy more ram? it's soooo cheap...I've seen 4GB for $100...I have a similar setup and my system flies with that much ram. It's even better than with 2GB (duh).
Click to expand...


I just got 4gb of G-Skill for 79.99 shipped....my son's rig also has 4gb now, and I have another 3gb laying on the desk waiting for a home...

Ram is ultra cheap right now....there is no reason for a power user with Vista64, to not have at least 4gb of ram....and 3gb for Vista 32 :p
 
Archer75 said:
But it isn't. If it were then shutting down Aero would shutdown DWM, which it doesn't. They are not one and the same. Aero requires DWM, but DWM does not require aero.
Click to expand...

Kinda like how many of Windows' windows require explorer.exe, but explorer.exe does not require those windows? Same principal here.

I'm on the leave-it-on stance here as well, but DWM.exe is what makes Aero possible... And unless you find out specifically what else it runs, is there for Aero. And it could very well be that Windows always needs to have that initialized/loaded to turn Aero on and off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top