MS XP Myths.docx

7/28/2019 MS XP Myths.docx

1/31

Requirement Myths

4GB RAM Issue

Myth - "Windows XP does not support 4GB of RAM"

Reality- "On any 32-bit Operating System (not only Windows), you only have access to 4GB of

address space by default. A 32-bit Operating System can actually handle 4GB of memory. The issue is

the way in which the hardware allocates memory for its own resources. The hardware needs to

allocate memory space to use for things like the PCI bus, BIOS, the video card and others. It

allocates this from the address space presented to it, which is not necessarily the same as the

amount of physical RAM installed. Also of note, it allocates this memory from top to bottom. The

problem is, when you have 4GB of RAM installed, the amount of physical memory installed is the

same as the address space. If you have 4GB RAM, and the hardware needs to allocate a large chunk

of memory for its own use, and it does this from top to bottom, the memory that is blocked off startsat 4GB and allocates downwards. So, the final amount of RAM the OS will be able to see is the

difference. This is because when it actually allocates for the physical RAM in the system, it has to skip

the chunk that was blocked off by the hardware. Since a 32-bit OS can only see 4GB, the rest of the

RAM is invisible because it is above the 4GB barrier. By using the /PAE switch, you enable the OS to

see above this barrier, and you can see all of your RAM, sometimes. The real problem comes back to

hardware. The OS can only handle whatever resources are shown to it by the hardware BIOS. If the

hardware does not support a large enough addressing range, then it simply won't report anything

above that so the OS is in the dark. If the hardware supports 36-bit PAE Intel Extensions or the AMD

equivalent, and you use an OS that supports PAE, you should be able to enable both and see all of

the RAM."

-Dude, Where's My 4 Gigabytes of RAM?(Jeff Atwood, Software Developer)

-Memory Management - Dude where's my RAM??(Windows Performance Team)

-Why can't I see all of the 4GB of RAM in my machine? (Raymond Chen, Microsoft Software

Engineer)

Notes - Windows XP Home and Professional limit physical address space to 4 GB for driver

compatibility reasons. To use more than 4 GB of RAM you will need to get Windows XP Professional

x64 Edition which supports up to 128 GB of RAM.

-Service Pack 2 Functionality Changed: Memory Protection Technologies(Microsoft)

-Exploring Windows XP Professional x64 Edition(Microsoft)

DOS Game Compatibility

Myth - "You cannot run DOS games on Windows XP."

Reality- "Many MS-DOS-based games will run on Windows XP and acommunityout there is

dedicated to smoothing the way. MS-DOS was a 16-bit platform. Windows 95 meshed 16-bit and 32-

bit code with MS-DOS at its core. Most 16-bit MS-DOS based programs would work fine on Windows

95. Windows 95, 98, and Me were all based on the same core technology (called kernel). Windows XP

is based on a completely different kernel. It's built on code that was introduced in Windows NT,

evolved into Windows 2000, and was enhanced for Windows XP. The Windows NT kernel doesn't haveany MS-DOS components in it at all-it's a pure 32-bit beast. It includes a 16-bit emulator and a
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000811.htmlhttp://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000811.htmlhttp://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000811.htmlhttp://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2007/04/13/memory-management-dude-where-s-my-ram.aspxhttp://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2007/04/13/memory-management-dude-where-s-my-ram.aspxhttp://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2007/04/13/memory-management-dude-where-s-my-ram.aspxhttp://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2006/08/14/699521.aspxhttp://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2006/08/14/699521.aspxhttp://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2006/08/14/699521.aspxhttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457155.aspxhttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457155.aspxhttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457155.aspxhttp://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/64bit/russel_exploringx64.mspxhttp://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/64bit/russel_exploringx64.mspxhttp://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/64bit/russel_exploringx64.mspxhttp://www.dosgames.com/xphints.phphttp://www.dosgames.com/xphints.phphttp://www.dosgames.com/xphints.phphttp://www.dosgames.com/xphints.phphttp://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/64bit/russel_exploringx64.mspxhttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457155.aspxhttp://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2006/08/14/699521.aspxhttp://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2007/04/13/memory-management-dude-where-s-my-ram.aspxhttp://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000811.html


2/31

command prompt mode that looks like MS-DOS. MS-DOS-based games don't have the friendly

installers found in the Windows 9x-based games. You should install MS-DOS-based games from a

command prompt. One of the trickiest parts of making MS-DOS-based games to run on Windows XP

is getting the sound to work. Succeeding at getting your ancient games up and running on Windows

XP can be as rewarding as playing the game itself!"

Notes - If all else fails you can always try the -DOSBox DOS Emulator.

-Getting Older Games to Run on Windows XP(Joel Durham, Windows XP Expert Zone)

-Run Older Programs on Windows XP(Microsoft)

-Troubleshooting MS-DOS-based programs in Windows XP(Microsoft)

NTFS Game Compatibility

Myth - "NTFS is not compatible with games."

Reality- "Your normal software and games could not care less what file system they are being stored

on. As long as it's supported by the operating system you are using, there will be no problem. With

NTFS, however, permissions can play a factor in whether a game runs correctly or not. If you don't

have access to a particular file that's needed by the software, it's not going to work. This is different

than when a file is stored on FAT32, and is probably responsible for the mistaken belief that a game,

or other software, must be compatible with NTFS. This is another good reason to familiarize yourself

with the file and folder permissions in NTFS."

-Using FAT32 and NTFS on the same system(AnandTech)

Notes - There are limitations to the FAT32 file system that can affect certain games, such as a

maximum file size of 4GB.

-Limitations of the FAT32 File System in Windows XP(Microsoft)

System Requirements

Myth - "Windows XP requires a high end PC to install and run."

Reality- "Windows XP can be installed on surprisingly low system requirements contrary to popular

opinion. With the average life cycle of a regular PC being roughly 4-6 years, just about any PC beingused today can run Windows XP. The following requirements are Microsoft's "official" minimum

system requirements which I have tested to work fine with the exception of only

64 MB of RAM(performance is poor). Increasing your RAM to 128 MB would be the only upgrade I

would strongly consider as my absolute minimum Windows XP system requirements."

233 MHz CPU (300 MHz Recommended) *

128 MB Recommended (64 MB of RAM minimum supported, limits performance and some features) *

1.5 GB of available hard disk space *

Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor

CD-ROM or DVD drive

Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device

* Actual requirements will vary based on your system configuration and the applications and features
http://sourceforge.net/projects/dosboxhttp://sourceforge.net/projects/dosboxhttp://sourceforge.net/projects/dosboxhttp://www.md4pc.com/questions/83.htmhttp://www.md4pc.com/questions/83.htmhttp://www.md4pc.com/questions/83.htmhttp://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsupport/learnmore/appcompat.mspxhttp://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsupport/learnmore/appcompat.mspxhttp://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsupport/learnmore/appcompat.mspxhttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/314106/en-us?spid=1173&sid=globalhttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/314106/en-us?spid=1173&sid=globalhttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/314106/en-us?spid=1173&sid=globalhttp://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.aspx?i=94http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.aspx?i=94http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.aspx?i=94http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314463http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314463http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314463http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314463http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.aspx?i=94http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314106/en-us?spid=1173&sid=globalhttp://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsupport/learnmore/appcompat.mspxhttp://www.md4pc.com/questions/83.htmhttp://sourceforge.net/projects/dosbox


3/31

you choose to install. Additional available hard disk space may be required if you are installing over a

network.

Notes - Again 128 MB of RAM is recommended as the minimum, since below that disables some

features, reduces prefetching benefits and reduces overall performance. Anyone who claims Windows

XP will not work with these settings has never actually installed Windows XP on this hardware. Older

systems generally benefit from faster hard drive performance (5400 RPM to 7200 RPM, 40 conductor

IDE cables to 80 conductor ect...) and faster Internet Connections (Dial-up to Broadband) before

upgrading the RAM and so forth. Adding more RAM is almost always a good idea but it is important to

understand what exactly you are trying to improve. The most common complaints on older systems

are loading times and Internet Performance. Windows XP will work fine for basic Office, Email and

Internet use. Many do not realize how lowOffice 2000orOffice XP'sSystem Requirements are either.

These are the minimum requirements for Windows XP NOT any third party software you choose to

use. The system requirements for any third party software must be met to use that software

properly.

-System requirements for Windows XP operating systems(Microsoft)

-XP Requirements(Optimize Guides)

^ TOP

Reliability Myths

Defragmenting wears out your Hard Drive

Myth - "You can wear out your hard drive if you defragment too often."

Reality- "Not true. The truth is, your drive is going to work much harder if you never defrag at all! It

is a common misconception that defragmentation is stressful to disk drives. In reality, fragmentation

results in many more disk accesses. Here is an example: If you have a file that is fragmented into 50

pieces, and you access it twice a day for a week, that's a total of 700 disk accesses (50 x 2 x 7).

Defragmenting the file may cost 100 disk accesses (50 reads + 50 writes), but thereafter only one

disk access will be required to use the file. That's 14 disk accesses over the course of a week (2 x 7),

plus 100 for the defragmentation process = 114 total. 700 accesses for the fragmented computer

versus 114 for the defragmented computer - the benefits are obvious."

- Myth No. 4: You can wear out your hard drive if you defragment too often (Diskeeper)

Windows 95/98/ME vs XP Reliability

Myth - "Windows 95/98/ME is as reliable as XP."

Reality- "Windows XP is 10-30 times more reliable then Windows 95/98/ME. Windows XP Professional

is built on the proven code base of Windows 2000, which features a 32-bit computing architecture,

and a fully protected memory model. Windows XP offers several enhancements that make it the most

reliable version of Windows yet: Application Compatibility, Compatibility Mode, Improved Device and

Hardware Support, Shared DLL Support, Shutdown Event Tracker, Windows Driver Protection, Device

Driver Rollback, Windows Installer, Auto Update, Dynamic Update, Windows Update, Shadow Copy

Integration with Backup, Last Known Good Configuration, Automated System Recovery, System

Restore Enhancements, Error Messaging and Product Support, Online Crash Analysis,"
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/suites/HA102130071033.aspxhttp://office.microsoft.com/en-us/suites/HA102130071033.aspxhttp://office.microsoft.com/en-us/suites/HA102130071033.aspxhttp://office.microsoft.com/en-us/suites/HA102126351033.aspxhttp://office.microsoft.com/en-us/suites/HA102126351033.aspxhttp://office.microsoft.com/en-us/suites/HA102126351033.aspxhttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865http://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/XPRequirements.htmlhttp://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/XPRequirements.htmlhttp://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/XPRequirements.htmlhttp://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/XPMyths.html#tophttp://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/XPMyths.html#tophttp://www.diskeeper.com/diskeeper/myths/hard-drive-wear.aspxhttp://www.diskeeper.com/diskeeper/myths/hard-drive-wear.aspxhttp://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/XPMyths.html#tophttp://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/XPRequirements.htmlhttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/suites/HA102126351033.aspxhttp://office.microsoft.com/en-us/suites/HA102130071033.aspx


4/31

- Windows XP Professional ran over 30 times as long without encountering problems as those running

Windows 98 SE.

- None of the Windows XP Professional systems had a single application or operating system failure

during the test period.

- None of the Windows 2000 Professional Gold systems had a single application or operating system

failure during the test period.

- Reliability Improvements in Windows XP Professional (Microsoft)

- Windows XP Reliability Study (eTesting Labs)

- Windows XP: The Rock of Reliability (Microsoft)

^ TOP

Optimization Myths

Also known as "Bad Tweaks" these are frequently recommended and included in various tweaking

programs claiming to improve performance. You will not find them supported with documented

reproducible testing but rather anecdotal claims. In each case they either do absolutely nothing or

even worse, actually hurt performance. For optimizations that work use the Optimize XP guide.

Key

= No Effect on Performance

= Reduces Performance

= Improves Performance

= Causes other Problems

AlwaysUnloadDLL (Disable DLL Caching, Force XP to unload DLLs)

[HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer] "AlwaysUnloadDLL"

Myth - "Enabling AlwaysUnloadDLL frees up more memory and improves performance."

Reality- "Adding this Registry Key in Windows 2000 or XP has no effect since this registry key is no

longer supported in Microsoft Windows 2000 or later. The Shell automatically unloads a DLL when its

usage count is zero, but only after the DLL has not been used for a period of time. This inactive

period might be unacceptably long at times, especially when a Shell extension DLL is being debugged.

For operating systems prior to Windows 2000, you can shorten the inactive period by adding this

registry key."

- Debugging with the Shell (Microsoft)

- Problems after you install WinZip version 6.3 or 7.0 (Microsoft)

Clearmem

Myth - "Running Clearmem improves performance by freeing up memory."
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457035.aspxhttp://whitepapers.zdnet.co.uk/0,1000000651,260059554p-39000404q,00.htmhttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb490859.aspxhttp://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/XPMyths.html#tophttp://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/XPMyths.html#tophttp://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/OptimizeXP.htmlhttp://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa969286.aspxhttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/196480/en-ushttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/196480/en-ushttp://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa969286.aspxhttp://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/OptimizeXP.htmlhttp://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/XPMyths.html#tophttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb490859.aspxhttp://whitepapers.zdnet.co.uk/0,1000000651,260059554p-39000404q,00.htmhttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457035.aspx


5/31

Reality- "Microsoft's Clearmem, the memory-consuming test tool, is a simulation tool that lets

developers measure the minimum working set for a process and to help system administrators isolate

cache bottlenecks on servers. Clearmem was originally found on the Windows NT Resource Kit 4.0 CD

and can now be found on the Windows Server 2003 Resource Kit. It allocates and references all

available memory, consuming any inactive pages in the working sets of all processes (including the

cache) and effectively clears the cache of all file data. As Clearmem increases its working set the

working sets of all other processes are trimmed until they contain only pages currently being used

and those most recently accessed. This reduces the performance of all running applications every

time you run this by reducing their amount of available memory, forcing them to needlessly page and

causing any cached file data to have to be reread from disk."

- Chapter 12 - Detecting Memory Bottlenecks (Microsoft Windows NT Workstation 4.0 Resource

Guide)

- Chapter 15 - Detecting Cache Bottlenecks (Microsoft Windows NT Workstation 4.0 Resource Guide)

ConservativeSwapfile

System.ini [386Enh] ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1

Myth - "Adding ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1 to the System.ini file improves performance."

Reality- "The System.ini and Win.ini files are provided in Windows XP for backward compatibility with

16-bit applications (MS-DOS-based programs). They have no effect on the Windows XP paging file

settings which are stored in the Registry. This setting only effects Windows 95/98 operating systems.

The default setting for ConservativeSwapfileUsage is 1 for Windows 95, and 0 (zero) for Windows 98.

On Windows 98 systems you can set ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1 under the [386Enh] heading of

the System.ini file causing the system to behave as Windows 95 does, at some cost in overall system

performance."

- INFO: The Windows 98 PageFile_Call_Async_Manager Service (Microsoft)

- Tools for Troubleshooting (Windows XP Professional Resource Kit)

- Why 16-bit DOS and Windows are still with us (Raymond Chen, Microsoft Software Engineer)

DisablePagingExecutive Low Memory Systems, or High Memory Systems

[HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management]

"DisablePagingExecutive"

Myth - "Setting DisablePagingExecutive to 1 improves performance by preventing the kernel from

paging to disk."

Reality- "DisablePagingExecutive applies only to ntoskrnl.exe. It does not apply to win32k.sys (much

larger than ntoskrnl.exe!), the pageable portions of other drivers, the paged pool and of course the

file system cache. All of which live in kernel address space and are paged to disk. On low memory

systems this can force application code to be needlessly paged and reduce performance. If you have

more than enough RAM for your workload, yes, this won't hurt, but then again, if you have more than

enough RAM for your workload, the system isn't paging very much of that stuff anyway. This setting

is useful when debugging drivers and generally recommended for use only on servers running a

limited well-known set of applications."
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/ntwrkstn/reskit/04memory.mspx?mfr=truehttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc722473.aspxhttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/q223294/http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457126.aspxhttp://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/03/01/82103.aspxhttp://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/03/01/82103.aspxhttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457126.aspxhttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/q223294/http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc722473.aspxhttp://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/ntwrkstn/reskit/04memory.mspx?mfr=true


6/31

- DisablePagingExecutive (Microsoft)

- Virtual memory vs. paging and all that (2CPU.com)

- Yet another silly set of Windows tweaks (Ed Bott, Author: Microsoft Windows XP Inside Out)

Disk Defragmenter - Built-in

Myth - "The built-in Disk Defragmenter is good enough."

Reality- "This statement would be true if the built-in defragmenter was fast, automatic, and

customizable. Unfortunately, the built-in defragmenter does not have any of these features. The built-

in defragmenter takes many minutes to hours to run. It requires that you keep track of fragmentation

levels, you determine when performance has gotten so bad you have to do something about it, and

then you manually defragment each drive using the built-in defragmentation tool."

Notes - The Disk Defragmenter tool in Windows 2000/XP is based on the commercial version of

Diskeeper. The version that is included with Microsoft Windows 2000/XP provides limited functionalityin maintaining disk performance by defragmenting volumes that use the FAT, the FAT32, or the NTFS

file system. The XP version offers some improvements over the 2000 version but still has the

following limitations:

- It can defragment only local volumes.

- It can defragment only one volume at a time.

- It cannot defragment one volume while scanning another.

- It cannot be easilyscheduled without scripts or third party utilities

- It can run only one Microsoft Management Console (MMC) snap-in at a time.

- Disk Defragmenter Limitations in Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Server

2003 (Microsoft)

- Myth No. 1: The 'built-in' defragmenter that comes with Windows is good enough (Diskeeper)

Solid State Drives (SSD) - SSDs perform extremely well on random read operations, defragmenting

files isn't helpful enough to warrant the added disk writing defragmentation produces.

- Support and Q&A for Solid-State Drives (Microsoft)

Dr. Watson - Disabling

[HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\AeDebug]

Myth - "Disabling Dr. Watson improves performance since it is always running."

Reality- "If a program error occurs, Dr. Watson will start automatically but not before unless you

manually start it. Which means disabling Dr. Watson has no effect on system performance. Dr.

Watson (Drwtsn32.exe) for Windows is a program error debugger that gathers information about your

computer when an error (or user-mode fault) occurs with a program. Technical support groups can

use the information that Dr. Watson obtains and logs to diagnose a program error. When an error is

detected, Dr. Watson creates a text file (Drwtsn32.log) that can be delivered to support personnel by

the method they prefer. You also have the option of creating a crash dump file, which is a binary file

that a programmer can load into a debugger. This is valuable information to help troubleshoot asystem problem, thus it makes no sense to disable Dr. Watson."
http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServer/en/library/3d3b3c16-c901-46de-8485-166a819af3ad1033.mspx?mfr=truehttp://forums.2cpu.com/showthread.php?t=10062http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=1298http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;227463http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;227463http://www.diskeeper.com/diskeeper/myths/Built-In-Defrag.asphttp://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspxhttp://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspxhttp://www.diskeeper.com/diskeeper/myths/Built-In-Defrag.asphttp://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;227463http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;227463http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=1298http://forums.2cpu.com/showthread.php?t=10062http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServer/en/library/3d3b3c16-c901-46de-8485-166a819af3ad1033.mspx?mfr=true


7/31

Notes - Programs errors should be addressed and not ignored by making sure you are using the latest

non-Beta version of the application that crashed and apply all patches that are available from the

developer of the application. This can also be a warning sign something is wrong or misconfigured

with your system. Use the Diagnose XP Guide to help troubleshoot the most common causes of

system problems.

- Description of the Dr. Watson for Windows (Drwtsn32.exe) Tool (Microsoft)

- How to disable Dr. Watson for Windows (Microsoft)

FAT32 vs. NTFS

Myth - "The FAT32 file system is faster/better than NTFS."

Reality- "NTFS provides performance, reliability, and advanced features not found in any version of

FAT. NTFS features: Built-In Security, Recoverability, Alternate Streams, Custom File Attributes,Compression, Object Permissions, Economical Disk Space Usage using a more Efficient Cluster Size

and Fault Tolerance. Windows XP comes with NTFS 3.1 which includes even more advanced features

such as: Encryption, Disk Quotas, Sparse Files, Reparse Points, Volume Mount Points. None of which

is available with FAT32."

- NTFS vs FAT (NTFS.com)

Performance

"NTFS is built for speed with impressive disk I/O performance on large volumes (Over 400 MB). NTFS

uses a binary tree structure for all disk directories, which reduces the number of times the system

has to access the disk to locate files. This system is best for large directories, and NTFS easily

outperforms FAT32 in these situations. In addition, NTFS automatically sorts files in a folder on the

fly. NTFS gains an edge over FAT32 by using relatively small disk allocation units (cluster sizes) for

NTFS volumes. Smaller clusters prevent wasted disk space on volumes, especially those with

numerous small files. Because NTFS uses small clusters better and has a more efficient design, its

performance doesn't degrade with large volumes, in contrast to FAT's."

"NTFS is generally believed to be slower than FAT. However, with a correctly created NTFS volume,

NTFS performance optimizations, and improved disk defragmentation, NTFS performance (including

the extra "journaling") is equivalent to FAT on small disks and is faster than FAT on large disks.

FAT32 performance is further reduced for volumes larger than 32 GB in two areas:

- Boot time with FAT32 is increased because of the time required to read all of the FAT structure. Thismust be done to calculate the amount of free space when the volume is mounted.

- Read/write performance with FAT32 is affected because the file system must determine the free

space on the disk through the small views of the massive FAT structure. This leads to inefficiencies in

file allocation."

- NTFS vs. FAT (Windows IT Pro Magazine)

- Overview of FAT, HPFS, and NTFS File Systems (Microsoft)

- Windows XP and Storage (Microsoft)

Gaming Performance

"The numbers show...not much difference. In fact, the only test that doesn't show near-perfect parity

is PCMark04, and the difference between the results on the two file systems is less than two percent.HDTach's read and access tests, which respectively measure how fast data can be read from the drive
http://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/DiagnoseXP.htmlhttp://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;308538http://support.microsoft.com/kb/188296/en-ushttp://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htmhttp://www.windowsitpro.com/Windows/Articles/ArticleID/2744/pg/3/3.htmlhttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/100108/http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/archive/pcstor.mspx#EFDhttp://www.microsoft.com/whdc/archive/pcstor.mspx#EFDhttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/100108/http://www.windowsitpro.com/Windows/Articles/ArticleID/2744/pg/3/3.htmlhttp://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htmhttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/188296/en-ushttp://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;308538http://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/DiagnoseXP.html


8/31

and how quickly the drive can locate data, were nearly identical. More importantly, the gaming tests

showed nary a difference in all-important frame rates between the file systems and the cluster sizes.

Based on the uniformity we experienced, we highly recommend that users of Windows XP take

advantage of the NTFS file system. Its gaming prowess matches that of FAT32 and it boasts a healthy

line-up of advantages over its opponent."

- More Gaming Muscle: FAT32 or NTFS? (Joel Durham, Windows XP Expert Zone)

Reliability

"NTFS is a reliable file system. When storing data to disk, NTFS records file I/O events to a special

transaction log. If the system crashes or encounters an interruption, NTFS can use this log to restore

the volume and prevent corruption from an abnormal program termination or system shutdown. NTFS

doesn't commit an action to disk until it verifies the successful completion of the action. This

precaution helps prevent corruption of an NTFS volume. NTFS also supports hot-fixing disk sectors,

where the OS automatically blocks out bad disk sectors and relocates data from these sectors. This

housecleaning happens in the background. An application attempting to read or write data on a hot-

fixed area will never know the disk had a problem."

- NTFS vs. FAT (Windows IT Pro Magazine)

- Working with File Systems (Microsoft)

FAT32 vs. NTFS - Converting

Myth - "Converting FAT32 volumes to NTFS instead of formatting them will reduce performance by

forcing a 512 byte cluster size."

Reality- "Windows XP CONVERT creates the best possible cluster size according to the existing FAT

format. On NTFS volumes, clusters start at sector zero; therefore, every cluster is aligned on the

cluster boundary. For example, if the cluster size was 4K and the sector size was 512 bytes, clusters

will always start at a sector number that is a multiple of 4096/512 for example, 8. However, FAT file

system data clusters are located after the BIOS Parameter Blocks (BPB), reserved sectors, and two

FAT structures. FAT formatting cannot guarantee that data clusters are aligned on a cluster boundary.

In Windows 2000, CONVERT handled this problem by forcing an NTFS cluster size of 512 bytes, which

resulted in reduced performance and increased disk fragmentation. In Windows XP, CONVERT

chooses the best cluster size (4K is the ideal)."

Notes - The FAT32 file system does not use a default cluster size smaller than 4 KB. The maximum

NTFS default cluster size under Windows XP is 4 KB because NTFS file compression is not possible on

drives with a larger allocation size.

- CONVERT.EXE in Windows XP chooses the best cluster size (Windows IT Pro Magazine)

- Default cluster size for FAT and NTFS (Microsoft)

- Description of Default Cluster Sizes for FAT32 File System (Microsoft)

- How NTFS Works (Microsoft)

Free Idle Tasks

Rundll32.exe advapi32.dll,ProcessIdleTasks

Myth - "This will free up processing time from any idle tasks and allow it to be used by the foreground
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/communities/games.mspxhttp://www.windowsitpro.com/Windows/Articles/ArticleID/2744/pg/3/3.htmlhttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457112.aspx#EHAAhttp://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/77768/jsi-tip-6466-convertexe-in-windows-xp-chooses-the-best-cluster-size.htmlhttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/140365/en-ushttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/192322http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc781134.aspxhttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc781134.aspxhttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/192322http://support.microsoft.com/kb/140365/en-ushttp://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/77768/jsi-tip-6466-convertexe-in-windows-xp-chooses-the-best-cluster-size.htmlhttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457112.aspx#EHAAhttp://www.windowsitpro.com/Windows/Articles/ArticleID/2744/pg/3/3.htmlhttp://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/communities/games.mspx


9/31

application."

Reality- Idle tasks do not use up any resources unless the system is idle and not being used. The

Task Scheduler service will check if the computer is in an idle state every 15 minutes. The computer

is considered to be in an idle state if there is 0% CPU usage and 0% disk input or output for 90% of

the past fifteen minutes and if there is no keyboard or mouse input during this period of time. The

system cannot be running on battery power either. Any user input marks the end of the idle state.

Windows schedules some maintenance tasks when the system is idle and running on AC power. Other

third-party programs and services may be running during system idle time also. To optimize system

performance and reliability, Windows XP is designed to automatically run system maintenance tasks

during system idle time:

- The Disk Layout task (every 3 days)

- The System Restore task

- The Help Services and Data Collection task

The command Rundll32.exe advapi32.dll,ProcessIdleTasks sole purpose is to allow benchmarks

a simple way to force any pending idle tasks to be executed immediately, without having to wait alengthy period of time.

- Benchmarking on Windows XP (Microsoft)

- Task Idle Conditions (Microsoft)

- Windows XP does not enter standby after the exact period that is configured in the Power Options

profile (Microsoft)

Hiberfil.sys - Deleting

Myth - "It is necessary to delete the Hiberfil.sys before defragmenting."

Reality- "The Hiberfil.sys is a file to which the system's physical memory is written during

hibernation. On resuming from hibernation, the BIOS reads Hiberfil.sys to restore the state of the

computer to its pre-hibernation state. Because the location of the Hibernate file is determined very

early in the startup process, it cannot be moved. It can, however, be defragmented safely at startup

using a commercial defragmenter such as Diskeeper or the freeware utility PageDefrag."

- How Disk Defragmenter Works (Microsoft)

- PageDefrag (Windows Sysinternals)

Solid State Drives (SSD) - Hiberfil.sys is written to and read from sequentially and in large chunks,and thus can be placed on either HDDs or SSDs.


IOPageLockLimit

[HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\SessionManager\MemoryManagement] "IoPageLockLimit"

Myth - "Increasing the IOPageLockLimit will lock more memory for exclusive access by the kernel,

improving performance."
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/archive/benchmark.mspxhttp://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa383561.aspxhttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/899975/http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899975/http://www.diskeeper.com/diskeeper/home/profeatures.asp?pe=6&RId=778http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc778290.aspxhttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897426.aspxhttp://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspxhttp://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspxhttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897426.aspxhttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc778290.aspxhttp://www.diskeeper.com/diskeeper/home/profeatures.asp?pe=6&RId=778http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899975/http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899975/http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa383561.aspxhttp://www.microsoft.com/whdc/archive/benchmark.mspx


10/31

Reality- "Indeed, it does do this but only in an RTM Windows 2000 machine. It does absolutely

nothing in Windows 2000 Service Pack 1 and up, and absolutely nothing in Windows XP. This makes it

effectively useless, since no one in their right minds would be running RTM Windows 2000. The RTM

kernel references IoPageLockLimit. The SP1 kernel does not. Neither do any subsequent editions of

the kernel; neither does the XP kernel in any of its incarnations."

- Killing a Myth or Three (MSFN)

IRQ14=4096

System.ini [386Enh] IRQ14=4096

Myth - "Adding IRQ14=4096 to the System.ini file improves performance."

Reality- "This is a made up nonexistent command that does absolutely nothing. The System.ini and

Win.ini files are provided in Windows XP for backward compatibility with 16-bit applications (MS-DOS-based programs). They have no effect on any Windows XP settings or 32-bit applications which are

stored in the Registry."



IRQ Priority

[HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\PriorityControl] "IRQ8Priority"

Myth - "Adjusting the Priority of IRQs especially IRQ 8 improves system performance."

Reality- "IRQs don't even HAVE a concept of "priority" in the NT family; they do have something

called "IRQL" (interrupt request level) associated with them. But the interval timer interrupt is already

assigned a higher IRQL than any I/O devices, second only to the inter-processor interrupt used in an

MP machine. The NT family of OSes don't even use the real-time clock (IRQ 8) for time keeping in the

first place! They use programmable interval timer (8254, on IRQ 0) for driving system time keeping,

CPU time accounting, and so on. IRQ 8 is used for profiling, but profiling is almost never turned on

except in very rare development environments. Even if it was possible it doesn't even make sense

why adjusting the real-time clock priority would boost performance? The real-time clock is associated

with time keeping not CPU frequency. I would not be surprised if this originated in an overclockingforum somewhere. This "tweak" can be found in most XP all-in-one tweaking applications. This is a

perfect example of why they are not recommended."

- Debunking the "Speed Up your Windows XP Box with IRQ Prioritization" Myth (WXPnews)

LargeSystemCache

[HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\SessionManager\MemoryManagement]

"LargeSystemCache"

Myth - "Enabling LargeSystemCache improves desktop/workstation performance."
http://www.thegline.com/win2k/issues/2003/16.htmlhttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457126.aspxhttp://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/03/01/82103.aspxhttp://www.wxpnews.com/archives/wxpnews-039-20020820.htmhttp://www.wxpnews.com/archives/wxpnews-039-20020820.htmhttp://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/03/01/82103.aspxhttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457126.aspxhttp://www.thegline.com/win2k/issues/2003/16.html


11/31

Reality- "LargeSystemCache determines whether the system maintains a standard size or a large

size file system cache, and influences how often the system writes changed pages to disk. Increasing

the size of the file system cache generally improves file server performance, but it reduces the

physical memory space available to applications and services. Similarly, writing system data less

frequently minimizes use of the disk subsystem, but the changed pages occupy memory that might

otherwise be used by applications. On workstations this increases paging and causes longer delays

whenever you start a new app. Simply put enable this on a file server and disable it on everything

else."

Notes - "System cache mode is designed for use with Windows server products that act as servers.

System cache mode is also designed for limited use with Windows XP, when you use Windows XP as a

file server. This mode is not designed for everyday desktop use. When you enable System cache

mode on a computer that uses Unified Memory Architecture (UMA)-based video hardware or an

Accelerated Graphics Port (AGP), you may experience a severe and random decrease in performance.

For example, this decrease in performance can include very slow system performance, stop errors, an

inability to start the computer, devices or applications that do not load, and system instability. The

drivers for these components consume a large part of the remaining application memory when theyare initialized during startup. Also, in this scenario, the system may have insufficient RAM when the

following conditions occur:

- Other drivers and desktop user services request additional resources.

- Desktop users transfer large files.

By default LargeSystemCache is disabled in Microsoft Windows XP."

- LargeSystemCache (Microsoft)

- Things to consider before you enable System cache mode in Windows XP (Microsoft)

Launch folder windows in a separate process

Myth - "Enabling Launch folder windows in a separate process improves performance."

Reality- "Use this setting if your computer frequently crashes, and you are trying to minimize

problems or troubleshoot. Be aware, however, this process uses more memory and that doing this

could slow down the performance of your computer."

Notes - Windows XP is a very stable operating system and should never Lock-up (freeze), display

Blue Screen Stop Errors or Randomly Reboot. These are all warning signs something is wrong ormisconfigured with your system. Use the Diagnose XP Guide to help troubleshoot the most common

causes of system problems.

- Change folder views and behavior (Microsoft)

NTFS is Fragmentation Free

Myth - "The NTFS File system does not get fragmented and Defragmenters are unnecessary."

Reality- "Even though NTFS is more resistant to fragmentation than FAT, it can and does stillfragment. The reason NTFS is less prone to fragmentation is that it makes intelligent choices about
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/regentry/29933.mspx?mfr=truehttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/895932http://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/DiagnoseXP.htmlhttp://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Windows/en-US/Help/3a3bfe59-5268-4fb3-81c5-7972c28939cd1033.mspxhttp://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Windows/en-US/Help/3a3bfe59-5268-4fb3-81c5-7972c28939cd1033.mspxhttp://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/DiagnoseXP.htmlhttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/895932http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/regentry/29933.mspx?mfr=true


12/31

where to store file data on the disk. NTFS reserves space for the expansion of the Master File Table,

reducing fragmentation of its structures. In contrast to FAT's first-come, first-served method, NTFS's

method of writing files minimizes, but does not eliminate, the problem of file fragmentation on NTFS

volumes."

- Fragmentation and Defragmentation (PC Guide)

Paging File - Clearing at Shutdown


"ClearPageFileAtShutdown"

Myth - "Clearing the Paging File at Shutdown improves performance."

Reality- "Enabling this will clear the Window's paging file (Pagefile.sys) during the shutdown process,

so that no unsecured data is contained in the paging file when the shutdown process is complete. Ifyou enable this feature, the shutdown time will be increased. Some third-party programs can

temporarily store unencrypted (plain-text) passwords or other sensitive information in memory.

Because of the Windows virtual memory architecture, this information can be present in the paging

file. Although clearing the paging file is not a suitable substitute for physical security of a computer,

you might want to do this to increase the security of data on a computer while Windows is not

running."

- How to Clear the Windows Paging File at Shutdown (Microsoft)

Paging File - Disabling

Myth - "Disabling the Paging File improves performance."

Reality- "You gain no performance improvement by turning off the Paging File. When certain

applications start, they allocate a huge amount of memory (hundreds of megabytes typically set aside

in virtual memory) even though they might not use it. If no paging file (pagefile.sys) is present, a

memory-hogging application can quickly use a large chunk of RAM. Even worse, just a few such

programs can bring a machine loaded with memory to a halt. Some applications (e.g., Adobe

Photoshop) will display warnings on startup if no paging file is present."

Notes - "In modern operating systems, including Windows, application programs and many systemprocesses always reference memory using virtual memory addresses which are automatically

translated to real (RAM) addresses by the hardware. Only core parts of the operating system kernel

bypass this address translation and use real memory addresses directly. All processes (e.g.

application executables) running under 32 bit Windows gets virtual memory addresses (a Virtual

Address Space) going from 0 to 4,294,967,295 (2*32-1 = 4 GB), no matter how much RAM is

actually installed on the computer. In the default Windows OS configuration, 2 GB of this virtual

address space are designated for each process' private use and the other 2 GB are shared between all

processes and the operating system. RAM is a limited resource, whereas virtual memory is, for most

practical purposes, unlimited. There can be a large number of processes each with its own 2 GB of

private virtual address space. When the memory in use by all the existing processes exceeds the

amount of RAM available, the operating system will move pages (4 KB pieces) of one or more virtual

address spaces to the computer's hard disk, thus freeing that RAM frame for other uses. In Windowssystems, these "paged out" pages are stored in one or more files called pagefile.sys in the root of a
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/ntfs/relFrag-c.htmlhttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/314834/EN-US/http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314834/EN-US/http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/ntfs/relFrag-c.html


13/31

partition. Virtual Memory is always in use, even when the memory required by all running

processes does not exceed the amount of RAM installed on the system. "

- If I have a Windows XP machine that has lots of memory, can I improve performance by removing

the pagefile? (Windows IT Pro Magazine)

- How to set performance options in Windows XP (Microsoft)

- RAM, Virtual Memory, Pagefile and all that stuff(Microsoft)

Solid State Drives (SSD) - Most pagefile operations are small random reads or larger sequential

writes, both of which are types of operations that SSDs handle well. In fact, given typical pagefile

reference patterns and the favorable performance characteristics SSDs have on those patterns, there

are few files better than the pagefile to place on an SSD.


Paging File - Moving

Myth - "Moving the Paging File to a different partition on the same drive improves performance."

Reality- "Moving the Paging File (pagefile.sys) to a different partition on the same physical hard

disk drive does not improve performance. Simply using a different partition on the same drive will

result in more head-seeking activity, as the drive jumps between the Windows and paging file

partitions. Even though moving the paging file in this case can have the positive effect of

defragmenting it, the loss in I/O performance out weighs any gains. It is better to simply defragment

the paging file using PageDefrag and keep maximum I/O performance by leaving the paging file

where it is with a single drive setup.

Notes - "If your PC has more then one physical hard drives you can enhance performance by putting

the paging file on a different partition and on a different physical hard disk drive. That way,

Windows can handle multiple I/O requests more quickly. When the paging file is on the boot partition,

Windows must perform disk reading and writing requests on both the system folder and the paging

file. When the paging file is moved to a different partition and a different physical hard disk drive,

there is less competition between reading and writing requests. However, if you remove the paging

file from the boot partition, Windows cannot create a dump file (Memory.dmp) in which to write

debugging information in the event that a kernel mode Stop Error message occurs. This could lead to

extended downtime if you must debug to troubleshoot the Stop error message. The optimal solution

is to create one paging file that is stored on the boot partition, and then create one paging file on

another partition that is less frequently accessed on a different physical hard disk if a different

physical hard disk is available. Additionally, it is optimal to create the second paging file so that itexists on its own partition, with no data or operating-system-specific files. By design, Windows uses

the paging file on the less frequently accessed partition over the paging file on the more heavily

accessed boot partition. An internal algorithm is used to determine which paging file to use for virtual

memory management."

Solid State Drives (SSD) - Paging file location on SSD drives is irrelevant since access time is

identical for every location on SSD drives.

- How to configure paging files for optimization and recovery in Windows XP (Microsoft)

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/42035/42035.htmlhttp://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/42035/42035.htmlhttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/308417http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555223http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspxhttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/314482/http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897426.aspxhttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897426.aspxhttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/314482/http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspxhttp://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555223http://support.microsoft.com/kb/308417http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/42035/42035.htmlhttp://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/42035/42035.html


14/31

Paging File - RAMdisk

Myth - "Putting the Paging File on a RAMdisk improves performance."

Reality- "Putting a Paging File in a RAM drive is a ridiculous idea in theory, and almost always aperformance hit when tested under real-world workloads. You can't do this unless you have plenty of

RAM and if you have plenty of RAM, you aren't hitting your paging file very often in the first place!

Conversely, if you don't have plenty of RAM, dedicating some of it to a RAM drive will only increase

your page fault rate. Now you might say "yeah, but those additional page faults will go faster than

they otherwise would because they're satisfied in RAM." True, but it is still better to not incur them in

the first place. And, you will also be increasing the page faults that have to be resolved to exe's and

dll's, and the paging file in RAM won't do diddly to speed those up. But thanks to the paging file in

RAM, you'll have more of them. Also: the system is ALREADY caching pages in memory. Pages lost

from working sets are not written out to disk immediately (or at all if they weren't modified), and

even after being written out to disk, are not assigned to another process immediately. They're kept

on the modified and standby page lists, respectively. The memory access behavior of most apps being

what it is, you tend to access the same sets of pages over time... so if you access a page you lostfrom your working set recently, odds are its contents are still in memory, on one of those lists. So

you don't have to go to disk for it. Committing RAM to a RAMdisk and putting a paging file on it

makes fewer pages available for those lists, making that mechanism much less effective. And even

for those page faults resolved to the RAMdisk paging file, you are still having to go through the disk

drivers. You don't have to for page faults resolved on the standby or modified lists. Putting a paging

file on a RAMdisk is a self-evidently absurd idea in theory, and actual measurement proves it to be a

terrible idea in practice. Forget about it."

- Microsoft Windows Internals, Fourth Edition (Mark Russinovich, Ph.D. Computer Engineering)

- Putting a pagefile in a RAM drive is a ridiculous idea in theory (2CPU.com)

Prefetch - /Prefetch:1

Myth - "Adding the /Prefetch:1 Switch to the startup path of a program's shortcut will decrease the

program's startup time."

Reality- It does not improve performance in any way. All it does is change your hash number - the

OS is doing exactly the same thing it did before, and just saving the prefetch pages to a different

file. Ryan Myers of Microsoft's Windows Client Performance Team writes: "The /prefetch:# flag

is looked at by the OS when we create the process - however, it has one (and only one) purpose. We

add the passed number to the hash. Why? WMP is a multipurpose application and may do manydifferent things. The DLLs and code that it touches will be very different when playing a WMV than

when playing a DVD, or when ripping a CD, or when listening to a Shoutcast stream, or any of the

other things that WMP can do. If we only had one hash for WMP, then the prefetch would only be

correct for one such use having incorrect prefetch data would not be a fatal error - it'd just load pages

into memory that'd never get used, and then get swapped back out to disk as soon as possible. Still,

it's counterproductive. By specifying a /prefetch:# flag with a different number for each "mode" that

WMP can do, each mode gets its own separate hash file, and thus we properly prefetch. (This

behavior isn't specific to WMP - it does the same for any app.) This flag is looked at when we create

the first thread in the process, but it is not removed by CreateProcess from the command line, so any

app that chokes on unrecognized command line parameters will not work with it. This is why so many

people notice that Kazaa and other apps crash or otherwise refuse to start when it's added. Of course,

WMP knows that it may be there, and just silently ignores its existence. I suspect that the "add/prefetch:1 to make rocket go now" urban legend will never die, though."
http://www.microsoft.com/mspress/books/6710.aspxhttp://forums.2cpu.com/showpost.php?p=63581&postcount=3http://forums.2cpu.com/showpost.php?p=63581&postcount=3http://www.microsoft.com/mspress/books/6710.aspx


15/31

- Debunking yet another bogus Windows tip (Ed Bott, Author: Microsoft Windows XP Inside Out)

- Misinformation and the The Prefetch Flag (Ryan Myers, Windows Client Performance Team)

Prefetch - EnablePrefetcher

[HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\SessionManager\MemoryManagement\PrefetchParameters

] "EnablePrefetcher"

Myth - "Setting any value higher then 3 to EnablePrefetcher will improve performance."

Reality- The Prefetcher component in Windows XP is part of the Memory Manager, and helps to

shorten the amount of time it takes to start Windows and programs. This is a new feature in Windows

XP which improves application load times and Windows boot times automatically. The slower your

system and the larger an application, the more Prefetching helps. Even high end systems benefit from

prefetching with large, slow loading applications, such as large games. By default Prefetching isenabled in Windows XP and already configured optimally. The following list describes the different

possible values for the EnablePrefetcher registry key.

0 = Disabled

1 = Application launch prefetching enabled (Will cripple Window's boot times)

2 = Boot prefetching enabled (Will cripple all application load times)

3 = Applaunch and Boot enabled (Optimal and Default)

By default the Prefetcher is set to a value of 3 in Windows XP. Values such as 4, 5, 6 ect... do not

exist and are thus useless. Leave this at the default value of 3 which is already optimal for maximum

performance on both Windows XP Boot and initial application launches.

Low Memory Systems - Recommendations to disable Prefetching on low memory systems (128 MB

- 512 MB) is based on the fallacy that portions of application code are preloaded into memory before

the application load is initiated during Windows startup. This is completely false and is spread by

people who do not understand how Windows XP Prefetching works. The slower the system the more it

will benefit from Prefetching. 64 MB systems will suffer due to insufficient RAM, reducing but not

eliminating Window XP's prefetching benefits. 128 MB is the recommended minimum for optimal

prefetching performance.

Boot Performance - Recommendations to set the EnablePrefetcher value to 2 to improve boot

performance is based on the fallacy that portions of application code are preloaded into memory

before the application load is initiated during Windows XP startup. This is completely false and isspread by people who do not understand how Windows XP Prefetching works. Only the files used

during boot will be Prefetched. The Prefetch folder is not a cache. Windows XP will boot in the exact

same amount of time with either value 2 or 3, the only difference with 2 is that now all of your initial

application launches will not be Prefetched and thus load slower. The default value of 3 in no way

negatively affects Windows XP boot times. Leave the value at 3 for optimal Windows XP boot and

initial application launch times.

- Disabling Prefetch (Microsoft)

Solid State Drives (SSD) - SSDs that perform adequately on random reads and do not have glaring

performance issues with random writes or flushes can benefit from having prefetching disabled. Some

first generation SSDs had severe enough random write and flush problems that ultimately lead to diskreads being blocked for long periods of time. With prefetching enabled, performance on key scenarios
http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000621.htmlhttp://blogs.msdn.com/ryanmy/archive/2005/05/25/421882.aspxhttp://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms940847.aspxhttp://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms940847.aspxhttp://blogs.msdn.com/ryanmy/archive/2005/05/25/421882.aspxhttp://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000621.html


16/31

was markedly improved.


Prefetch - Folder Cleaning

Myth - "Deleting the contents of the Prefetch folder improves performance."

Reality- Deleting the contents of the Prefetch folder will reduce application launch and windows boot

time performance. Every time you delete an application's Prefetch (.PF) file you will cripple that

application's load time the next time you go to launch it. Even though Windows XP will simply re-

create that application's Prefetch (.PF) trace file, that application's optimal load time will not be

restored until after the second time you launch that application and the system has been able to go

idle and fully run the prefetch optimization. Windows XP automatically cleans the Prefetch folder down

to the 32 most used Prefetch (.PF) trace files when the folder reaches 128 files so they do not

needlessly consume space. This cleaning is only done when the system has gone idle. Prefetch (.PF)trace files are not a cache and are not preloaded into memory upon windows startup. They are never

even accessed until you launch an application. Only one Prefetch (.PF) trace file per application is

created. There is never ANY reason to delete these files.

Laptop Users - Windows XP will not execute idle tasks when running on battery power and thus

cannot fully optimize prefetch performance and clean the folder (if necessary). You can manually

force this to run by going to "Start", "Run", Type Rundll32.exe advapi32.dll,ProcessIdleTasks.

This can take 10-15 minutes to run but no notification will be given when it is finished. You will notice

increased hard drive activity while it is running wait until this stops. If you frequently run only on

battery power it is recommend to do this once a month.

Malware/Viruses - Some people irresponsibly recommend cleaning this folder due to possible

Malware/Virus infection. Malware/Viruses can place an infected file(s) in any folder and the Prefetch

folder is no different. Do these same people recommend deleting the contents of the Windows folder

because it is a popular location to find an infected file(s)? Of course not, you simply clean or delete

the infected file(s) not the contents of the folder. This Myth got started due to the indiscriminate

nature of the Windows Prefetcher, which will Prefetch any executable file that you load or loads during

Windows start up. Thus it is quite common on an infected machine to find a Prefetch (.PF) trace file in

the Prefetch folder with the same name as an infected executable. These files are NOT

Malware/Viruses. They are there to improve the load time, in this case ironically, of the Malware/Virus

but do not contain any infected code. Once the associated infected executable is deleted, these

Prefetch (.PF) trace files do nothing and will eventually automatically be cleaned by Windows.

Corrupted Files - Some people claim that Prefetch (.PF) trace files can get randomly "corrupted" and

thus they need to be periodically deleted. Files do not get "corrupted" unless something is wrong with

your computer. Any file corruption is a warning sign something is wrong with your system.

Overclocking, using defective components like Memory and hard drives and using FAT32 instead of

the superior NTFS file system are common causes of file corruption. NTFS is very resilient to file

corruption as compared to FAT32. When storing data to disk, NTFS records file I/O events to a special

transaction log. If the system crashes or encounters an interruption, NTFS can use this log to restore

the volume and prevent corruption from an abnormal program termination or system shutdown. NTFS

doesn't commit an action to disk until it verifies the successful completion of the action. This

precaution helps prevent corruption of an NTFS volume. NTFS also supports hot-fixing disk sectors,

where the OS automatically blocks out bad disk sectors and relocates data from these sectors. This

housecleaning happens in the background. An application attempting to read or write data on a hot-fixed area will never know the disk had a problem. Thus the solution is fixing the cause of the file
http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspxhttp://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspx


17/31

corruption.

CCleaner - Finally the useless, performance slowing cleaning option "Old Prefetch data" was moved

to the advanced section and is now not selected by default. Never select this option for cleaning as it

will increase application and Windows load times. This option removes Prefetch files that are a few

weeks old based on the NTFS last access date. Since Windows XP already cleans this folder at 128

entries, this is a useless option that will only reduce system performance. You should never delete a

Prefetch file for any installed application since that would cripple it's load times. Just because a

program was not used in a few weeks does not mean you want it to load as slow as possible when

you do decide to use it. If you disable the NTFS last access date stamp then this option will delete the

whole contents of the Prefetch folder after a few weeks, which will cripple Windows Boot and all

application load times. The Prefetch folder is also ridiculously small so cleaning Prefetch files before

the 128 limit will reclaim next to no disk space. This option clearly needs a warning to prevent people

from unknowingly hurting their system performance. Anyone who claims this should be cleaned for

ANY reason does not understand how Windows Prefetching works.

- Beware of Bogus XP Advice (Ed Bott, Author: Microsoft Windows XP Inside Out)

- CCleaner Cripples Application Load Times (Popular Technology)- Misinformation and the The Prefetch Flag (Ryan Myers, Windows Client Performance Team)

- One more time: do not clean out your Prefetch folder! (Ed Bott, Author: Microsoft Windows XP

Inside Out)

- Tip of the day: Don't clean out the Prefetch folder (Ed Bott, Author: Microsoft Windows XP Inside

Out)

QoS

Myth - "Disabling QoS will free up the 20% bandwidth reserved by QoS."

Reality- "There have been claims in various published technical articles and newsgroup postings that

Windows XP always reserves 20 percent of the available bandwidth for QoS. These claims are

incorrect. As in Windows 2000, programs can take advantage of QoS through the QoS APIs in

Windows XP. 100% of the network bandwidth is available to be shared by all programs unless a

program specifically requests priority bandwidth. This "reserved" bandwidth is still available to other

programs unless the requesting program is sending data. By default, programs can reserve up to an

aggregate bandwidth of 20% of the underlying link speed on each interface on an end computer. If

the program that reserved the bandwidth is not sending sufficient data to use it, the unused part of

the reserved bandwidth is available for other data flows on the same host."

- Windows XP Quality of Service (QoS) enhancements and behavior (Microsoft)

RAM Optimizers/Defragmenters

Myth - "Increasing the amount of available RAM using RAM Optimizers/Defragmenters improves

performance."

Reality- "RAM Optimizers have no effect, and at worst, they seriously degrade performance. Although

gaining more available memory might seem beneficial, it isn't. As RAM Optimizers force the available-

memory counter up, they force other processes' data and code out of memory. Say that you're

running Word, for example. As the optimizer forces the available-memory counter up, the text ofopen documents and the program code that was part of Word's working set before the optimization
http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000024.htmlhttp://www.populartechnology.net/2005/10/ccleaner-cripples-application-load.htmlhttp://blogs.msdn.com/ryanmy/archive/2005/05/25/421882.aspxhttp://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000743.htmlhttp://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000619.htmlhttp://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;Q316666http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;Q316666http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000619.htmlhttp://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000743.htmlhttp://blogs.msdn.com/ryanmy/archive/2005/05/25/421882.aspxhttp://www.populartechnology.net/2005/10/ccleaner-cripples-application-load.htmlhttp://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000024.html


18/31

(and was therefore present in physical memory) must be reread from disk as you continue to edit

your document. The act of allocating, then freeing a large amount of virtual memory might, as a

conceivable side effect, lead to blocks of contiguous available memory. However, because virtual

memory masks the layout of physical memory from processes, processes can't directly benefit from

having virtual memory backed by contiguous physical memory. As processes execute and undergo

working-set trimming and growth, their virtual-memory-to-physical-memory mappings will become

fragmented despite the availability of contiguous memory."

- The Memory-Optimization Hoax (Mark Russinovich, Ph.D. Computer Engineering)

- The Truth about Windows Memory Optimizers (Bitsum Technologies)

RegClean

Myth - "It is safe to use Microsoft's RegClean."

Reality- "The RegClean utility is no longer supported by Microsoft and has been removed from allMicrosoft download sites. This was done for legitimate compatibility reasons with certain applications

and Operating Systems. The RegClean utility was originally supplied with Microsoft Visual Basic

version 4.0 for Windows. The last version of RegClean was 4.1a (build 7364.1) released on March 13,

1998 (RegClean.exe is dated December 30, 1997). During this time the latest Operating Systems

were Windows 95 OSR2.1 and Windows NT 4.0. Windows 98 was not released until June 25, 1998.

Compatibility with any Operating System besides Windows 95 and NT 4.0 was never substantiated,

especially Windows XP. It is very dangerous to run a Registry Cleaner that was never certified to run

on your Operating System since removing the wrong Registry Keys can break Applications and the

Operating System. RegClean breaks functionality in the following Applications:

- Microsoft Access 2002 Standard Edition

- Microsoft Excel 2000 Standard Edition

- Microsoft FrontPage 2000 Standard Edition

- Microsoft Office 2000 Developer Edition

- Microsoft Office 2000 Premium Edition

- Microsoft Office 2000 Professional Edition

- Microsoft Office 2000 Small Business Edition

- Microsoft Office 2000 Standard Edition

- Microsoft Office Access 2003

- Microsoft Office Access 2007

- Microsoft Office Basic 2007

- Microsoft Office Basic Edition 2003

- Microsoft Office Enterprise 2007- Microsoft Office Excel 2003

- Microsoft Office Excel 2007

- Microsoft Office FrontPage 2003

- Microsoft Office Home and Student 2007

- Microsoft Office InfoPath 2007

- Microsoft Office OneNote 2007

- Microsoft Office Outlook 2003

- Microsoft Office Outlook 2007

- Microsoft Office PowerPoint 2003

- Microsoft Office PowerPoint 2007

- Microsoft Office Professional 2007

- Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003- Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2007
http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/41095/the-memory-optimization-hoax.htmlhttp://www.bitsum.com/winmemboost.asphttp://www.bitsum.com/winmemboost.asphttp://www.windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/41095/the-memory-optimization-hoax.html


19/31

- Microsoft Office Project Professional 2007

- Microsoft Office Project Standard 2007

- Microsoft Office Publisher 2003

- Microsoft Office Publisher 2007

- Microsoft Office SharePoint Designer 2007

- Microsoft Office Small Business Edition 2003

- Microsoft Office Standard 2007

- Microsoft Office Standard Edition 2003

- Microsoft Office Student and Teacher Edition 2003

- Microsoft Office Ultimate 2007

- Microsoft Office Visio Professional 2007

- Microsoft Office Visio Standard 2007

- Microsoft Office Word 2003

- Microsoft Office Word 2007

- Microsoft Office XP (Setup)

- Microsoft Outlook 2000 Standard Edition

- Microsoft PowerPoint 2000 Standard Edition

- Microsoft Visual InterDev 6.0 Standard Edition - Microsoft Word 2000 Standard Edition- Microsoft Windows Media Player

This issue occurs for any Microsoft Windows Installer product on which the program's installation

state is set to Installed on First Use."

- Errors that the RegClean utility finds after you install Microsoft Office (Microsoft)

- PRB: Grid DTC Error "An Object Has Failed To Load" in Visual InterDev (Microsoft)

- When you try use Windows Media Player 11 to play a digital rights management (DRM)-protected

media file (Microsoft)

- Windows Media Player Error When Playing Packaged Media (Microsoft)

Registry Cleaners

Myth - "Registry Cleaners improve performance."

Reality- "A few hundred kilobytes of unused keys and values causes no noticeable performance

impact on system operation. Even if the registry was massively bloated there would be little impact

on the performance of anything other than exhaustive searches."

- Registry Junk: A Windows Fact of Life (Mark Russinovich, Ph.D. Computer Engineering)

Registry Defragmenters

Reality- "Unlike Registry Cleaners, defragmenting the registry can improve performance. Paging and

Registry file fragmentation can be one of the leading causes of performance degradation related to

file fragmentation in a system. It is only recommended to use the free program PageDefrag or a

commercial defragmenter like Diskeeper to defragment the registry."

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/299958http://support.microsoft.com/kb/222546http://support.microsoft.com/kb/925705http://support.microsoft.com/kb/925705http://support.microsoft.com/kb/234332http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2005/10/02/registry-junk-a-windows-fact-of-life.aspxhttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897426.aspxhttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897426.aspxhttp://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2005/10/02/registry-junk-a-windows-fact-of-life.aspxhttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/234332http://support.microsoft.com/kb/925705http://support.microsoft.com/kb/925705http://support.microsoft.com/kb/222546http://support.microsoft.com/kb/299958


20/31

SecondLevelDataCache (L2 Cache)


"SecondLevelDataCache"

Myth - "Adjusting the SecondLevelDataCache Registry value to match your CPU's L2 Cache size

improves performance."

Reality- "Some third-party sources have erroneously reported that modifying the

SecondLevelDataCache registry entry can enhance system performance. The second level (L2) cache

is recognized by the operating system and is fully utilized regardless of the setting of this parameter."

Notes - "SecondLevelDataCache records the size of the processor cache, also known as the secondary

or L2 cache. If the value of this entry is 0, the system attempts to retrieve the L2 cache size from the

Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) for the platform. If it fails, it uses a default L2 cache size of 256

KB. If the value of this entry is not 0, it uses this value as the L2 cache size. This entry is designed as

a secondary source of cache size information for computers on which the HAL cannot detect the L2cache. This is not related to the hardware; it is only useful for computers with direct-mapped L2

caches. Pentium II and later processors do not have direct- mapped L2 caches.

SecondLevelDataCache can increase performance by approximately 2 percent in certain cases for

older computers with ample memory (more than 64 MB) by scattering physical pages better in the

address space so there are not so many L2 cache collisions. Setting SecondLevelDataCache to 256 KB

rather than 2 MB (when the computer has a 2 MB L2 cache) would probably have about a 0.4%

performance penalty."

- Detailed Explanation of SecondLevelDataCache (Microsoft)

- Optimizing Your Memory Configuration (Microsoft)

Services - Disabling

Myth - "Disabling certain Services improves performance."

Reality- "Disabling certain Services actually reduces performance."

DNS Client Service - "The overall performance of the client computer decreases and the network

traffic for DNS queries increases if the DNS resolver cache is deactivated. This effectively reduces

Internet Performance for sites you have previously visited and puts an unnecessary load on your

ISP's DNS server."

Task Scheduler Service - "Disabling the Task Scheduler completely cripples Windows XP's Boot

and Application Load times by preventing Prefetch (.PF) trace files and the Layout.ini file from being

created or updated."

Notes - Disabling other unnecessary services in general has only one affect on performance and that

is reduced Windows XP boot times.

- Disabling Unnecessary Services? A Word to the Wise (Windows Performance Team)

- How to Disable Client-Side DNS Caching in Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 (Microsoft)

- Performance-oriented Windows tweaking (AnandTech)

- Windows XP: Kernel Improvements Create a More Robust, Powerful, and Scalable OS (MarkRussinovich, Ph.D. Computer Engineering)
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/183063https://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/core/fnec_evl_fhcj.mspx?mfr=truehttp://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2008/11/18/disabling-unnecessary-services-a-word-to-the-wise.aspxhttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/318803/en-ushttp://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=34&threadid=1678445&enterthread=y&arctab=yhttp://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/01/12/XPKernel/http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/01/12/XPKernel/http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=34&threadid=1678445&enterthread=y&arctab=yhttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/318803/en-ushttp://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2008/11/18/disabling-unnecessary-services-a-word-to-the-wise.aspxhttps://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/core/fnec_evl_fhcj.mspx?mfr=truehttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/183063


21/31

Set CPU Priority 26 (Priority Tweak, Win32PrioritySeparation)

[HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\PriorityControl] "Win32PrioritySeparation"

Myth - "Setting this value to 26 gives a boost to the priority of foreground applications."

Reality- "Yes this can but there is no need to edit the registry to do this. The GUI control for this is

built-in to Windows. Go to the Control Panel, System Icon, Advanced Tab, Performance - click

Settings, Advanced Tab, Processor Scheduling and select 'Programs'. By default, Windows puts a

priority on the foreground programs (20 Hexadecimal). Choosing the 'Programs' option (26

Hexadecimal) will result in a smoother, faster response time for your foreground programs. However,

if you have background services, such as printing or disk backup that run while you work and you

want them to respond faster, you can have Windows share processor resources equally between

background and foreground programs by choosing the 'Background services' option (18

Hexadecimal)."

- How to set performance options in Windows XP (Microsoft)

Set CPU Priority 38 (Priority Tweak, Win32PrioritySeparation)

[HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\PriorityControl] "Win32PrioritySeparation"

Myth - "Setting this value to 38 gives a boost to the priority of foreground applications."

Reality- "People are confusing the Hexadecimal and Decimal value settings of this registry key. By

choosing the 'Programs' option in Windows XP this sets the value to 26 Hexadecimal = 0x00000026,

which is automatically translated to 38 Decimal = (38). This is shown as 0x00000026 (38) in the

registry. The Windows XP Registry Editor defaults to changing the Hexadecimal Value when you go to

modify a registry key. The problem is it is commonly recommended to change this value to "38" with

no mention of this being the Decimal value and instead the Hexadecimal Value is changed because it

is the default. This makes the key show 0x00000038 (56). This is not one of this key's functional

values and setting a bit field in Win32PrioritySeparation to values other than those shown in the table

will result in the Windows XP default value being used instead. Thus this does absolutely nothing."

Functional Values:

0x28 (0x29, 0x2A)0x18 (0x19, 0x1A)

0x24 (0x14)

0x25

0x26

0x15

0x16

- Master Your Quantum (Microsoft)

Superfetch
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;308417#XSLTH3120121124120121120120http://blogs.msdn.com/embedded/archive/2006/03/04/543141.aspxhttp://blogs.msdn.com/embedded/archive/2006/03/04/543141.aspxhttp://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;308417#XSLTH3120121124120121120120


22/31

[HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\SessionManager\MemoryManagement\PrefetchParameters

] "EnableSuperfetch"

Myth - "Adding EnableSuperfetch to the registry improves performance in Windows XP as it does in

Windows Vista."

Reality- "This myth was started when the Inquirer irresponsibly ran a bogus letter without doing any

fact checking. Windows internals guru Mark Russinovich said this won't work, the "Superfetch" string

isn't even in the Windows XP kernel. You can confirm this yourself by checking with the Strings utility.

This makes it impossible for it to do anything since no "Superfetch" command exists. Windows cannot

execute a nonexistent command and will simply ignore it. Anyone who says this works is not only

lying but a fool."

- Inquirer "Superfetch" story is crap (Bink.nu)

- Strings (Windows Sysinternals)

System Restore - Disabling

Myth - "Disabling System Restore improves performance."

Reality- "System Restore does not cause any noticeable performance impact when monitoring your

computer. The creation of a Restore point also is a very fast process and usually takes only a few

seconds. Scheduled System Checkpoints (every 24 hours by default) are created only at system idle

time to avoid interfering with a computer during use."

- Microsoft Windows XP System Restore (Microsoft)

System.ini, Win.ini

System.ini [386Enh] page buffer=1000000kbps or 1000000Tbps

System.ini [386Enh] load=1000000kbps or 1000000Tbps

System.ini [386Enh] Download=1000000kbps or 1000000Tbps

System.ini [386Enh] save=1000000kbps or 1000000Tbps

System.ini [386Enh] back=1000000kbps or 1000000Tbps

System.ini [386Enh] search=1000000kbps or 1000000Tbps

System.ini [386Enh] sound=1000000kbps or 1000000Tbps

System.ini [386Enh] webcam=1000000kbps or 1000000TbpsSystem.ini [386Enh] voice=1000000kbps or 1000000Tbps

System.ini [386Enh] faxmodemfast=1000000kbps or 1000000Tbps

System.ini [386Enh] update=1000000kbps or 1000000Tbps

Myth - "Adding (made up command) = (imaginary number) to the System.ini or Win.ini file improves

performance."

Reality- "ALL System.ini and Win.ini so-called "Tweaks" are made up nonsense . They include

made up commands that do not exist followed by imaginary settings - thus doing absolutely nothing.

The System.ini and Win.ini files are provided in Windows XP for backward compatibility with 16-bit

(MS-DOS, Windows 3.x) applications. They have no effect on any Windows XP settings or 32-bit

applications which are stored in the Registry."
http://bink.nu/Article4556.binkhttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897439.aspxhttp://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997627.aspxhttp://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997627.aspxhttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897439.aspxhttp://bink.nu/Article4556.bink


23/31

Notes - These files are edited using the System Configuration Utility (Msconfig.exe) or Sysedit.



Temp Files - Deleting

Myth - "Deleting Temp Files improves performance."

Reality- Deleting temporary files does not improve application, gaming or system performance on

NTFS volumes. All it does is increase your available disk space. This is because performance does not

degrade under NTFS, as it does under FAT, with larger volume sizes. While AntiVirus, AntiSpyware

and general disk scan/search times can be reduced, these are not what people associate with

improved performance. Deleting the contents of your browser cache actually reduces performance for

previously visited web pages since they must be reloaded into the cache. This does not mean you

should not do this periodically for house cleaning reasons. Only that you should not expect improvedperformance from doing so.

NTFS - Maximum files per volume: 4,294,967,295

NTFS - Maximum files and subfolders within a single folder: 4,294,967,295

FAT32 - Maximum files per volume: 4,177,920

FAT32 - Maximum files and subfolders within a single folder: 65,534*

* The use of long file names can significantly reduce the number of available files and subfolders

within a folder.

Notes - "With the NTFS file system, small folder records reside entirely within the MFT structure, while

large folders are organized B-tree structures and have records with pointers to external clusters that

contain folder entries that cannot be contained within the MFT structure. The benefit of using B-tree

structures is evident when NTFS enumerates files in a large folder. The B-tree structure allows NTFS

to group, or index, similar file names and then search only the group that contains the file,

minimizing the number of disk accesses needed to find a particular file, especially for large folders.

Because of the B-tree structure, NTFS outperforms FAT for large folders because FAT must scan all

file names in a large folder before listing all of the files."

- How NTFS Works (Microsoft)

Windows 2000 vs XP

Myth - "Using Windows 2000 over Windows XP will improve performance"

Reality- Windows XP offers better performance than Windows 2000 so long as the recommended

Windows XP requirements are met regardless of the age of the computer. With

128 MB of RAMWindows XP is superior to Windows 2000 and all older versions of Windows. This

includes dramatically faster boot and resume times and highly responsive applications. Performance

only gets better with additional resources, particularly when you run memory-intensive multimedia

applications.

- Windows XP Performance (Microsoft)
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457126.aspxhttp://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/03/01/82103.aspxhttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc781134.aspxhttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457057.aspxhttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457057.aspxhttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc781134.aspxhttp://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/03/01/82103.aspxhttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457126.aspx


24/31

^ TOP

Security Myths

Cookies

Myth - "Cookies are Spyware."

Reality- "Cookies are not Spyware. It's grossly irresponsible for these Anti-Spyware companies to

treat cookies like Spyware. REAL Spyware is malicious, machine-hijacking junk that throw pop-ups on

your computer, resets your start page, and all sorts of other ugly tricks. A cookie is a text file that

has some non-personal information what banner ads h

Documents

MS XP Myths.docx