http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/tags/vista Beta Testers Forum en-US Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:52:53 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/search.php http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1076 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:13:06 +0000 jujdred 1076@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Killed superfetch weeks ago, and it seems everything is running just fine. In fact, my Dragon Age Origins performance on single core CPU with 2 gigs of RAM has increased significantly. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1073 Sun, 07 Feb 2010 22:10:46 +0000 Spathi 1073@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>HDD is a lot slower because of seek. </p> <p>If you tell eboostr to load lots into memory it will do so, but it will slow down the boot by 1 second for every XXXmb/s your disk goes, pf might be faster because it loads less, but in my case it was 10 seconds slower. You are loading 1.5 gig off the disk during boot so you need allow for that. If you have a harddisk then use USB as well, just make sure your USB stick is fast and the USB2 hub is not gimped.</p> <p>If you have a really good SSD then it is pretty pointless to run USB caches. Even the memory cache is overkill, but we like overkill ;oP </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1062 Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:26:17 +0000 zPedro 1062@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>It seems Prefetch doesn't work if Superfetch is deactivated. One nice possibility is to deactivate Superfetch when playing games. I stil don't think Windows and programs are faster opening only with eBoostr (without Superfetch). Perhaps Chooky should try his tests with HDD and not only SSD. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1060 Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:01:41 +0000 zPedro 1060@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>I had to repair prefetch restoring layout.ini. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1059 Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:00:24 +0000 zPedro 1059@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <br /> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1058 Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:59:41 +0000 zPedro 1058@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <blockquote><p><cite>zPedro <a href="http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1058">wrote</a>:</cite><br /> Another thing: Against every advise, I've tried to clean and deactivate Windows prefetch folder, just to see my laptop behavior without ReadyBoost, Superfetch and Prefetch. Only eBoostr working. It seems that deactivating Prefetch is not the best idea of all. However, after reactivating it, I can see no files in there, except a folder named ReadyBoot with a 20 MB file named ReadyBoot.etl. It seems that Windows is not using Prefetch but ReadyBoost does even if it has been deactivated. A quick search on the internet gave me the following information that I prefer to paste here. It's in <a href="http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12354-0.html?forumID=1&amp;threadID=47786&amp;messageID=895626&amp;start=0" rel="nofollow">http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12354-0.html?forumID=1&amp;threadID=47786&amp;messageID=895626&amp;start=0</a>.<br /> "For anyone who's going to disable ReadyBoost it's also a good idea to disable the related but different ReadyBoot. (...)<br /> Here's how to disable ReadyBoot. Launch the "Reliability and Performance Monitor" program (under "System Tools" inside "Computer Management"; or via any of the other routes to launch this program). Then on the lefthand side of your screen click "Data Collector Sets", and underneath that heading click "Startup Event Trace Sessions". Now on your righthand side you'll see a list that includes ReadyBoot, and you'll see the word 'enabled' beside the word 'Readyboot'. Double clicking the list item brings up the ReadyBoot Properties dialog. This dialog has a number of tabs. Pick the "Trace Session" tab. Finally, uncheck the "Enabled" checkbox on that tab."<br /> As I'm not using ReadyBoost I followed this recomendation and, as matter of fact, I notice that inicial activity slowed down a lot.</p> </blockquote> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1057 Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:00:44 +0000 zPedro 1057@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>I agree with you, mradr. I tried eBoostr unmanaged memory (1GB) on (+ 500 MB NVCache) and Superfetch off playing Fifa 10 with my nephew and it ran quite well in my laptop. As you advised before, I don't exclude anything from eBoostr cache. I let it choose. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1054 Thu, 28 Jan 2010 02:41:19 +0000 mradr 1054@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Thats why you should turn it off when running eboostr. SuperFe only helps with start up while eboostr helps with start up and running the software. The only big differents is that SuperFe will give up its ram for a program and eboostr wont just yet, but if you have more than 4gb and a 32 bit system, then you are set with one gig for eboostr and 3 gigs for the game. This would work for even 64 bit. -Most- programs don't really use more than 3 gigs anyways. </p> <p>Thats why I'm going to say its ok to disable superfetch when running eboostr or keep it on when not using eboostr. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1051 Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:20:23 +0000 zPedro 1051@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Thank you jujdred! Don't you think that for gamers, who need every ram that it's possible to get, unabling superfetch and using unmanaged memory with eBoostr could be a nice way to upgrade their systems (at least in laptops)? </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1046 Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:25:42 +0000 jujdred 1046@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>This is for Vista.<br /> Superfetch is different from XP's PREFETCH. Prefetch was a mistake, but it was necessary to get where we are now. It really is an amazingly "smart" piece of tech.<br /> I would highly suggest you leave it ON. If you really feel the "itch" to turn it off, at least know what it does first. However, there is a catch. Many Vista users (or people who have never used Vista) complain that the operating system uses too much RAM. They look at the performance monitor and see there is a lot less available RAM – when compared to Windows XP. The extra use of RAM in Vista is partly due to a performance enhancement called SuperFetch. Having low free memory in Vista shows this is working.<br /> Please note: I wrote a guide on disabling Superfetch. In this guide I tell you to let Superfetch run. My advice is to disable Superfetch if you have less than 2GB of RAM (this is a generalized number as all systems are different.) If you have more than 2GB of RAM, Superfetch will work to your advantage. XP treats RAM as a resource to be used only when needed while Vista treats RAM as a cache and uses almost all of it as soon as it becomes available.<br /> Also keep in mind, Superfetch ONLY increases the performance of OPENING a program, not running the program. Big difference. That is another world of it's own comprised of pagefiles and RAMDisks etc.</p> <p>Windows 7 is basically Vista, but "fixed" and "enhanced". </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1032 Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:21:47 +0000 zPedro 1032@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Thank you, mradr! I'll read chooky tests carefully and try again. It seems chooky made a great job. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1031 Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:42:27 +0000 mradr 1031@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Yes you are due to you being 1 year old for the account. Now, Chooky has done some test that says otherwise. <a href="http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/eboostr-and-superfetch" rel="nofollow">http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/eboostr-and-superfetch</a></p> <p>I have to agree with Chooky test results. I get about the same times and speeds boost too turning it off. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1030 Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:11:23 +0000 zPedro 1030@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>I tried it myself and I think it slowed down my system. Vista 32 bit, 3GB ram + 1GB unmanaged memory + 500MB NVCACHE.<br /> P.S.: WOW!!! I see now I'm a "Beta Veteran"! I'm feeling flattered! :D </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/superfetch#post-1029 Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:19:08 +0000 zPedro 1029@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Did anybody try to disable superfetch? If so what were the results? Do you think it's advisable? </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/vista-x64-crashes#post-927 Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:36:12 +0000 Zorro_ARG 927@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Hi again. I was testing beta version build 544. I made some tests and problems repeated. Cause my english is poor, i will reproduce steps here. Something to take into account, i haven't had problems with eboostr using 8 gb pendrive (ocz rally2). System is Windows 7 x64, 6 GB DDR2-800, Q6600 Intel processor.<br /> Problems reappear after enabling SYSTEM MEMORY for cache. Also, I have no problems with eboostr deactivated or when using it with the pendrive. Also memory is ok, several hours of testing with memtest and orthos.</p> <p>1. Enabled SYSTEM MEMORY, assigned 1 GB of it.<br /> 2. Reboot<br /> 3. After logging in, skype error and myphoneexplorer too.<br /> 4. Copy SKYPE.EXE to desktop.<br /> 5. Removed SYSTEM MEMORY CACHE from eboostr, leaving pendrive only.<br /> 6. I made a binary comparison, skype filesize is 25626408 bytes total. Differences found at these locations: Range 1: 001e4c00-001fffff // Range 2: 005e4c00-005fffff // Range 3: 007e4c00-007fffff // Range 4: 009e4c00-009fffff // Range 5: 00de4c00-00dfffff // Range 6: 00fe4c00-00ffffff // Range 7: 013e4c00-013ffffff // Range 8: 015e4c00-015ffff.</p> <p>I hope it helps to locate the problem. Bye. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/vista-x64-crashes#post-918 Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:58:38 +0000 mradr 918@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>So your saying to delete the cache and rebuild? </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/vista-x64-crashes#post-912 Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:35:46 +0000 Zorro_ARG 912@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Hi. I was testing an earlier version of eboostr 4 beta, about one month ago. I had also problems when it was enabled. The problems I had were related to errors when programs were loading, for example, during boot. I took as an example skype.exe. Sometimes it loaded with errors during boot. At that time, I saved a copy of SKYPE.EXE, then uninstalled eboostr and rebooted. After that, i used a software for binary comparsison, and the two versions of skype.exe were different!! If I can remember well, differences appear in blocks of data, for example at E400 1E400, filled with 00. I can´t remember the block size, sorry. But maybe there is a problem over there. I´m using readyboost right now, since then, one month or so, and I never saw a problem like the one described again. Also same hardware and software. Windows 7 x64 edition, 6 gigas of ram. Using RAM or USB pendrive, or a mix of two for testing. I will try again with build 544 and see what happens. Greetings. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/dual-boot-usb-cache-full-from-xp-vista-cant-utilize#post-911 Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:13:35 +0000 Colonel ONeill 911@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>I'm pretty sure you need to tell the XP side to allocate whatever portion of the flash drive that you want to set aside for XP. Then go to Vista, where it should show the remaining space as available.</p> <p>As far as I know, eBoostr doesn't do any dynamic cache sizing yet, although that would be nice especially for the RAM cache. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/dual-boot-usb-cache-full-from-xp-vista-cant-utilize#post-902 Tue, 08 Dec 2009 20:32:50 +0000 Atertract 902@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>XP SP3, Vista SP2, 4GB USB drive formatted FAT32 with HP utility.</p> <p>Installed Beta 4.0 (build 544) on XP, optimized USB drive for performance, allocated USB cache file, everything went smoothly and turned out functional. </p> <p>Installed 544 on Vista. Added CacheFileName=\\eboostr2.dat at HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\EBoost\Parameters in registry as described here, with the exception that \Parameters didn't show up until after reboot: <a href="http://beta.eboostr.com/blog/feedback/eboostr-in-dual-boot-xp-sp3-and-vista-sp1/" rel="nofollow">http://beta.eboostr.com/blog/feedback/eboostr-in-dual-boot-xp-sp3-and-vista-sp1/</a></p> <p>Vista installation was successful. Optimized USB drive for performance. However, as one might expect, the flash drive is almost completely full from use in XP, and reads full and unusable by eBoostr. Shouldn't the cache be cleared on restart/reboot to allow two different operating systems full use of the entirety of the memory? Is eBoostr dual-boot support facilitated by allocating (and splitting) the space on a USB drive manually? Or do I simply need to free up enough space to build the USB cache in Vista initially, after which both OS will dynamically make use of the entire flash drive (write over each other's caches)? </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/vista-x64-crashes#post-868 Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:19:50 +0000 mradr 868@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Np, to bad I couldn't help solve your issu. Um, maybe try to see what happens if you uninstall the other program and use eboostr when you get some free time tho. If it still happens, then yea its eboostr. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/vista-x64-crashes#post-862 Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:05:30 +0000 tolisbak 862@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>With windows XP 32-bit, on the same hardware I had frequent crashes with itunes. </p> <p>In some instances in vista x64 (after the installation of a nvidia vga card) there were also some blank screens.<br /> On the other hand, there is a lot of programs loaded with windows.</p> <p>Still, after the unistallation of eboostr the system hasn't crashed yet. </p> <p>I' ll wait for the next beta release. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/vista-x64-crashes#post-859 Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:31:35 +0000 mradr 859@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Very strange, it could be a combination of the two, but I wounder if it isn't something else in play..., If nothing, I would have to say its the cfospeed thats maybe causing the issure here. TCP/IP was mess up and cfospeed uses the TCP/IP sys...</p> <p>As for the ntoskrnl.exe, from what I get from the web is that, it could be a number of things from RAM to burning software. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/vista-x64-crashes#post-857 Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:03:17 +0000 tolisbak 857@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>21 times this</p> <p>"On Thu 26/11/2009 7:28:07 μμ your computer crashe<br /> This was likely caused by the following module: ntoskrnl.exe<br /> Bugcheck code: 0x1000007E (0xFFFFFFFFC0000005, 0xFFFFF80002E61F30, 0xFFFFFA60019DB448, 0xFFFFFA60019DAE20)<br /> Error: SYSTEM_THREAD_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED_M<br /> Dump file: C:\Windows\Minidump\Mini112609-03.dmp<br /> file path: C:\Windows\system32\ntoskrnl.exe<br /> product: Microsoft® Windows® Operating System<br /> company: Microsoft Corporation<br /> description: NT Kernel &amp; System<br /> The crash took place in a standard Microsoft module. Your system configuration may be incorrect, possibly the culprit may be another driver on your system which cannot be identified at this time. "</p> <p>3 times this:</p> <p>On Mon 9/11/2009 7:13:20 μμ your computer crashed<br /> This was likely caused by the following module: tcpip.sys<br /> Bugcheck code: 0xD1 (0x40, 0x2, 0x0, 0xFFFFFA6000F193CB)<br /> Error: DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL<br /> Dump file: C:\Windows\Minidump\Mini110909-01.dmp<br /> file path: C:\Windows\system32\drivers\tcpip.sys<br /> product: Microsoft® Windows® Operating System<br /> company: Microsoft Corporation<br /> description: TCP/IP Driver<br /> The crash took place in a standard Microsoft module. Your system configuration may be incorrect, possibly the culprit may be another driver on your system which cannot be identified at this time. </p> <p>2 times this:<br /> On Sun 8/11/2009 7:34:58 μμ your computer crashed<br /> This was likely caused by the following module: cfosspeed.sys<br /> Bugcheck code: 0xD1 (0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF, 0x2, 0x8, 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF)<br /> Error: DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL<br /> Dump file: C:\Windows\Minidump\Mini110809-01.dmp<br /> file path: C:\Windows\system32\drivers\cfosspeed.sys<br /> product: cFosSpeed Driver<br /> company: cFos Software GmbH<br /> description: cFosSpeed Driver</p> <p>Maybe it's the combination of eboostr and cfospeed that causes the problem.</p> <p>Now I am using Readyboost and the system hasn't crashed yet. </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/vista-x64-crashes#post-854 Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:20:14 +0000 mradr 854@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>Crash, as in like BSOD, or just frezz-crash? If it's a BSOD, could you upload the minidump? This can be found in:</p> <p>c:\windows\minidump\*the date/time/log file* </p> http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/topic/vista-x64-crashes#post-841 Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:56:42 +0000 tolisbak 841@http://beta.eboostr.com/forum/ <p>If it is enabled, Version 4.0.0.543 makes my system crash after logging in. On next boot (thankfully) it is disabled. Then it will make vista crash within 3 hours after enabling it. I had far fewer crashes with older versions.</p> <p>At least it works great on my netbook. </p>