Slashdot Mirror
Windows Accelerators - Do They Really Work?
danila asks: "Today I came across an intriguing review of Windows tweakers on a Russian technology news site. Among the plethora of traditional registry tweakers, the review mentioned Hare 1.5.1. The developers promised nothing less than up to 300% speed increase, 10% FPS increase in 3D games, automatic RAM preservation and even a wizard that automatically cleans and optimizes Windows. It also had AntiCrash 3.6.1 a program to prevent up to 95.8% of Windows crashes. Understandably, I was both intrigued and suspicious since it sounded too good to be true." Has anyone tried this piece of software with any degree of success? How successful are other "windows accelerators" at improving Windows performance?
"After a little research I found that download.com didn't have it and there are precious few reviews of this revolutionary software online, but that it was endorsed by McAfee and that developers touted conformance with Microsoft's interface guidelines as an important feature.
Still suspicious, I gathered all my courage and installed both programs (silently preparing for something like Bonsi Buddy or XXX Toolbar) on my Win2k Pro machine (P4 1.6/512Mb). Truth be told, after several minutes I was blown away. Obviously I can't tell how well every promised features works, but disk caching (and pre-fetching) that Hare does is outstanding and display performance improved enough to scare me - windows were opening, minimizing and redrawing without the delay I was accustomed to.
The question is -- is it real or was I fooled by some clever placebo tricks? And if it is real, why isn't the Web full of success stories involving Hare and AntiCrash? Why isn't everyone installing them on every Windows machine in the world? And a rhetorical question -- why doesn't Microsoft incorporate some of the features into its operating systems."
Still suspicious, I gathered all my courage and installed both programs (silently preparing for something like Bonsi Buddy or XXX Toolbar) on my Win2k Pro machine (P4 1.6/512Mb). Truth be told, after several minutes I was blown away. Obviously I can't tell how well every promised features works, but disk caching (and pre-fetching) that Hare does is outstanding and display performance improved enough to scare me - windows were opening, minimizing and redrawing without the delay I was accustomed to.
The question is -- is it real or was I fooled by some clever placebo tricks? And if it is real, why isn't the Web full of success stories involving Hare and AntiCrash? Why isn't everyone installing them on every Windows machine in the world? And a rhetorical question -- why doesn't Microsoft incorporate some of the features into its operating systems."
Even if this does work, in a big business, the left hand rarely knows what the right hand is doing. Its amazing what you won't find if you only use MSN search.
- Windows runs on many different pieces of hardware. Not all hardware supports the options that these accelerators need. Believe it or not, not everyone has an AGP video card.
- Linux is not faster as a desktop than windows. As the gnome and kde desktops are the main competition for Microsoft Windows, it does not make sense for microsoft to make windows as fast as it can, because Linux is not currently faster. If Linux does get better, then Microsoft will still have 'gas in the tank' to make windows faster again.
Just my thoughtsToo good to be true. Sorry, even Linux and BSD won't give you that much improvement over windows. Don't give 'em your credit card number.
I'd buy your browsing speed will imporove 300% if you remove IE spyware, but a broad 300% speed increase is bogus.
So is someone going to post about their actual experience with one of these products?
No. This is Slashdot. All you're gonna see here is a bunch of repetitive jokes that aren't really that funny even.
From the hare website:
Hare will improve performance no matter what software you use, thanks to a revolutionary compact 88-bit Kernel, which accelerates common system instructions
WTF? This is complete BS.
...the review mentioned Hare 1.5.1. The developers promised nothing less than up to 300% speed increase, 10% FPS increase in 3D games, automatic RAM preservation and even a wizard that automatically cleans and optimizes Windows. It also had AntiCrash 3.6.1 a program to prevent up to 95.8% of Windows crashes.
Hmmm... "prevents absolutely no windows crashes" meets the criteria of "prevents up to 95.8% of windows crashes". Strike one - plus what's up with the obviously made-up 95.8% statistic with its meaningless but important-sounding precision?
After a little research I found that download.com didn't have it and there are precious few reviews of this revolutionary software online, but that it was endorsed by McAfee
So by now we've decided its "revolutionary". Good to see an unbiased starting point. Also, since when does "sold by" mean "endorsed" in all but the loosest sense? Strike Two. Oh, and notice that McAfee only sell one of these products, and not the one that the reviewer makes the most claims about...
Still suspicious, I gathered all my courage and installed both programs... truth be told, after several minutes I was blown away. Obviously I can't tell how well every promised features works, but disk caching (and pre-fetching) that Hare does is outstanding and display performance improved enough to scare me.
Ah well, that's okay then. Asked and answered. And absolutely no signs of bias in this result . Absolutely no signs of any attempt at objective measurement of results either. Not one benchmark or even stopwatch timing showing any improvement at all? Strike Three.
Isn't it about time Slashdot started asking its reviewers if they have any affiliation with the product they are touting?
Sailing over the event horizon
My Windows 2K install was pretty slow too, then I grabbed this one program. I think it was called Mac OS X. Ever since then, haven't had any viruses, crashes or slow performance. You should give it a try...
My Win2K Pro install was pretty fast too. Ever since then I haven't had any viruses, crashes, or slow performance. I've never really found Win2K Pro to be at fault for a program crash. Photoshop, Lightwave, and the games I play are all stable. In fact, Lightwave crashed more on the OSX machines at school than here at home.
It all boils down to the user(s) of the machine.
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
I know *I* get tired of explaining to people that their brand-new, super fast CPUs are so dog slow because they cheaped out and got 128 mb RAM. I wish (in one hand and spit in the other) that Dell, etc. would stop even offering 128mb w/ WinXP.
jred
I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
Actually, they seem to be accurate.
What they mean by 88-bit kernel isn't what most Linux users mean by kernel. They're referring to the programming style of the graphics kernel.
In this case, they're using floating-point registers for data moves, and other 'demo-scene' tricks to gain much higher memory bandwidth than simple 'mov eax, [screen]' assembly would normally generate, which is what the stock Windows graphics kernels use. In practice, it actually works quite well, and hand-tuned assembly-language memory-twiddling routines (which are all graphics kernels are) will be 2-4x faster than equivilant C/C++ code would be, so the speedups for some operations (like redrawing the windows, which is all the program is really claiming to speed up) are true.
While I would disagree on principle with anything that says the Mac is any good at all (joking), this does raise some valid points.
Windows machines DO get slower with time. Proper maintenance, uninstalling spyware, removing unneeded TSR programs, regularly updating windows, etc, can assist in this, it is FAR too difficult for the average user.
"Stuff that starts when Windows starts" needs to be given a higher priority to the user. Even most experienced users I know aren't aware you can use msconfig to modify or remove all the CRAP that gets installed.
This important a tool to be hidden like that is ridiculous. Microsoft claims that 80% of their support now is for problems related to spyware. Good. Then make it easier for (L)users to see what their computer is actually DOING and why. Don't call them "processes" and list all the windows processes as well. And put some information with them. Knowing that OSCDX is running means nothing to most people. (I made it up. It IS nothing.) But some sort of connection should be made between a process name, and a descriptive text. "Loader program for Gator advertising software", for example. Have a button to connect to a DB and FIND the file if need be.
Additionally, we need education. People need to know that the 14 things they have running in their system tray are slowing the computer down. Why can XP tell you that you have icons on your desktop you haven't used, but can't pop up a window as you start saying "I notice you have a large number of programs running from startup. These slow your computer down. Click here to select ones you're not using to remove them."
Another thing that bothers me about software is inconsistency of installation. For example, if you install 3 games, each of them will decide to be in a different folder. I HATE that. I hate having to remember "is this game by EA? Or Maxis? Or Fox Interactive? Valve? Vivendi?" just to be able to play it. If I install "Doom 3" I want the link to be in "Start - All Programs - Games - Doom3". Games - Half Life 2. Games - Sims 2. Don't make us remember the publishers, you stupid bastards. We don't care. Oh, and you're allowed to install an icon to the desktop, to tempt me to play when I'm supposed to be working. But only ONE. Do not link to your exe, help file, a web link, uninstall file, etc.
Oh, and the top of the start bar is NOT an acceptable place for software to install to. ICQ I'm looking at you.