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."
Both of these programs had their last revisions in late 2002, so it remains to be seen how effective they are now, or this is just some marketing BS...
I tried Hare and it never seemed to make a difference at all. It did have many interesting options, though.
The only program that ever seemed to speed anything up was O&O Defrag (oo-software.com) who have a background defragger. Leave your computer, and the defrag turns on. When you come back, it is off in anywhere from instantly to a minute. The program also has a nice complete defragger to boot.
Although doubtful, I wouldn't say such software is impossible. Sometimes some rather neat hacks can be pulled. Example: The Apple Macintosh IIsi came with 1 Mb of on-board memory. This memory was very slow, AND it was shared with video. If you installed SIMMS, however, this memory could actually be operated at a faster speed (70ns max if I remember correctly) than the onboard memory.
Some hacker wrote a program called IIsi RAM Muncher which allocates the first megabyte of memory on start-up, and then does nothing with it. Result? All your stuff runs in the faster SIMM memory. The speed increase could be as much as 400% - not bad for giving up 1 meg of RAM.
* Hare technology: the core of Hare is a re-written Kernel, working at up to 88-bit (instead of the standard 32-bit) and accelerating most basic system actions by acting as the Windows Kernel. This is done by triple-buffering all I/O data, in order to achieve an emulated 88-bit Kernel. This technology is fully safe and we have implemented safeguards in order to make it impossible to damage your computer.
That seems a bit suspicious. 88-bit!? Ok, so it's emulated. That still seems like 1) a strange number (not 64, not 128) and 2) would "emulated" 88-bit architecture really work? Isn't the CPU's inherent 32-bitness (or 64-bitness) the end-all anyway?
* CPU Tasking: the CPU Tasking technology's goal is to give more CPU to the program you currently use. Even if you don't know it, there are a lot of programs working in background and sucking CPU from your frontmost application - the CPU Tasking will know how much CPU you must give to each application."
Doesn't Windows already do this?
True believers seek redemption from the sin of death.
there is no way any windows desktop can beat that speed.
Don't be too sure.
Lately I've been using LiteStep, a Windows version of the Unix window manager AfterStep, and I have to say I have been very impressed with the overall improvement in performance. I've got an old Celeron 800Mhz notebook with 256MB of RAM that was struggling under standard WinXP Pro, even with all window-dressing (so to speak) turned off (like zooming windows, big desktop background graphics, etc.). This was especially obvious when I would use a removable wireless adapter card -- Firefox was sluggish and even unresponsive at times. (And seriously, this was a completely stripped-down environment -- no extraneous services running or background programs sucking up available resources.)
But since switching from Explorer to LiteStep as my default shell, just about everything about how Windows works has improved in terms of responsiveness and speed in general. My frustration level has been seriously cut down. And on top of that, my wife now refuses to use the laptop because of the new shell -- what a shame.
I'd bet a WindowsXP machine using LiteStep as the shell could keep up with just about any stripped down window manager for Linux like Fluxbox.
In creating GUIs for programs I've worked on, I've noticed that people will THINK I've made something a lot faster if only I tweak how the slow task looks on the screen. For example, let's say my program parses an XML file in 5 seconds. I have some options:
Of course the easiest to do is option 1, but to users this also appears to be the slowest. 2 is an improvement -- but still seems kinda slow. Users think option 3 is blazingly fast for some reason -- and EVEN BETTER is if you create a progress bar that fills up to 100% multiple times before it's done (users no doubt think "WOW, look at that progress bar go!").
But back to the point: windows accelerators. I remember finding a registry tweak a LONG time ago which eliminated the short delay between displaying 'trees' in the start menu. Whenever ANYBODY used my computer (while this tweak was in effect), they always told me how fast it seemed to them. Was it faster? Well, yes, a 0.1 second delay was removed, but really it didn't make what you were trying to do go any quicker.
I guess my point is that speed doesn't matter so much as appearance.