| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 107035 | 2010-02-01 19:44:00 | The registry is a set of half a dozen or so mission-critical files hidden away in the | pctek (84) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 854445 | 2010-02-09 04:23:00 | Just found the followup article by this person:- . stuff . co . nz/technology/gadgets/3306564/Registry-tweakingThanks" target="_blank">www . stuff . co . nz for the link :) . 2 . Unload unused dlls from memory - Windows retains certain dll files in memory, even though the application using them has closed . This tweak unloads dlls as soon as they are no longer required, improving memory management and performance . Open regedit and find: HKEY–LOCAL– MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\ Explorer . Create a new DWORD value called AlwaysUnloadDll and set the value to 1 . Sigh . . . the fellow is an idiot . Unloading DLLs will just slow things down (rather than improve memory management as he claims), as it forces libraries to be reloaded from disk every time you start the application that uses them . Disk access is *much* slower than ram . Even on low-memory systems there's not really any point in setting this, as the OS memory manager will simply unload them on its own when it needs the ram for other things . The only system I can see this making sense on is a server where you're trying to maximise cache performance for background services, but still occasionally load other apps . |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 854446 | 2010-02-09 05:55:00 | Uh huh. Absolutely. I suspect it's more that, becuase their product was terrible for such a long time, you've simply decided it always will be. Is it the best? No, far from it. But it's certainly pushed itself back towards the upper echelons of that type of product, and it's even reasonably priced now. The major issues of sluggish performance and impacting system stability/integrity have been well-address (in the AV-only products), and imo the ondemand scanner is as good as *most* competing products. As above, though, their realtime scanning has some improvements to do. Would I actively recommend people go out and buy it as a first choice AV product? No, I still wouldn't, because it's *not* my first choice. But I'd no longer immediately decide that it needed to be replaced with something else. As with all AV products, it still needs to be combined with a user who at least has *some* clue about how they're using the PC, in order to be effective. Give me a PC with whatever AV you like, and you can bet I can find a user who can manage to get it infected. Hasn't it always been at the upper echelons of whatever peculiar type of hell it condemns it's users to? "Personally used and recommended by Beelzebub" fits right in that category too. I had always assumed that Norton's flummery was peculiarly well suited and targeted to clueless users. Either that or it was the modus operandi of masochists. The fact that it is much better than it was does not make it ready to leap into adequacy just yet. |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 854447 | 2010-02-09 19:32:00 | Thanks for the link :). Sigh... the fellow is an idiot. Unloading DLLs will just slow things down (rather than improve memory management as he claims), as it forces libraries to be reloaded from disk every time you start the application that uses them. Disk access is *much* slower than ram. Even on low-memory systems there's not really any point in setting this, as the OS memory manager will simply unload them on its own when it needs the ram for other things. The only system I can see this making sense on is a server where you're trying to maximise cache performance for background services, but still occasionally load other apps. Any chance you could expand on this Erayd? I've always known .dll (dynamic link libraries?) are important without ever really knowing what they do. Are you saying that every app on your O/S loads the required .dll's at boot and buffers them in RAM until they're needed? |
nofam (9009) | ||
| 854448 | 2010-02-09 20:47:00 | Hey Wainui......funny how we both keep finding Nortons is a piece of **** and these others say it's marvellous. Makes you wonder if they read the blurb and believe it whereas we see real world results huh. Placebo effect?? I never had a customer ask me to put it back on once they saw what a difference in speed removing it makes, despite the arguements about uninstalling it. Had one cust refuse to let me remove it , despite it being badly corrupted.He got his PC back with corrupt AV. Norton gets another glowing review in PCworld this month. Install it on some real world pc's & come back in a month, thats the real test. |
sroby (11519) | ||
| 854449 | 2010-02-10 04:46:00 | Any chance you could expand on this Erayd? I've always known .dll (dynamic link libraries?) are important without ever really knowing what they do. Are you saying that every app on your O/S loads the required .dll's at boot and buffers them in RAM until they're needed? Not quite. DLL files are Windows 'Dynamically Loadable Libraries' - i.e. they're basically bundles of program code and / or data that live outside the main program executable. They're commonly used for code-sharing between multiple applications, or to implement plugin functionality and keep the size of the core binary down. When you first start an application, the OS will check to see if it already has the libraries that application requires in its cache (which usually means either fully or partially in ram, or swapped to the pagefile). If not, each required library is loaded into ram. Once this process is complete, the main application starts, and is given access to all the resources in the various libraries it is linked with. An application can also request access to additional libraries while it is running. Multiple applications can use the same library at the same time, and libraries are kept loaded until all applications using them have quit, or indicated to the OS that they no longer require access. At this point, what happens to the library depends on the OS memory manager. Usually, libraries are kept in the cache in case they're needed again, either by the same application or an entirely different one. Stuff that's already in the cache can be accessed extremely quickly, whereas loading it from the disk every time is hundreds (or sometimes thousands) of times slower. If the OS needs to free up some memory for use by other programs, or buffers / cache for network or disk I/O, it may remove some of these libraries from the cache, thus allowing the ram to be used for other purposes. If the library is needed again later, it's loaded from disk again at that point. This is the reason that immediately unloading DLLs (i.e. removing them from the cache as soon as they're no longer in use) is a stupid idea. Instead of having them cached in ram, and available *very* quickly when needed, immediate-unloading means that unless the library in question is already in use, it must be loaded from disk again, which is bloody slow. In addition, you wind up with a whole lot of RAM that isn't being used for anything at all - which is utterly pointless. RAM is there to be used, it's not (usually) just there to look pretty. Another problem caused by immediate DLL unloading is when a DLL is partially swapped to disk. The core 'in-use' program logic stored by the library may be resident in RAM, but the data parts of it may be infrequently accessed, and have therefore been swapped in order to make room in RAM for other stuff. This means that the important bits are still very fast to access, but it's not wasting precious RAM on other junk that isn't needed much. Because when a DLL is loaded it will usually load *entirely* into RAM before being swapped out, forcing DLL unloading can actually cause *higher* memory usage at application load time, which on a system without much RAM available can mean lots of disk-thrashing while other background applications and libraries are swapped out to make room for the new stuff being loaded. Regarding your 'at boot' comment - the Windows prefetcher will attempt to load frequently used application binaries & libraries (.exe & .dll) files into memory at boot-time in order to start them faster. The downside of this is that booting & logging in to your system will take longer as it loads stuff into the cache. It's often quite useful, but on many occasions does a bad job of predicting your intended use and prefetches stuff you really don't care about. A small additional speed boost is gained by storing some of this data in a 'pre-prefetch' form in the C:\WINDOWS\Prefetch folder. These files can safely be deleted if you want to free up some disk space, although you won't generally save much - they typically only consume a few MB. Windows will recreate these files on an as-needed basis. The prefetcher can be controlled with the 'EnablePrefetcher' registry setting. This only makes a difference if you frequently shut down or reboot your PC - otherwise it's not worth bothering about. Disabling it (or using a less-aggressive setting) will result in shorter boot times, but programs may take slightly longer to launch the first time you start them after boot. Does that answer your question? |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 854450 | 2010-02-10 19:21:00 | Does that answer your question? :waughh: Certainly does, although it leads to yet more questions, as answers often do. How do you know all of this at such a young age Erayd? |
nofam (9009) | ||
| 854451 | 2010-02-10 22:30:00 | :waughh: Certainly does, although it leads to yet more questions, as answers often do.Feel free to ask 'em - knowledge & time permitting, I'll be quite happy to send another wall of text your way. How do you know all of this at such a young age Erayd?Because I'm a very curious bastard interested in everything - if I don't know something and it seems even mildly interesting, I start researching :rolleyes:. |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 854452 | 2010-02-10 22:45:00 | Because I'm a very curious bastard interested in everything - if I don't know something and it seems even mildly interesting, I start researching:thumbs: Dont know about the Bastard bit :p - but thats what all techs etc that want to keep up with progress need to do - its an ever developing world - dont keep up ( or at least try) and you'll get left behind. | wainuitech (129) | ||
| 854453 | 2010-02-10 23:35:00 | I must confess to being a curious bastard too; but I just never seem to have the time to learn things - programming is a classic example for me; I work with MySQL all day, pulling datasets into Excel etc, and would love to learn more, but everytime I start it just seems too vast. It brings to mind one of my favourite sayings: "Be humble about what you know, and excited about what you don't" :thumbs: |
nofam (9009) | ||
| 854454 | 2010-02-11 04:06:00 | Because I'm a very curious bastard interested in everything - if I don't know something and it seems even mildly interesting, I start researching :rolleyes:. Me too. Problem is, the stuff that takes my interest for the week is usually so obscure, that the info just isn't there. Good example is old arcade cabinets, all I really find out is maybe the custom CPU name, few bits n pieces, not much else. No compilers, no homebrew, no code, etc. Nothing. It's just too obscure. Wishful thinking maybe. |
ubergeek85 (131) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||