Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Champion_Munch

Advanced WindowsCare

Recommended Posts

Whenever I research a new application, I'll always read user reviews, specifically negative reviews regarding the application, just to find out some of the problems people have had or are having with it. If their problems seem petty, I may decide to go ahead and try it anyway, based on the positive reviews. But from what I've read in this thread, Advanced WindowsCare will never see the light of day on my computer. And that's a promise... ;) -kd5-

kd5, all I could find was limited information on this one. That is why CM started this thread, to see what everyone had to say about it.

 

I'll write a letter to them about the problems we are having.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Changes they can make to the application include letting us know what they intend to do with our computers and give us the option of choosing whether or not we want any of the changes to be made or not. I read here that some have 50 things being changed on their computers. I want to know what's being changed. I want the opportuntity to select one or more items out of the list of changes to be made, and deselect them if I feel like those changes won't be to my advantage. I don't like any application that's going to make changes to my computer unless I am comfortable that the changes it makes will be advantageous to the performance of my computer. I'm not going to blindly trust any new application with the health of my computer unless I was planning on a reformat anyway... ;) -kd5-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the problems I encountered (that I know of) is the paging files is set to off? the size is down to 115 and I do not know how this occurred. Was this part of AWC? if so I will change it < if it is part of something else ?? All I know is be very, very careful with this product. It is OK (I guess) if you are really ,really computer savvy and would not have to ask a lot of questions to do your repairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, letter sent with the link. I told them that they can either reply to me or it would be prefered if they posted the answers here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, letter sent with the link.  I told them that they can either reply to me or it would be prefered if they posted the answers here.

:P I sent one to them this morning too. Would welcome their insights and assistance. :)Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I received back.

 

Let me know if you have anymore questions for them.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello evryone.

Thank your guys for your interest in our software.

I'm Dr.Dong, CTO of IObit. Nice to see your comments here and I present my opinion for your questions below. Of course, you can help me posting the letter. Thank you.

1) Pagefile setting problem.

Note that the common myth about the pagefile being .1.5 x RAM. or some other multiple is quite clearly counterintuitive. Consider the situation where you only have 128MB of RAM: setting the maximum pagefile size to 1.5 x 128MB = 192MB + 128MB = 320MB of total available memory for Windows XP which is obviously not going to give you enough memory for modern games and applications. Remember, it is about how much total memory (RAM + Pagefile) that should be made available for Windows to operate efficiently.

2) Tweaking details.

In fact, AWC V1.x and IHS 2005 are just prototype used to propose some of our ideas on tweaking Windows. The lack of tweaking details and customized settings is the biggest bug of this software. We are busy on AWC V2 that will be a real one providing good functions and features for tweakers or geekers, not like the V1 that is just for complete dummies. Sorry, guys.

Some of the tweaking details are as below

 

\The following is a list of XP tweaks that either do not work, do not work as advertised, or that are better left alone. Many of these once worked in some version of Windows and virtually every other tweak guide and program uses these tweaks.

 

Over time and through exhaustive research we have come up with the conclusions below. We will give you what is false and what is a right way.

 

 

Memory Optimizers

 

They claim "Increasing the amount of available RAM improves performance". However, the only thing that these programs can do is harm real system 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. 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.

 

 

 

 

 

Prefetch Parameters

 

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. You may want to disable this component for troubleshooting scenarios or in lab environments. The following list describes the different possible values for the Enable Prefetcher key.

 

0 = Disabled

 

1 = Application launch prefetching enabled

 

2 = Boot prefetching enabled

 

3 = Applaunch & Boot enabled

 

By default the Prefetcher is set to a Value of 3 in Windows XP. Values such as 4, 5, 6 etc. do not exist and are thus useless. The default value is already optimal for maximum performance.

 

 

 

L2 Cache Tweak

 

Many tweaks claim "Adjusting the SecondLevelDataCache Registry value to match your CPU's L2 Cache size will improve performance".

 

Actually Windows will use the HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) for retrieval of the L2 cache size automatically on boot up. The HAL is able to retrieve the L2 cache size from any CPU using the set-associative cache design (Pentium II or newer).

 

 

Always Unload Dll's

 

The first and most important point is, no evidence shows that this setting works in Windows 2000/XP. In fact, the official Microsoft technical documentation clearly and unequivocally states. For operating systems prior to Windows 2000, you can shorten the inactive period by adding the following information to the registry.

 

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\ Software\ Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\ Explorer\AlwaysUnloadDll]

 

Windows 2000/XP uses a complex and efficient process to manage memory operations. It keeps the DLL loaded in case you need it again. If this tweak actually did work, you have hurt your overall performance because you unloaded a DLL when it didn't need to be and caused the system to have to load it again when called upon.

 

 

Set Irq Priority

 

This "tweak" can be found in most XP all-in-one tweaking applications. This is a perfect example of why they are not recommended. Adjusting the Priority of IRQs especially IRQ 8 will improve system performance" -

 

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\PriorityControl]

 

"IRQ8Priority"=dword:00000001

 

However, IRQs don't even HAVE a concept of "priority" in the NT family. The NT family of OSes doesn't even use the real-time clock (IRQ 8) for time keeping in the first place!

 

 

 

Large System Cache

 

Most tweaking applications think Enable Large System cache will increase I/O speed of the file system -

 

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

 

"LargeSystemCache"=dword:000000001

 

This setting is also achieved by going to Start > Settings > Control Panel > System > Advanced > Performance Settings > Advanced > Memory usage = System Cache.

 

Under XP this tweak could be of some value under various odd circumstances. However, it causes problems with many drivers/hardware/applications. This tweak is really designed for machines running as a server. If you use this tweak and have problems don't be whining at the driver/application writers for writing code that takes advantage of the way XP uses memory. They didn't ask you to turn your machine into a server.

 

 

I/O PageLockLimit

 

The tweak below are always considered as an effective way to boost your harddisk buffer.

 

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

 

"IOPageLockLimit"=dword: somevalue

 

Indeed, it does absolutely nothing in Windows 2000 Service Pack 1 and up, and absolutely nothing in Windows XP.

 

 

 

FIFO Buffer

 

This is a new myth about tweaking Windows. It says that Increase the FIFO buffer can greatly boost your Windows system

 

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Serial]

 

"RxFIFO" = dword: &H10

 

It is real a fake, since the registry key "Serial" claims that it is only related with "Serial port". How can "Serial port" work on the whole performance of Windows?

 

 

3) Other issues.

We plan to make AWC be a real freeware, not like the current one intending to advertise our shareware Intelli HyperSpeed 2005. In the next version coming soon, the whole codes will be rewritten and a novel registry cleaning will be added. Most of all, tweaking details and customized settings will be provided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

) Pagefile setting problem.

Note that the common myth about the pagefile being .1.5 x RAM. or some other multiple is quite clearly counterintuitive. Consider the situation where you only have 128MB of RAM: setting the maximum pagefile size to 1.5 x 128MB = 192MB + 128MB = 320MB of total available memory for Windows XP which is obviously not going to give you enough memory for modern games and applications. Remember, it is about how much total memory (RAM + Pagefile) that should be made available for Windows to operate efficiently.

 

Should we just let wndows take careof it/or set it to the max as suggested inVitual memory settings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only 1 thing I don't like about this program is...

 

It re-arranged all the icons on your desktop, when you run the program. Very annoying, but other than that I have seen a slight change in performance.

 

:tup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...