Any good (freeware) Tuneup Utilities

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by wildman, Sep 20, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wildman

    wildman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Posts:
    2,179
    Location:
    Home on the range.
    o_O Anyone know of any good (freeware) Tuneup utilities?

    Thanks
    Wildman
    o_O :eek: :D
     
  2. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    Not really a tune up util but faber toys can be very useful gives useful info on whats running on your system
     
  3. iceni60

    iceni60 ( ^o^)

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    5,116
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2004
  4. iceni60

    iceni60 ( ^o^)

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    5,116
  5. iceni60

    iceni60 ( ^o^)

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    5,116
  6. iceni60

    iceni60 ( ^o^)

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    5,116
  7. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,747
    Location:
    Texas
    Best tweak for XP is to add more ram. Xp doesn't depend on "resources" as did Win98 and before.
     
  8. iceni60

    iceni60 ( ^o^)

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    5,116
    i couldnt agree more, its for that reason that ive been downloading and taking more risks then normal. in a week or two im getting more ram, imaging software etc.

    so because im going to do a reinstall, im downloading and playing around like there's no tomorrow :D still havent got any malware though,

    just shows that useing the right security software and tightening your settings is important. maybe more so then the old *common sense* veiw :eek: , well maybe not, instead of going to the sites i normally download from, im going to some of their links too. yea, really letting my hair down :D
     
  9. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,747
    Location:
    Texas
    Now that you mention it, I was wondering what you were doing. :cool: :D
     
  10. iceni60

    iceni60 ( ^o^)

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    5,116
  11. wildman

    wildman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Posts:
    2,179
    Location:
    Home on the range.
    :oops: Oops, I should have stated I need this for a machine using O/S Windows 98. I did downlaod Faber Toys and TweakAll. Thanks! While we are on the subject, is there any where to obtain a list of windows 98 settings?

    Thanks
    Wildman
    o_O :eek: *puppy*
     
  12. jag1967

    jag1967 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2003
    Posts:
    68
    Hi Ronjor

    could you elaborate what you mean about xp not depending on resources, for newbie me?
    And how much ram should one add, if not playing games, or doing graphics intensive work, no big db progs. Instead using standard apps like word, email, browser, av, firewall, tds, prevx... I have 512k ram on my pc. Always wondered if I would get significant improvements if I upped it. But given what I do on my pc, I doubt it would be worth it??

    thanks
    jag
     
  13. nod32_9

    nod32_9 Guest

    Search google for w98 resources. In short, W9.x has FIXED amount of "heap". Each open application will consume a portion of that heap. WNT does not have this limitation.

    512MB should be more than adequate for what you are doing. Easy test is to right click the taskbar and select task manager. Let Task Manager run in the background while you work. You may want to run your most demanding applications to give the PC a good workout. At the end of the session, check the PEAK COMMIT CHARGE (PCH) in Task Manager. You don't need more RAM than this value.

    My PCH for normal browsing (WXP Pro with Firefox 0.9x) is around 110MB. The system maxed out around 270MB with two additional demanding applications. You can also look under Physical Memory to obtain the available amount of RAM for other applications.
     
  14. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,747
    Location:
    Texas


    I have 512mb ram on my XP machine and it does fine. In fact, I trimmed it from 768 mb. Xp seems to like 512.

    Using Win98 before, resources were a big issue. Although resources didn't mean strictly memory, if resources got too low, your computer would crash taking anything you had been doing with it.

    May I refer you to a couple of links? They explain it much better than I ever could.

    http://www.aumha.org/win4/a/resource.php

    http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1148808,00.asp
     
  15. Meltdown

    Meltdown Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Posts:
    299
    Location:
    Babylon
    Ronjor - any idea why this is so? I'm planning to boost my ram (currently 256 mb) at some point...
     
  16. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,747
    Location:
    Texas
    I have no idea why it seems to run better with 512mb. It feels faster to me.

    Maybe I've been doing this computer stuff too long! :D

    Ram
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2004
  17. GlobalForce

    GlobalForce Regular Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Posts:
    3,581
    Location:
    Garden State, USA
  18. Meltdown

    Meltdown Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Posts:
    299
    Location:
    Babylon
    Thanks both. One of the links you listed led me to this report: http://www.bapco.com/techdocs/SYSmark2004WhitePaper.pdf

    Haven't had time to read it all through, but there's an interesting table on page 17, showing only marginal improvements in XP's performance once you go beyond 512 MB.

    I'd better go now, I've kinda hijacked this thread...
     
  19. GlobalForce

    GlobalForce Regular Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Posts:
    3,581
    Location:
    Garden State, USA
    The word may be "smoother", especially if the kernal's in RAM.
    And just maybe, too long :D

    GF
     
  20. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,747
    Location:
    Texas
    A possibility. I also burn incense at times. Seems to help. :D
     
  21. GlobalForce

    GlobalForce Regular Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Posts:
    3,581
    Location:
    Garden State, USA
  22. Tassie_Devils

    Tassie_Devils Global Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Posts:
    2,514
    Location:
    State Queensland, Australia
    No probs.... it's still on 'performance/tweaking' IMO.

    That is correct with 512Mb RAM being a good optimum, but it still depends on your kind of use.

    There really is no point of extending beyond 512 unless you are going to do a lot of multi-tasking. [ie: Lot of resource hungry programs open at once]

    I am not talking about AV's/AT's and normal running programs behind the scenes where they use a certain amount and only fluctuate a bit, I am talking about programs that need 'room to move'.

    Those mainly are image programs. Photoshop, 3D Image proggies like THIS LOT which like lots of room to work in.

    Even though I have 1G RAM myself, I sometimes have 3/4 image programs open at once, as I am copying pasting/exporting/importing one to the other.
    Photoshop, RealDraw PRO, ImageReady, InDesign, etc.

    I have been working on a large file in Photshop in the past [above 40-50Mb] and suddenly get a warning about lack of memory, this is with 1G RAM, so had to go to Preferences in PS and in there is a section about allocating Cache and Memory which was set to 50% I had to increase that to 70%. That means when I am using PS now, 70% of my RAM is allocated purely to Photoshop, rest is shared. No probs since.

    That's from my point of view in imaging, that is. :)

    Back to Tweaks for Wildman. :)

    Wildman, Ice's link to XSetup is probably the best there is IMO.
    The amount of tweaking in there will leave you gobsmacked mate. :)

    But take heed, be careful, if you see any little RED 'gears' as in my screenie, be careful changing those from the program, I got badly burnt once, LOL.

    It used to be called Xteq Systems Set-up but changed.
    This screenie is of the old Xteq ok.

    LINK AGAIN LIKE ICENI60'S

    Cheers, TAS

    edit: Some blurb from MajorGeeks: :)
     

    Attached Files:

    • 125.GIF
      125.GIF
      File size:
      39.3 KB
      Views:
      264
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2004
  23. GlobalForce

    GlobalForce Regular Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Posts:
    3,581
    Location:
    Garden State, USA
    I'm sure with the couple of image progs your using all open, you'd still get away with almost no slowdown at 512Mb, just a tweak on allowance. The 1G smoothes it out though, keep those hick-up's at bay!

    That "THIS LOT" link, now these sort of progs are "real busy". Like you said, freedom to move...

    Though I have'nt used XSetup, I have read plenty of articles pushing this program at the top of the "tweaks" heap.

    Top Tune-Up, I'm with Ronjor on this one. Memory.
    And like you said Tas, it depends on what you're trying to run...


    GF
     
  24. nod32_9

    nod32_9 Guest

    It costs a VERY small amount of CPU clock time to manage RAM in W2K/WXP. Theoretically, you could reduce system performance by having TOO MUCH unused RAM. Your system may also run a RAM check during PC boot. This can result in longer boot time. 512MB is the sweet spot for most users. Gamers and vided editors may benefit with 1GB.
     
  25. wildman

    wildman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Posts:
    2,179
    Location:
    Home on the range.
    :eek: I've tweaked about as much as I want to tweak. Used TweakAll. Thanks all for the info.

    Personal for Tassie: I lived in the land of Oz as a child for 3 and a half years. My father worked on the T-2 project, I went to boarding school in Camberra. This was in the late 50's. Although I am a YANK, I still have a special spot for the Aussies. Would love to drop a line for trout once more.

    Thanks
    Wildman
    *puppy* :cool:
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.