Robin Hood
Expert Member
Not a prob...2nd world war were worseSounds reasonable. I apologize for the unnecessary harshness of my above posts.
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
Not a prob...2nd world war were worseSounds reasonable. I apologize for the unnecessary harshness of my above posts.
Why doesn't Robin Hood just use a sword. There's a lot more blood then. Blood = Cool
lol...i hear you. Man, its a patch i made about 1+ years ago and havnt updated it yet...Seeing i still use it on some machines i thought id do a nice deed and put it here. If the patch didnt work, all you had to do was a system restore on XP...thats all...In NO WAY could the patch harm your machine. Then this guy start to complain about this and that code, so i thought bugger the rest...hav'nt got time to explain ill just delete it...prob solved...btw i still use the patch without any probs. No prob to make a DECENT patch with major code, but do you think im just going to post it here then?...never...lol
Maby the guy had a point...maby i should have explained all this
Prob is, why didnt he PM me?..To me it looke as if this chappie was trying to humilate me...There's decent ways to this type of approach...Anyhow...wtf![]()
Ag, shame. Your ego IS bruised... Get over your patch. It's good that Havoc posted that here, so we could see and make up our minds as to whether or not we want to download it... To be honest, your "patch" does sound about as trustworthy as those oft advertised "speed up your PC" programs, minus the spyware. Please don't get me wrong, that is just the first impression I get when I see this type of thing. I'm sure it can and does speed up PCs in some cases, but maybe specify what specs it is designed for. Ie: older machines, P3, 256mb RAM etc...
There a some decent tweaks in there, but loads of BS too. Also why did you copy+paste the same tweaks twice?
Not suitable for single core CPUs. Nice for quads, possibly duals. All 32 extra threads need a slice of the CPU.
The bitmask has different effects on Pro and Server editions of XP.
Doesn't apply to XP and would set a completely incorrect L2 amount under NT. (PCs don't have 100kb L2 cache. More like 4mb) Better to let it detect the correct amount of L2 than to override it with an incorrect amount. The last CPU where this made any sense were the Pentium 2s.
Not applicable to XP. No effect.
Unless you have <256mb memory this is completely counterproductive.
Default setting on XP installations anyway.
Anyway, I would advise against random tweaks, especially if one does not know what they actually do.
if you want real performance upgrade your PC.
Deff not unstable...that was the reason for submitting the patch...Im still using itworth installing it yet ? stable ?
If you look carefully...there ARE 2 diff settings. These setting will come in play if NT is used, otherwise...lays dormantThere a some decent tweaks in there, but loads of BS too. Also why did you copy+paste the same tweaks twice?[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Control\Se ssion Manager\Executive]
"AdditionalCriticalWorkerThreads"=dword:000000 10
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Control\Se ssion Manager\Executive]
"AdditionalDelayedWorkerThreads"=dword:0000001 0
Not sure about the Server Edition, but 100% for WinXP..Did this because 90+% of users doesnt use ServerThe bitmask has different effects on Pro and Server editions of XP.
100Hex = 256 Dec, he thought it meant 100KB...it means 256kb ( which will still work on most machines but not needed anymore...cant harm the computer, but DID remove it as the guy had a pointDoesn't apply to XP and would set a completely incorrect L2 amount under NT. (PCs don't have 100kb L2 cache. More like 4mb) Better to let it detect the correct amount of L2 than to override it with an incorrect amount. The last CPU where this made any sense were the Pentium 2s.
![]()
This setting ALSO is 100% correct[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Control\Se ssion Manager\Memory Management]
"DisablePagingExecutive"=dword:00000001
Quote:
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Control\Se ssion Manager\Memory Management\PrefetchParameters]
"EnablePrefetcher"=dword:00000003
Quote:
"ClearPageFileAtShutdown"=dword:00000000
Quote:
"PowerDownAfterShutdown"="1"
these setting are also correct and there is a REASON why i added it...although it might be defaultDefault setting on XP installations anyway.
Indeed. My concern was that the 32 extra threads your creating all need to get CPU cycles. Meaning 32 threads worth of CPU cycles that the other threads are not getting. Critical indicates, that it gets priority over other the non-realtime threads i.e. almost all other threads. i.e. If the explorer/excel/whatever and these worker threads both want the CPUs "attention" then the worker threads get priority and the Explorer is left hanging until the worker threads have finished.Robin Hood said:If you look carefully...there ARE 2 diff settings.
I might give some of those tweaks in some form or other a shot later.
Indeed. My concern was that the 32 extra threads your creating all need to get CPU cycles. Meaning 32 threads worth of CPU cycles that the other threads are not getting. Critical indicates, that it gets priority over other the non-realtime threads i.e. almost all other threads. i.e. If the explorer/excel/whatever and these worker threads both want the CPUs "attention" then the worker threads get priority and the Explorer is left hanging until the worker threads have finished.
The Delayed part has nothing to do with dormant. It indicates that they run at a less than real-time priority. Their priority is still above all the normal apps.
btw by default there are 5 critical and 7 delayed on WinXP Pro. Robin Hoods tweaks increase it to 21 critical and 23 delayed threads.
Between the Patch and SP3 my laptop is now again able to hibernate... On SP2 just received a error if trying to hibernate.
Thanks![]()
The local download is missing