Sign In
Register
Help
This dude's site is now on my favorite bookmarks
QUOTE
XP Myths - Myths Regarding Windows XP
Myth (Definition) - A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology. There are numerous Myths floating around the Internet regarding Windows XP, especially relating to Optimizations and Security. Hopefully this site will debunk some of these.
Legal Notice - Reproduction of this page in whole or in part is strictly forbidden. This guide and ALL versions thereof are protected by copyright under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
^ TOP
Requirement Myths
System Requirements System Requirements
Myth - "Windows XP requires a high end PC to install and run"
Reality - "Windows XP can be installed on surprisingly low system requirements contrary to popular opinion. With the average life cycle of a regular PC being roughly 4-6 years, just about any PC being used today can run Windows XP. The following requirements are Microsoft's "official" minimum system requirements which I have tested to work fine with the exception of only 64 MB of RAM (performance is poor). Increasing your RAM to 128 MB would be the only upgrade I would strongly consider as my absolute minimum Windows XP system requirements." - Source
233 MHz CPU (300 MHz Recommended)
128 MB Recommended (64 MB of RAM minimum supported, may limit performance and some features)
1.5 GB of available hard disk space
Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor
CD-ROM or DVD drive
Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
^ TOP
Optimization Myths
Prefetcher EnablePrefetcher Tweak
Myth - "Setting any Value higher then 3 to EnablePrefetcher will improve performance."
Reality - "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 EnablePrefetcher key. To disable Prefetch, set the Value to 0." - Source
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 ect... do not exist and are thus useless. The default value is already optimal for maximum performance."
L2 Cache L2 Cache Tweak
Alias - SecondLevelDataCache Tweak
Myth - "Adjusting the SecondLevelDataCache Registry value to match your CPU's L2 Cache size will improve performance."
Reality - "If you do not set this registry value, Windows will use the HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) for retrieval of the L2 cache size automatically on boot up. If this fails, a default value of 256KB is used. This is where the myth that XP can only use 256KB of L2 cache comes from. But it's false. The SecondLevelDataCache is designed as a secondary source of cache size information for computers on which the HAL cannot detect the L2 cache. The HAL is able to retrieve the L2 cache size from any CPU using the set-associative cache design (Pentium II or newer), it's only the relatively few older processors with direct-mapped L2 caches that the HAL will not recognize. This tweak only applies to older computers (Pentium I or older) with over 64 MB of memory. On these older systems, this tweak can improve performance by about 0.4%. Pentium II and later CPUs are not affected." - Source
IOPageLockLimit IO Page Lock Limit Tweak
Myth - "Increasing the Io Page Lock Limit will lock more memory for exclusive access by the kernel, enhancing performance"
Reality - "Indeed, it does do this but only in an RTM Windows 2000 machine. It does absolutely nothing in Windows 2000 Service Pack 1 and up, and absolutely nothing in Windows XP. This makes it effectively useless, since no one in their right minds would be running RTM Windows 2000. The RTM kernel references IoPageLockLimit. The SP1 kernel does not. Neither do any subsequent editions of the kernel; neither does the XP kernel in any of its incarnations." - Source
IRQ 8 Priority IRQ Priority Tweak
Myth - "Adjusting the Priority of IRQs especially IRQ 8 will improve system performance."
Reality - "IRQs don't even HAVE a concept of "priority" in the NT family; they do have something called "IRQL" (interrupt request level) associated with them. But the interval timer interrupt is already assigned a higher IRQL than any I/O devices, second only to the inter-processor interrupt used in an MP machine. The NT family of OSes don't even use the real-time clock (IRQ
for time keeping in the first place! They use programmable interval timer (8254, on IRQ 0) for driving system time keeping, CPU time accounting, and so on. IRQ 8 is used for profiling, but profiling is almost never turned on except in very rare development environments. Even if it was possible it doesn't even make sense why adjusting the real-time clock priority would boost performance? The real-time clock is associated with time keeping not CPU frequency. I would not be surprised if this originated in an overclocking forum somewhere. This "tweak" can be found in most XP all-in-one tweaking applications. This is a perfect example of why they are not recommended." - Source
LargeSystemCache LargeSystemCache Tweak
Myth - "Enabling this improves disk caching performance."
Reality - "LargeSystemCache determines whether the system maintains a standard size or a large size file system cache, and influences how often the system writes changed pages to disk. Increasing the size of the file system cache generally improves server performance, but it reduces the physical memory space available to applications and services. Similarly, writing system data less frequently minimizes use of the disk subsystem, but the changed pages occupy memory that might otherwise be used by applications. On workstations this increases paging and causes longer delays whenever you start a new app. Simply put enable this on a server and disable it on everything else." - Source
Defrag NTFS is Fragmentation Free
Myth - "The NTFS File system does not get fragmented and Defragmenters are unnecessary."
Reality - "Even though NTFS is more resistant to fragmentation than FAT, it can and does still fragment. The reason NTFS is less prone to fragmentation is that it makes intelligent choices about where to store file data on the disk. NTFS reserves space for the expansion of the Master File Table, reducing fragmentation of its structures. In contrast to FAT's first-come, first-served method, NTFS's method of writing files minimizes, but does not eliminate, the problem of file fragmentation on NTFS volumes." - Source
RAM RAM Optimizers/Defragmenters
Myth - "Increasing the amount of available RAM improves performance."
Reality - "RAM Optimizers have no effect, and at worst, they seriously degrade 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. Say that you're running Word, for example. As the optimizer forces the available-memory counter up, the text of open documents and the program code that was part of Word's working set before the optimization (and was therefore present in physical memory) must be reread from disk as you continue to edit your document. The act of allocating, then freeing a large amount of virtual memory might, as a conceivable side effect, lead to blocks of contiguous available 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." - Source
^ TOP
Security Myths
Vmyths Virus Hoaxes
Myth - "All Email Virus warnings are real."
Reality - "With the increase in the growth of viruses and Trojan programs, many computer users have turned to the Internet as a fast and easy tool to warn friends and co-workers of these threats. At the same time, there has also been a growth of virus hoax warnings. These warnings often describe fantastical or impossible virus or Trojan program characteristics, but appear to be real and forwarding these hoax warnings to friends and co-workers only perpetuates the problem. If you receive an Email that you suspect is a hoax, do not forward it to anyone and never open the attachments. Check in the Vmyths Hoax Database to confirm it is a hoax and delete the Email. If the Email originated from someone you know, send them an Email explaining the hoax." - Source
Hosts File Hosts File
Myth - "Special AntiSpyware Hosts Files help prevent Spyware infections."
Reality - "Hosts Files are False Security. Any Malware/Spyware can easily modify the Hosts File at will, even if it is set to Read-only. Frequently Malware/Spyware uses the Hosts File to redirect you Web Browser to other sites. CoolWebSearch hijackers are masters at altering Read-only ("locked down") Hosts files. They can also redirect Windows to use a Hosts File that has nothing to do with the one you keep updating. The Hosts file is an archaic part of networking setups that was originally meant to be used on a LAN. It tells a PC the fixed numeric address of the internal server(s) so the PC doesn't have to go looking for them through all possible addresses. It can save time when "discovering" a LAN. Special AntiSpyware Hosts Files attempt to associate a known safe, numeric address with the names of sites you want to block. When the user or any process on the PC then tries to access a blocked site, it is instead directed to the safe location. This works as long as the site's numeric IP address never changes. But IP addresses do change and they're supposed to be able to. The Web operates via "dynamic" naming, where a human friendly name (www.google.com) is actually an alias for the real address, which is numeric. The numeric address can and will change from time to time as a site or server is moved or reconfigured. People with out-of-date addresses hardwired into their Hosts File will no longer be able to connect to any site whose numeric address has changed. The Hosts entry will permanently point them to a dead location! It's almost impossible to update a Hosts file frequently enough to guard against all threats and even if you did, you'd probably also run into problems in accidentally blocking good sites that happened to move to new numeric addresses. Large Hosts Files also cause Internet related slowdowns due to DNS Client Server Caching and disabling DNS Client Server Caching is not a solution. KB318803 "The overall performance of the client computer decreases and the network traffic for DNS queries increases if the DNS resolver cache is deactivated." When cleaning Malware/Spyware from a PC, it is much easier to check a clean Hosts File then one filled with thousands of lines of addresses. Considering how easily a Hosts File can be exploited, redirected and potentially block good sites, it is strongly recommended NOT to waste time using Special Hosts Files." - Source
Myth (Definition) - A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology. There are numerous Myths floating around the Internet regarding Windows XP, especially relating to Optimizations and Security. Hopefully this site will debunk some of these.
Legal Notice - Reproduction of this page in whole or in part is strictly forbidden. This guide and ALL versions thereof are protected by copyright under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
^ TOP
Requirement Myths
System Requirements System Requirements
Myth - "Windows XP requires a high end PC to install and run"
Reality - "Windows XP can be installed on surprisingly low system requirements contrary to popular opinion. With the average life cycle of a regular PC being roughly 4-6 years, just about any PC being used today can run Windows XP. The following requirements are Microsoft's "official" minimum system requirements which I have tested to work fine with the exception of only 64 MB of RAM (performance is poor). Increasing your RAM to 128 MB would be the only upgrade I would strongly consider as my absolute minimum Windows XP system requirements." - Source
233 MHz CPU (300 MHz Recommended)
128 MB Recommended (64 MB of RAM minimum supported, may limit performance and some features)
1.5 GB of available hard disk space
Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor
CD-ROM or DVD drive
Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
^ TOP
Optimization Myths
Prefetcher EnablePrefetcher Tweak
Myth - "Setting any Value higher then 3 to EnablePrefetcher will improve performance."
Reality - "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 EnablePrefetcher key. To disable Prefetch, set the Value to 0." - Source
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 ect... do not exist and are thus useless. The default value is already optimal for maximum performance."
L2 Cache L2 Cache Tweak
Alias - SecondLevelDataCache Tweak
Myth - "Adjusting the SecondLevelDataCache Registry value to match your CPU's L2 Cache size will improve performance."
Reality - "If you do not set this registry value, Windows will use the HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) for retrieval of the L2 cache size automatically on boot up. If this fails, a default value of 256KB is used. This is where the myth that XP can only use 256KB of L2 cache comes from. But it's false. The SecondLevelDataCache is designed as a secondary source of cache size information for computers on which the HAL cannot detect the L2 cache. The HAL is able to retrieve the L2 cache size from any CPU using the set-associative cache design (Pentium II or newer), it's only the relatively few older processors with direct-mapped L2 caches that the HAL will not recognize. This tweak only applies to older computers (Pentium I or older) with over 64 MB of memory. On these older systems, this tweak can improve performance by about 0.4%. Pentium II and later CPUs are not affected." - Source
IOPageLockLimit IO Page Lock Limit Tweak
Myth - "Increasing the Io Page Lock Limit will lock more memory for exclusive access by the kernel, enhancing performance"
Reality - "Indeed, it does do this but only in an RTM Windows 2000 machine. It does absolutely nothing in Windows 2000 Service Pack 1 and up, and absolutely nothing in Windows XP. This makes it effectively useless, since no one in their right minds would be running RTM Windows 2000. The RTM kernel references IoPageLockLimit. The SP1 kernel does not. Neither do any subsequent editions of the kernel; neither does the XP kernel in any of its incarnations." - Source
IRQ 8 Priority IRQ Priority Tweak
Myth - "Adjusting the Priority of IRQs especially IRQ 8 will improve system performance."
Reality - "IRQs don't even HAVE a concept of "priority" in the NT family; they do have something called "IRQL" (interrupt request level) associated with them. But the interval timer interrupt is already assigned a higher IRQL than any I/O devices, second only to the inter-processor interrupt used in an MP machine. The NT family of OSes don't even use the real-time clock (IRQ
for time keeping in the first place! They use programmable interval timer (8254, on IRQ 0) for driving system time keeping, CPU time accounting, and so on. IRQ 8 is used for profiling, but profiling is almost never turned on except in very rare development environments. Even if it was possible it doesn't even make sense why adjusting the real-time clock priority would boost performance? The real-time clock is associated with time keeping not CPU frequency. I would not be surprised if this originated in an overclocking forum somewhere. This "tweak" can be found in most XP all-in-one tweaking applications. This is a perfect example of why they are not recommended." - SourceLargeSystemCache LargeSystemCache Tweak
Myth - "Enabling this improves disk caching performance."
Reality - "LargeSystemCache determines whether the system maintains a standard size or a large size file system cache, and influences how often the system writes changed pages to disk. Increasing the size of the file system cache generally improves server performance, but it reduces the physical memory space available to applications and services. Similarly, writing system data less frequently minimizes use of the disk subsystem, but the changed pages occupy memory that might otherwise be used by applications. On workstations this increases paging and causes longer delays whenever you start a new app. Simply put enable this on a server and disable it on everything else." - Source
Defrag NTFS is Fragmentation Free
Myth - "The NTFS File system does not get fragmented and Defragmenters are unnecessary."
Reality - "Even though NTFS is more resistant to fragmentation than FAT, it can and does still fragment. The reason NTFS is less prone to fragmentation is that it makes intelligent choices about where to store file data on the disk. NTFS reserves space for the expansion of the Master File Table, reducing fragmentation of its structures. In contrast to FAT's first-come, first-served method, NTFS's method of writing files minimizes, but does not eliminate, the problem of file fragmentation on NTFS volumes." - Source
RAM RAM Optimizers/Defragmenters
Myth - "Increasing the amount of available RAM improves performance."
Reality - "RAM Optimizers have no effect, and at worst, they seriously degrade 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. Say that you're running Word, for example. As the optimizer forces the available-memory counter up, the text of open documents and the program code that was part of Word's working set before the optimization (and was therefore present in physical memory) must be reread from disk as you continue to edit your document. The act of allocating, then freeing a large amount of virtual memory might, as a conceivable side effect, lead to blocks of contiguous available 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." - Source
^ TOP
Security Myths
Vmyths Virus Hoaxes
Myth - "All Email Virus warnings are real."
Reality - "With the increase in the growth of viruses and Trojan programs, many computer users have turned to the Internet as a fast and easy tool to warn friends and co-workers of these threats. At the same time, there has also been a growth of virus hoax warnings. These warnings often describe fantastical or impossible virus or Trojan program characteristics, but appear to be real and forwarding these hoax warnings to friends and co-workers only perpetuates the problem. If you receive an Email that you suspect is a hoax, do not forward it to anyone and never open the attachments. Check in the Vmyths Hoax Database to confirm it is a hoax and delete the Email. If the Email originated from someone you know, send them an Email explaining the hoax." - Source
Hosts File Hosts File
Myth - "Special AntiSpyware Hosts Files help prevent Spyware infections."
Reality - "Hosts Files are False Security. Any Malware/Spyware can easily modify the Hosts File at will, even if it is set to Read-only. Frequently Malware/Spyware uses the Hosts File to redirect you Web Browser to other sites. CoolWebSearch hijackers are masters at altering Read-only ("locked down") Hosts files. They can also redirect Windows to use a Hosts File that has nothing to do with the one you keep updating. The Hosts file is an archaic part of networking setups that was originally meant to be used on a LAN. It tells a PC the fixed numeric address of the internal server(s) so the PC doesn't have to go looking for them through all possible addresses. It can save time when "discovering" a LAN. Special AntiSpyware Hosts Files attempt to associate a known safe, numeric address with the names of sites you want to block. When the user or any process on the PC then tries to access a blocked site, it is instead directed to the safe location. This works as long as the site's numeric IP address never changes. But IP addresses do change and they're supposed to be able to. The Web operates via "dynamic" naming, where a human friendly name (www.google.com) is actually an alias for the real address, which is numeric. The numeric address can and will change from time to time as a site or server is moved or reconfigured. People with out-of-date addresses hardwired into their Hosts File will no longer be able to connect to any site whose numeric address has changed. The Hosts entry will permanently point them to a dead location! It's almost impossible to update a Hosts file frequently enough to guard against all threats and even if you did, you'd probably also run into problems in accidentally blocking good sites that happened to move to new numeric addresses. Large Hosts Files also cause Internet related slowdowns due to DNS Client Server Caching and disabling DNS Client Server Caching is not a solution. KB318803 "The overall performance of the client computer decreases and the network traffic for DNS queries increases if the DNS resolver cache is deactivated." When cleaning Malware/Spyware from a PC, it is much easier to check a clean Hosts File then one filled with thousands of lines of addresses. Considering how easily a Hosts File can be exploited, redirected and potentially block good sites, it is strongly recommended NOT to waste time using Special Hosts Files." - Source
This post has been edited by Mandark: 22 June 2005 - 08:50 AM
Top
MultiQuote