2 points I would like to make - older machines and article coverage
We are hyped to believe that newer is better (or faster, or cheaper ?).
So much so that when I look back I remember my "old" pc on windows 3.1 running swiftly.
Latest state of the art machine running on memory hogs++ gives me time to take "a cup of coffee" when compiling my 22 projects C# solution - well my old turbo Pascal has found no match these days.
As the article is all about "performance" or was it that too much dust can kill your machine FAST with same speed CPU.
I would add more parameters affecting you r overall performance on recent machines more than ever before.
- disk fragmentation (and compaction) along with file corruption.
- registry corruption with lots of redundant keys (do a cleanup)
- swapfile corruption or fragmented (create a manually defined contiguous file twice your RAM)
- Antivirus - sometime can account for slowness as it checks all your files and often.
- Microsft Update - put it to manual and take control of when to update.
- number of services and autostart software (are they all needed) some can be put on manual when you are not sure.
- Any crawling worms - do a test with safe antivirus - launched manually once a week.
- Did you partition your machine in a reasonable way
example: 1 huge C: drive with everything there - Poor layout.
example: 1 C: drive for system and 1 D: drive for Data and 1 E: drive for your swapfile and temporary files => Better layout
on my system I like to separate fixed binary files that do not change with heavily edited files on seaparte partitions whenever possible.
Well, here are the 9 ways I wish I had read in the article above.
Guido Cangelosi
