Forums | MacLife

Sputnickey wrote:

Its been a while since I've frequented these forums so I'm not 100% sure this is the right place to ask but...

Whats the word on these windows optimzers?  Are they legit?  The claims are that they basically eliminate all the crap in your system and streamline your pc, greatly accelerating performance.  Anything that good immediately sounds sketchy to me.  Does anyone know if these things work and if so where to find a good one?

Thanks in advance ( and feel free to nuke/move/whatever if this was the wrong place for the thread )

Good place for the thread.

I just ignore all the Windows optimizers ads. It's not really possible to tune an OS to run significantly faster than when it's first installed, so I figure it's BS, either by installing a malware package, or costing $$$ for doing very little.

If there is a genuine problem with slowdown, you may be infected with malware, and HijackThis! is a great app for tracking that kind of stuff down.

Tune-up came very highly recommended from some pc users I trust so I figured I'd take the trial version for a spin.  I figure the worst that could happen is have my computer completely explode and then I'd finally have an excuse for getting a new one

"Windows Optimizer 2008" deletes system32, lol.

I've been happily using CCleaner for some time. Not overly aggressive, highly tunable. Worth a try, but don't expect miracles.

Booksley wrote:

Gurlugon wrote:

"Windows Optimizer 2008" deletes system32, lol.

I'm currently beta-testing Windows Optimizer 2009 myself

Do you get fri- er, DX10.1 with that?

A few good utils are free.

I'd say that was a highly conditional case, and mostly true for an old hand like yourself. The way XP tends to bloat over time and handle tasks like CD burning (mirroring to an internal Windows temp folder), and the way the Internet temp file can fill with relatively little activity, and some functions will shut themselves down when disc space drops low... I'd hate to see the average person do anything more than email over time on a machine with only a 4GB HDD. If you simply copy one CD to another with two optical drives, a ~700MB burn will want ~1.2GB free drive space. Drop below 200MB free on the C partition and certain things (System Restores?) stop working. Grannie's emails, never deleted over time, might eventually eat a GB, easy. Everything wants to install to C/Program Files, and nowadays things like games keep data in C. (I have ca. 450MB of saved games for Halo alone, and newer games just keep getting bigger). And even your example is a recent install where bloat over time doesn't apply.

You know enough to use other progs for such duties, but Winders beginners like many using Boot Camp won't. In general, for any but lean-machine experts, I'd recommend 'go big or go home.'

Bat wrote:

I'd say that was a highly conditional case, and mostly true for an old hand like yourself. The way XP tends to bloat over time and handle tasks like CD burning (mirroring to an internal Windows temp folder), and the way the Internet temp file can fill with relatively little activity, and some functions will shut themselves down when disc space drops low... I'd hate to see the average person do anything more than email over time on a machine with only a 4GB HDD. If you simply copy one CD to another with two optical drives, a ~700MB burn will want ~1.2GB free drive space. Drop below 200MB free on the C partition and certain things (System Restores?) stop working. Grannie's emails, never deleted over time, might eventually eat a GB, easy. Everything wants to install to C/Program Files, and nowadays things like games keep data in C. (I have ca. 450MB of saved games for Halo alone, and newer games just keep getting bigger). And even your example is a recent install where bloat over time doesn't apply.

You know enough to use other progs for such duties, but Winders beginners like many using Boot Camp won't. In general, for any but lean-machine experts, I'd recommend 'go big or go home.'

I should have said I was referring to services and other items running in the background, not really about hard drive space. I use CCleaner in my workstations and my EeePC to keep the hard drive from filling up with use.

And for those who do "go big", I still say attempts at tweaking background tasks has diminished returns. Keeping the system drive clean of temp files is probably the single best maintenance task.

Last edited by Ribtorus (2008-03-05 2:53 pm)

Yeah, lean is good, but sometimes overrated with decent system resources, tho NC37 will allus complain how many Catalyst CC eats.

LLEVIATHANN wrote:

Bat wrote:

(I have ca. 450MB of saved games for Halo alone, and newer games just keep getting bigger).

Pffft. Light weight. My current UT2004 is over 12Gb with a lil help from my friends RO, CUT, Jailbreak and all those other mods.

12GB in saved games, or install size?.. anyway the Unreal engine in every iteration had huge savegames. The original Unreal broke all records by having typical saves ~8MB each (no wonder there were only 8 slots, HDD sizes what they were in '98), and somewhere I have an archive of Deus Ex saves of around 730MB... from Y2000.

And lets not forget SiN, which IIRC before Patch 1 saved the entire game- around 800-900MB. You didn't save often in that game.

Anyway, I cited Halo because it saves to C/My Documents/My Games, so it eats space from Windows autodarkmagically- wherever the game itself is installed. Max Payne did that too, and I think all Games For Windows do now by default; a big drawback on a smallish fixed partition or drive. I've no idea what my record Save size is... squirt.

Well, we knew that, but this is about Winders. There are simply circumstances where it's indicated, and not Solaris x86, building a Hackintosh, or using alien computers from... the future.

resedit wrote:

I personally recommend this one - Optimize Your PC

Damnit I already made that joke!