Oh it seems quicker with it off... that would be because I am allowed to use my hard drive again.
It seems to me that you're the one being fooled, because your base hatred of Vista is so great that you can't accept that it might be better in some ways than XP.I've said this loads of times but some people are fooled by smoke and mirrors / snake oil I guess.
masterluke said:FYI - OS X had prebinding before Vista had SuperFetch and Linux has had "preload" since 2005 - all do pretty much the same thing - MS behind the curve as normal.
Windows has had prefetch since XP (2001). Superfetch is just more advanced.FYI - OS X had prebinding before Vista had SuperFetch and Linux has had "preload" since 2005 - all do pretty much the same thing - MS behind the curve as normal.
Windows 7 rocks, the taskbar layout the new control panel layout. I love media player 12, the now playing features and the dual monitor support is good.
Please tell me how dual screen support has improved in Windows 7! I was hoping someone would answer my question about whether the taskbar can span both screens too?
It can't, and apparently it won't and isn't particularly high up any priority list - most users don't use multiple monitors.Please tell me how dual screen support has improved in Windows 7! I was hoping someone would answer my question about whether the taskbar can span both screens too?
It can't, and apparently it won't and isn't particularly high up any priority list - most users don't use multiple monitors.
It seems to me that you're the one being fooled, because your base hatred of Vista is so great that you can't accept that it might be better in some ways than XP.
As has been explained over and over again on these forums, Superfetch runs at a low I/O priority, meaning that if you want to use your hard drive for something else whilst it's running, Superfetch will give way.
Whether you turn your computer off at night or not, SuperFetch IS useful.
First scenario: I get up in the morning and turn my computer on. By the time I've brushed my teeth or checked my email, Superfetch has preloaded all my favourite programs so my computer feels like it's been on for days.
Second scenario: I play a game which uses all of my RAM, closing all my other applications. What happens when I quit the game? In XP, that free memory just sits there. If I open a program, even if it's five hours later, I'll have to wait ages whilst XP grinds the hard drive. Under Vista, my commonly-used apps will have loaded back up within minutes, so there'll be no trace that I played the game at all.
I can't see how you can spin this feature as a disadvantage! It's simple: empty memory is wasted memory. It's doing nothing apart from running up your leccy bill.
From a cold start, without ReadyBoost, it cannot load apps any quicker than XP does. That is what I said. You can't argue with that.
From a cold start, without ReadyBoost, it cannot load initial apps any quicker than XP does. That is what I said. You can't argue with that.
From a cold start, without ReadyBoost, it cannot load apps any quicker than XP does. That is what I said. You can't argue with that.
You obviously don't like Vista, but even so, I'm not sure why you're wasting time criticising an area of Vista which is quite clearly superior to XP, when there are much more valid criticisms of Vista!
Typically most people will not log on to their computer instantaneously either. They'll be making a cuppa or something. So in those crucial few minutes Superfetch has already pre-fetched pretty much all the key applications that you're likely to immediately load once logging on.