Because people realized that when they disabled SF years ago in Vista, there was more memory available. They didn't realize what the memory was actually being used for. The testing procedures have gotten smarter since then. The caching is immensely useful in the current architecture. Most guides have been updated to advise against disabling it.Originally Posted by TwoCables;12999426
Why should Superfetch be left alone?
Well yeah, I wouldn't disable it if I didn't have a solid state drive. I mean, solid state drives are fast enough that having Superfetch enabled is redundant; it doesn't make enough of a difference to matter. You have a solid state drive, so try it for yourself: disable it, reboot, and then go about your usual routine and see if there's a noticeable difference.Originally Posted by Plex;12999490
Because people realized that when they disabled SF years ago in Vista, there was more memory available. They didn't realize what the memory was actually being used for. The testing procedures have gotten smarter since then. The caching is immensely useful in the current architecture. Most guides have been updated to advise against disabling it.
Here are a couple articles that I just swiped real quick:
http://www.windows7hacker.com/index.php/2009/12/why-you-should-not-disable-superfetch-in-windows-7/
http://blog.tune-up.com/myth-buster/myth-busted-why-disabling-superfetch-on-vista-and-windows-7-is-a-bad-idea/
I did.Originally Posted by TwoCables;12999712
Well yeah, I wouldn't disable it if I didn't have a solid state drive. I mean, solid state drives are fast enough that having Superfetch enabled is redundant; it doesn't make enough of a difference to matter. You have a solid state drive, so try it for yourself: disable it, reboot, and then go about your usual routine and see if there's a noticeable difference.![]()
Let me know how it goesOriginally Posted by TwoCables;12999952
K. Then I'll do the same I guess.
That's just the point though. Memory is volatile, meaning everything is dropped when it loses power. The trade-off is the speed.Originally Posted by TwoCables;12999985
After all, memory isn't permanent storage.
Originally Posted by Plex ![]() That's just the point though. Memory is volatile, meaning everything is dropped when it loses power. The trade-off is the speed. |
Originally Posted by TwoCables ![]() Yeah, it sounds like there's a risk of corruption or some other serious data issues if I suddenly lose power or something. |
Give it some time to learn what programs you use the most and cache up. A day or two I'd wager.Originally Posted by TwoCables;13000274
I know. I'm not doubting you, nor am I doubting either of those 2 articles (even though one was written 1 year ago, and the other was written 2 years ago). However, every single SSD tweaking article I have ever read explains how there's virtually no performance difference with it enabled or disabled. Plus, it performs a ton of writes every single day. Therefore, they recommend disabling it since it's obviously completely unnecessary and obsolete if you have a decent solid state drive.
Although, I'm still going to leave it enabled just because I am always looking for the best possible performance (like I said, I enabled it about 10 minutes ago). Unfortunately, I don't notice a difference yet, so I do have to wait.
I know. That's why I said time will tell. Based on what the 1 year-old article said (this one), I expect to know whether or not it's worth it after about 3 days because it should take about 2 days to learn my entire routine.Originally Posted by Plex;13000316
Give it some time to learn what programs you use the most and cache up. A day or two I'd wager.