Performance-oriented Windows tweaking

[GeneralAres]

Because that would make booting the computer slower.

And you may say, "Ah-hah!", but I don't think booting is a valid test of computing performance. As I've said before, most people here will boot their computer once per day, if that, many leave it on 24/7 so it can download/fold/crunch at night. And like I also said before, if booting is a real test of performance, then you must contend that MacOS X, Linux, *BSD, heck, basically every *NIX variant is crap. Right?

Boot performance is important to alot of users, including myself. So is any performance lost when the unneeded service needs to be paged. Booting is Booting. Windows XP booting faster then another OS is just one of many advantages over other OSes and yes I care how fast my system boots. It appears the performance impact of disabling unneeded services is in other areas you failed to test or even mention.

No, I haven't, and to be frank I don't care. I spend a fraction of a percentile of my time on my computer waiting for anything to load, so what am I going to test - performance in things I do <1% of the time, or that in things I do >99% of the time?

To make a car analogy, this would be like a car reviewer ignoring all performance and capacity data and testing how fast he can put the spare tire on, then basing his opinion of the car on that.

I think before declaring something "debunked" you should be able to prove it. Software performance has absolutely no comparison to a car.

Not to me, or I wouldn't have asked the question, would I? I'm not here for my health.

Simple if all anyone needed was a firewall then everyone who has one would never have any security problems. This is far from the case.

Thank you. I also have this on authority from an MS employee.

Can you provide a Microsoft document to confirm this?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: GeneralAres
Boot performance is important to alot of users, including myself. So is any performance lost when the unneeded service needs to be paged. Booting is Booting. Windows XP booting faster then another OS is just one of many advantages over other OSes and yes I care how fast my system boots. It appears the performance impact of disabling unneeded services is in other areas you failed to test or even mention.

Don't shut down your machine. Problem solved.

 

[GeneralAres]

Don't shut down your machine. Problem solved

You pay my electrical bill and I will not. That still has nothing to do with performance loss due to paging. Either way boot time is a valid argument.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: GeneralAres

Don't shut down your machine. Problem solved

You pay my electrical bill and I will not. That still has nothing to do with performance loss due to paging. Either way boot time is a valid argument.

Boot time is not really valid for anything. Use power friendly hardware, or put the machine to sleep instead of shutting it down.

My Zaurus is ready almost immediately, does that make it a better machine than yours? Ignoring the fact that it is the coolest portable computer ever, it's probably not a better machine.

If you're paging, shouldn't you be buying more ram? I've never noticed paging that affects performance when I wasn't already out of ram.

 

[GeneralAres]

You can't just claim boot time is not important based on your usage habits. I don't want to but my system to sleep, I want to shut it down. As for paging and telling everyone to buy more ram is not practical for people that cannot. You have to stop looking at how you use your computer and your financial situation and start to approach things from someone else's perspective.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: GeneralAres
You can't just claim boot time is not important based on your usage habits. I don't want to but my system to sleep, I want to shut it down.

I want a 3,000 node Xserve G5 system. It's not the best solution for my problem though.

Putting the machine to sleep and not shutting down the machine is a good way to keep boot times down. Is there a technical reason you don't want to do it, or is it just silly habit?

As for paging and telling everyone to buy more ram is not practical for people that cannot. You have to stop looking at how you use your computer and your financial situation and start to approach things from someone else's perspective.

Paging is a direct result from not having enough ram. The correct solution is to buy more RAM:
Problem: Not having enough RAM.
Symptom: Paging.
Solution: Buy more RAM.

Pretty simple.

 

[GeneralAres]

I want a 3,000 node Xserve G5 system. It's not the best solution for my problem though.

Putting the machine to sleep and not shutting down the machine is a good way to keep boot times down. Is there a technical reason you don't want to do it, or is it just silly habit?

I take my PC to different locations and don't want to leave it in sleep mode when I am not home ect...

Paging is a direct result from not having enough ram. The correct solution is to buy more RAM:
Problem: Not having enough RAM.
Symptom: Paging.
Solution: Buy more RAM.

Pretty simple.

You can never technically have enough RAM and Windows will page. Obviously less so with more RAM but it does happen and no one has tested the performance loss due to it, especially when loading a large memory intensive application. While buying more RAM is good advice it is not always practical.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: GeneralAres

I want a 3,000 node Xserve G5 system. It's not the best solution for my problem though.

Putting the machine to sleep and not shutting down the machine is a good way to keep boot times down. Is there a technical reason you don't want to do it, or is it just silly habit?

I take my PC to different locations and on't want to leave it in sleep mode when I am not home ect...

It's "etc." I take my laptop and zaurus all over the place, they sleep nicely.

They also sleep peacefully when I'm not around. Long boot times? Don't know, haven't had to boot.

Paging is a direct result from not having enough ram. The correct solution is to buy more RAM:
Problem: Not having enough RAM.
Symptom: Paging.
Solution: Buy more RAM.

Pretty simple.

You can never technically have enough RAM and Windows will page. Obviously less so with more RAM but it does happen and no one has tested the performance loss due to it, especially when loading a large memory intensive application. While buying more RAM is good advice it is not always practical.

Come up with a good reproducable test for this. It'd be even better if it wasn't totally ridiculous.

 

[Rilex]

Come up with a good reproducable test for this. It'd be even better if it wasn't totally ridiculous.

Windows will always page, but with plenty of RAM, this is so limited it isn't even worth mentioning and not a performance impact. To use "Windows will always page" as an argument for shutting down programs/services when you currently have enough memory is a fallacy.

 

[GeneralAres]

It's "etc." I take my laptop and zaurus all over the place, they sleep nicely.

They also sleep peacefully when I'm not around. Long boot times? Don't know, haven't had to boot.

Are you talking about hibernation mode or sleep mode. Because sleep mode doesn't work real well with a desktop PC not plugged into a power source.

Come up with a good reproducable test for this. It'd be even better if it wasn't totally ridiculous.

Why don't you, otherwise you haven't proven anything.

Windows will always page, but with plenty of RAM, this is so limited it isn't even worth mentioning and not a performance impact. To use "Windows will always page" as an argument for shutting down programs/services when you currently have enough memory is a fallacy.

The point is what is enough memory. When multitasking smaller applications you will not notice it but what happens when you launch a memory intensive application that requires all the available memory. This is a common scenario with the latest games such as Battlefield 2. In this case whatever is in memory has to be paged. Saying it doesn't effect performance in one thing, showing test results is something else.

 

[Nothinman]

Paging is a direct result from not having enough ram. The correct solution is to buy more RAM:

Paging will happen no matter what, it's impossible to avoid. If you're paging to/from the pagefile, that's of course an issue that can only be corrected by lowering your commit charge or buying more memory.

I don't want to but my system to sleep, I want to shut it down

So use hibernation. It'll completely power off the machine and you're state will be saved so that you save even more time than by just plain shutting down since all of your apps will be restored on bootup as well.

This is a common scenario with the latest games such as Battlefield 2. In this case whatever is in memory has to be paged. Saying it doesn't effect performance in one thing, showing test results is something else.

Not really. Most of what's in memory is going to be binaries and shared libraries all of which can be evicted from memory virtually for free because when needed they can be paged back in from the file on disk that they originated from. The only thing that gets paged to the pagefile is process private data and stuff that's been modified and has no other backing on disk. So unless you start bf2 with a large photoshop image open, nearly all of the paging will be the loading of bf2 and it's support files.

 

[Fresh Daemon]

Boot performance is important to alot of users, including myself.

You seem to be alone on this forum, so if that's the way you want to operate, and you have scientifically found that BV's tweaks have taken a significant amount off your boot times, and you are happy sacrificing functionality to that goal, knock yourself out.

It appears the performance impact of disabling unneeded services is in other areas you failed to test or even mention.

Oh, probably. But all the areas I tested are where typical desktop applications would reflect the results, and they all failed to show any difference.

Again, if your needs are not those of the typical desktop/home user or enthusiast this article isn't for you. But what amazes me is the arrogance you display: a person whose needs were not addressed by this article might say, "Nice guide, although it's not for me." But you are saying, "This guide isn't for me because my useage habits are atypical, and you are wrong for not treating my atypical habits as typical."

To coin another car analogy, this is like going into your local mechanics shop and getting angry because they don't service high-priced exotic import cars, claiming that your outlandish tastes in automobiles are somehow typical, and that they are doing a public disservice by not tuning Ferraris and Lamborghinis.

I think before declaring something "debunked" you should be able to prove it.

Done! Read the original post again, please.

Software performance has absolutely no comparison to a car.

"You are wrong because of X, Y and Z" is an argument. "You are wrong" is not. Which is this?

Simple if all anyone needed was a firewall then everyone who has one would never have any security problems. This is far from the case.

But I never said that. I originally said that disabling the firewall was a bad idea security-wise. You have somehow turned this into a claim that a firewall is all anyone needs for security???

Can you provide a Microsoft document to confirm this?

Read the first quote again.

Paging is a direct result from not having enough ram. The correct solution is to buy more RAM:
Problem: Not having enough RAM.
Symptom: Paging.
Solution: Buy more RAM.

Pretty simple.

Yes, or, as I said before, alter your computing habits - pick another OS with a lightweight WM, run less memory-hungry apps and run less apps at the same time. You can't effectively cannibalize system resources from the OS, what it takes, it needs.

 

[GeneralAres]

Paging will happen no matter what, it's impossible to avoid. If you're paging to/from the pagefile, that's of course an issue that can only be corrected by lowering your commit charge or buying more memory.

So why not set all services to automatic by default. Clearly there is more to it then simply boot time performance.

So use hibernation. It'll completely power off the machine and you're state will be saved so that you save even more time than by just plain shutting down since all of your apps will be restored on bootup as well.

I don't want ot use hibernation either. It is not practical for a multiuse machine.

Not really. Most of what's in memory is going to be binaries and shared libraries all of which can be evicted from memory virtually for free because when needed they can be paged back in from the file on disk that they originated from. The only thing that gets paged to the pagefile is process private data and stuff that's been modified and has no other backing on disk. So unless you start bf2 with a large photoshop image open, nearly all of the paging will be the loading of bf2 and it's support files.

So what you are saying is a system with every single service enabled will not see any performance improvement over one with just what is necessary when loading a memory intensive application. Without test results we really do not load.

 

[GeneralAres]

You seem to be alone on this forum, so if that's the way you want to operate, and you have scientifically found that BV's tweaks have taken a significant amount off your boot times, and you are happy sacrificing functionality to that goal, knock yourself out.

It is convient that you attempt to imply or ignore what I said to try and manipulate the conversation. If you read what I posted I clearly said you should never disable necessary services. Boot time performance is enough of a reason to disable unused services.

Oh, probably. But all the areas I tested are where typical desktop applications would reflect the results, and they all failed to show any difference.

Conviently you failed to test or mention any where it would clearly show a performance improvement, such as on boot up.

Again, if your needs are not those of the typical desktop/home user or enthusiast this article isn't for you. But what amazes me is the arrogance you display: a person whose needs were not addressed by this article might say, "Nice guide, although it's not for me." But you are saying, "This guide isn't for me because my useage habits are atypical, and you are wrong for not treating my atypical habits as typical."

It is more like your arrogance with "As Parts I and II show, there's no performance gain to be had from disabling them" No performance gain? Yet you never tested boot time performance or any other load time performance.

To coin another car analogy, this is like going into your local mechanics shop and getting angry because they don't service high-priced exotic import cars, claiming that your outlandish tastes in automobiles are somehow typical, and that they are doing a public disservice by not tuning Ferraris and Lamborghinis.

What? Your analogies do nothing to further your case.

Done! Read the original post again, please.

You have already admitted it is likely to affect boot time performance, which makes it clear you haven't debunked anything since it is also likely there are other areas of performance that are effected that you never tested.

"You are wrong because of X, Y and Z" is an argument. "You are wrong" is not. Which is this?

Cars are not software.

But I never said that. I originally said that disabling the firewall was a bad idea security-wise. You have somehow turned this into a claim that a firewall is all anyone needs for security???

I just looked back and that was in response to other comments made in regards to firewalls. I strongly recommend using Firewalls but do not rely on then as the only security solution. When you started commenting on it you were replying as if I meant that firewalls were not a big deal but I took it as you defending the same position. Talk baout confusing. Anyway we both agree, Disabling Firewalls is a bad idea.

Read the first quote again.

The quote isn't a Microsoft KB article or white paper confirming this.

Yes, or, as I said before, alter your computing habits - pick another OS with a lightweight WM, run less memory-hungry apps and run less apps at the same time. You can't effectively cannibalize system resources from the OS, what it takes, it needs.

Nothing is being cannibalized. Simply unneeded features are turned off. In effect you are uninstalling applications you do not use or need.

 

[Fresh Daemon]

If you read what I posted I clearly said you should never disable necessary services. Boot time performance is enough of a reason to disable unused services.

Not to me, or to any other (non-banned) poster in this thread. The "unused" part is also a big assumption.

Conviently you failed to test or mention any where it would clearly show a performance improvement, such as on boot up.

Yeah, and I also failed to test or mention whether these tweaks would shine my shoes, drive me to work and make me a coffee in the morning. I chose instead to test things of use to me and to other typical users.

It is more like your arrogance with "As Parts I and II show, there's no performance gain to be had from disabling them" No performance gain? Yet you never tested boot time performance or any other load time performance.

<sigh>

You have already admitted it is likely to affect boot time performance, which makes it clear you haven't debunked anything since it is also likely there are other areas of performance that are effected that you never tested.

<Deeper sigh>

So far the best you can come up with is boot times. You are the only one here who seems impressed by this. Clearly, this is a performance measure which is not valued, therefore, what is the point in my testing it?

If it's valuable to you, you test it. You have the means. Pretty much everyone else here is satisfied with and agrees with my work.

Cars are not software.

And unsubstantiated claims are not facts. That's you, BTW.

The quote isn't a Microsoft KB article or white paper confirming this.

Then you find something that contradicts it. If you can find something that trumps the word of an MS employee, I'll look, but why should I do legwork just because of your bluster?

Nothing is being cannibalized. Simply unneeded features are turned off.

Which is effectively done automatically. So what's the point in making Windows less flexible and functional for this?

 

[GeneralAres]

Not to me, or to any other (non-banned) poster in this thread. The "unused" part is also a big assumption.

Then prove otherwise.

Yeah, and I also failed to test or mention whether these tweaks would shine my shoes, drive me to work and make me a coffee in the morning. I chose instead to test things of use to me and to other typical users.

Another off topic rambling when confronted with a legitimate argument. Why am I not surprised.

So far the best you can come up with is boot times. You are the only one here who seems impressed by this. Clearly, this is a performance measure which is not valued, therefore, what is the point in my testing it?

So you now speak for all Windows XP users? Ten or so people agreeing with you here, hardly makes a solid argument.

If it's valuable to you, you test it. You have the means. Pretty much everyone else here is satisfied with and agrees with my work.

You wouldn't want to show anything but the answer you were looking for right? I understand.

And unsubstantiated claims are not facts. That's you, BTW.

No thats you. You made performance claims based only on what you considered important and conviently ignored anything else.

Then you find something that contradicts it. If you can find something that trumps the word of an MS employee, I'll look, but why should I do legwork just because of your bluster?

I did and linked to it.

Which is effectively done automatically. So what's the point in making Windows less flexible and functional for this?

Prove to me why the services listed should be enabled as automatic and how I would use them.

 

[FYAD]

Fresh Daemon, you ignored my last post. I'm hurt and saddened. Though, you were starting to turn completely stupid with the crap you were saying, so maybe it was in your best interest. Though it seems you've started another discussion that has turned retarded.


n0cmonkey, you and the other elitist faggots can shove that "I don't boot because I'm teh kewl" crap straight up your loose assholes. Hey, if I put it in standby, it's still taking up power! OMFG SO HARD TO FIGER OUT. Plus you get the benefit of expelling any left over shit from memory, if you reboot. Either way, there's NO reason to do something like standby when the PC isn't in use at all.

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Boot time is not really valid for anything. Use power friendly hardware, or put the machine to sleep instead of shutting it down.

You ****** idiot, I already mentioned one vitaly important thing. AVAILABILITY. Do you even know what that is? It seems like you should, because you talk about things like you know them, or like you think you know them. So why is it so hard to figure out that not having to wait for something longer than you need to is an obvious benefit?

Here's a good example for the end user (as opposed to something like a server): online auctions. Very time sensitive. What if there's a power surge/sag? If it takes 25 seconds on an optimized system to boot, he las a low chance of missing his window for making a well timed bet. If he has a bunch of crap on his PC, and over 15 services enabled that do absolutely nothing for him, thus causing a boot of about 2 minutes, his window of opportunity becomes much more narrow.

If you're paging, shouldn't you be buying more ram? I've never noticed paging that affects performance when I wasn't already out of ram.

Oh, yeah. Just throw money at the problem. Don't know how to brush your teeth? Pay someone to do it. Need more web space? No, don't go for the cheaper competitor, just pay more simply so you don't have to reupload your files! Oh, you don't like to delete your old porn that's just taking up space on your hard drive? No, don't save only the good ones and delete the rest! Just dip into your kid's college fund and get a new drive!

You're sounding just as retarded as Fresh Daemon with that crap. This whole thread is a joke.

 

[FYAD]

Originally posted by: Fresh Daemon

Which is effectively done automatically. So what's the point in making Windows less flexible and functional for this?

No it doesn't. It's not like Windows monitors your usage habits and automatically sets services to Manual for you. And that's a terrible argument. Why argue for "flexibility and functionality" if it's something you don't need? I'll cap this so maybe you understand better. THE ONLY FUNCTIONALITY YOUR SYSTEM IS GAINING IS BEING GIVEN TO ANY POTENTIAL ATTACKER, NOT THE USER WHO ISN'T GOING TO EVER USE THE SERVICE. You say it's off topic, but security is along the same lines as functionality. You brought up one, you should accept the other.

Anyway, so... I should enable the DHCP service? Well, I have static IP addresses, and my router doesn't have DHCP enabled because I get better results with static addressing. And if the service checks for any kind of DHCP connection it's just going to time out, and may make my system pause while it's waiting. So I'm losing "flexibility and functionality"? Hmm, I had better enable the service so that when my computer randomly sets itself to use dynamic IP addresses, it'll work! Thanks for the advice, dude!

Originally posted by: Fresh Daemon

If you read what I posted I clearly said you should never disable necessary services. Boot time performance is enough of a reason to disable unused services.

Not to me, or to any other (non-banned) poster in this thread. The "unused" part is also a big assumption.

You sure do ignore things when it matters. If you look at the thread where someone mentions their 25 second boot time, about at least 15 other people chimed in to give their times or disdain for the thread-maker's assumed bragging, while 2 or 3 gave their ostentatious comments about not booting. So who were you saying this does or doesn't apply to? Face it, you aren't the rule. More like a deluded exception.

And how is any services being unused somehow an assumption? It's nearly impossible for most users to make use of all the services at once, and plenty services will never be used at all. Yeah, it's an assumption that not everyone uses wireless networking. So I guess the Wireless Zero Configuration should always be running, or at least just in case you need it, like if your PC magically went out to buy a wireless adapter and installed it into itself. Just to make sure!

 

[GeneralAres]

So I guess the Wireless Zero Configuration should always be running, or at least just in case you need it, like if your PC magically went out to buy a wireless adapter and installed it into itself. Just to make sure!

:laugh: I love it.

 

[Fresh Daemon]

Fresh Daemon, you ignored my last post.

That's because you were banned. Repeatedly. And you will be again, so what's the point?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: FYAD
Fresh Daemon, you ignored my last post. I'm hurt and saddened. Though, you were starting to turn completely stupid with the crap you were saying, so maybe it was in your best interest. Though it seems you've started another discussion that has turned retarded.


n0cmonkey, you and the other elitist faggots can shove that "I don't boot because I'm teh kewl" crap straight up your loose assholes. Hey, if I put it in standby, it's still taking up power! OMFG SO HARD TO FIGER OUT. Plus you get the benefit of expelling any left over shit from memory, if you reboot. Either way, there's NO reason to do something like standby when the PC isn't in use at all.

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Boot time is not really valid for anything. Use power friendly hardware, or put the machine to sleep instead of shutting it down.

You ****** idiot, I already mentioned one vitaly important thing. AVAILABILITY. Do you even know what that is? It seems like you should, because you talk about things like you know them, or like you think you know them. So why is it so hard to figure out that not having to wait for something longer than you need to is an obvious benefit?

Here's a good example for the end user (as opposed to something like a server): online auctions. Very time sensitive. What if there's a power surge/sag? If it takes 25 seconds on an optimized system to boot, he las a low chance of missing his window for making a well timed bet. If he has a bunch of crap on his PC, and over 15 services enabled that do absolutely nothing for him, thus causing a boot of about 2 minutes, his window of opportunity becomes much more narrow.

If availability is that important: DON'T SHUT DOWN.

If you're paging, shouldn't you be buying more ram? I've never noticed paging that affects performance when I wasn't already out of ram.

Oh, yeah. Just throw money at the problem. Don't know how to brush your teeth? Pay someone to do it. Need more web space? No, don't go for the cheaper competitor, just pay more simply so you don't have to reupload your files! Oh, you don't like to delete your old porn that's just taking up space on your hard drive? No, don't save only the good ones and delete the rest! Just dip into your kid's college fund and get a new drive!

You're sounding just as retarded as Fresh Daemon with that crap. This whole thread is a joke.

If you have to "dip into your kid's college fund" to get hardware, you have a problem and should see a doctor.



EDIT: There are multiple way to look at this. Some people get more resources (me) when it makes sense, other people tweak (you). I don't tweak, I'm not a tweaker. I don't care much for turning knob after knob for little to no benefit, or in the case of the examples in the OP a degredation in service (although a small one at most).

Tweak away, have fun with it. I'll buy myself more ram and be hapy.

 

[Fresh Daemon]

You made performance claims based only on what you considered important and conviently ignored anything else.

Basically, yes. That's the pattern followed by Anand, by XBit Labs, Digit Life, and any other good review website. When Anand tests a new video card, he doesn't test it's effect on level loading times or system boot time. Why? Because it isn't important and it's not relevant.

BV's tweaks are, according to him, supposed to free up memory and CPU cycles which are supposed to make the computer faster for general useage, especially gaming (which, to BV, seems to be the sole purpose of a computer). They don't. My tests prove that. End of story.

I'm not paying any particular attention to the rest of your post because it's trolling. You have no proof or evidence, you just want to bicker and argue over any conceivable point no matter how minor, irrelevant or petty. If you have some substantial evidence I'll hear it, but until then it's just hot air.

For instance, despite all your conjecture you have absolutely no proof that these tweaks decrease boot times anyway! I could just as well say that the tweaks increase boot time, and you'd have nothing to really dispute that with.

 

[JackMDS]

Concerning few of the posts above.

The original intention of this thread relates to a specific page that was published long time ago with suggestions to switch Off variety of Services in Windows XP to gain more power for Gaming.

The fact is that some people who participated in helping others on this BBS spent a lot of time and energy in Helping others that were stuck with their computer systems. People got "Stuck" because they followed the advice of the ?Services Off? page Not realizing at the time the possible present and future ramification of doing so, while thinking that they save a lot of computing resources.

The above is a fact, and No National Journalism Skills and "Magic" with words can change it.

WZC is a Good example it was turned Off by many people before the Wireless era (and while the Wireless era might started long time ago for writers of PC Magazine it started much later for us the ?commoners?), many of people end up seeking help Not understanding while their newly acquired Wireless is Not working while not using the manufacturer util.

One can argue that it their fault (not knowing what they switched off). However 99% of the exchanged on Public computer forums can be tagged with the claim that it is the poster fault for Not knowing A or B.

In other words if you do not like to help people because their ?trouble? is their own fault, participating in a forum like this is Not for you.

Many people who participated in this forum have educational background in Electronic and Computer Sciences and are working for years in real IT Jobs. By Nature the type of person who chooses Hard Sciences (they usually do not obtain a degree in philosophy) are Not as skillful with the Pen as others that choose carriers in Writing and Public Relations.

So dragging people into a an exchange like, I have a Static IP do you suggest that it would a mistake to Switch Off the DHCP service is Not really the Point here. If the intentions is to show people that they are fools because you know better how to play with words then ?Hooray? for you.

:sun:

 

[gsellis]

See ^
/End current annoying micro-quoted posts that have nothing to do with the fact that BV is not that helpful. If in doubt, ping David Solomon or Mark Russinovich and ask their opinions.

 

[lxskllr]

I just had a tweak bite me in the ass. I was trying to get an old mahjongg game working on my laptop with no success. I kept getting an error starting it up even though it worked on 2 of my other machines with similar specs.

The game isn't that important to me, but it was pissing me off that it wouldn't work for no apparent reason. After spending much time screwing around with it, I remembered that I disabled the creation of short names( 8+3 dos style), and that was keeping the game from executing. After switching it back I got everything to work.

I'll probably spend no time playing it, but at least I finally got it to work. I'm sure similar situations happen hundreds of times a day from tweaking settings that give no tangible performance gain.