PATH command in XP (XP Pro, in my case).

As you worthy diligent MG Geeks may have noticed, I'm ticked off with the performance of my reasonably new duo-core Toshiba Tecra A7 laptop, 2 gigs of RAM, and 60 gig hard drive.

In an effort to speed it up,I have been been trying various strategies.
Deleting lots of duplicate Folders and Files to speed up Backups, Defrags, etc.
2 threads that relate to my efforts so far are:
http://forums.majorgeeks.com/showthread.php?t=105149
http://forums.majorgeeks.com/showthread.php?t=105305

The PATH command is my latest target.

I think the default PATH is/was (on my XP laptop anyhow):
%SystemRoot%\system32;%SystemRoot%;%SystemRoot%\System32\Wbem;

I have altered mine to include %SystemRoot%\system32\I386; and c:\useful (that's one of my oldies, going back to W95 days).

Toshiba added C:\Program Files\ATI Technologies\ATI.ACE\; as part of their default installation.

It now reads, in this order:
%SystemRoot%\system32;%SystemRoot%\system32\I386;%SystemRoot%;%SystemRoot%\System32\Wbem;C:\Program Files\ATI Technologies\ATI.ACE\;c:\useful

I have also added .DLL to the System Variable and rearranged a few, scroll down to PATHEXT and <edit>

It was .COM;.EXE;.BAT;.CMD;.VBS;.VBE;.JS;.JSE;.WSF;.WSH
I've altered it to

.EXE;.COM;.DLL;.CMD;.BAT;.VBS;.VBE;.JS;.JSE;.WSF;.WSH
(don't know what the last 4 do, but have left them as is),
to better reflect the priorities on how I think XP works.

I think *.EXE files are used more often than *.COM files nowadays, for example.

If you feel compelled to alter yours, make sure you have a dot (period) before EXE (for example), and a semi-colon ; after it, for every alteration you make.

Please jump in if I have got this wrong.

These changes seem to have improved the speed of my laptop markedly.

They'd probably work on any PC with XP, but the usual weasel out disclaimers apply.
Create a new Restore Point, backup your valuable stuff, etc., before attempting this.

I think %SystemRoot%\system32\I386; is the key, as lots of programs use DLL's and lots of them are in the I386 sub Folder.

My questions are, finally:

Is anyone using customised PATH commands in XP?
Have you left the XP PATH command as is, by default, and never bothered to change it, or didn't even know it was there?
What additional Folders have you added, if any?
What sequence have you loaded your Folders in?
Have you made any alterations to your PATHEXT?
What sequence have you loaded your PATHEXT in?

Am I correct in assuming that the best benefits will be from loading the most used Folders and extensions first?

Please post your PATH command, if you are willing to, so I can try and guess your thoughts and reasons.

I realise that this thread is more geekier than most I have asked, but it has really helped me speed up my laptop.

It might also help others.
Bazza

 

Bump. Obviously my first post was too geeky. I'll simplify it.

I have added %SystemRoot%\system32\I386; to my PATH and .DLL to my PATHEXT, and re-arranged both sequences slightly.

My system has sped up remarkedly. (and it should / could work for every PC using XP, in theory )

My questions are :

Is anyone using customised PATH commands in XP?

Have you left the XP PATH command as is, by default, and never bothered to change it, or didn't even know it was there?

What additional Folders have you added, if any?
What sequence have you loaded your Folders in?

Have you made any alterations to your PATHEXT?
What sequence have you loaded your PATHEXT in?

Am I correct in assuming that the best benefits will be from loading the most used Folders and extensions first?

Please post your modified PATH command here, if you are willing, so I can try and guess / discuss your thoughts and reasons.

I realise that this thread is more geekier than most I have asked, but it has really helped me speed up my laptop.

It might also help others.

Trying again. Bazza

 

hello mate,

well, hehe.. I am not really sure what you are getting there.. PATH command simply adds folders defined as common folder and that command like PATHEXT is simply for what it sees. Just in curiosity I answered this since I am tweaker myself and I see no real impact of speed with these changes. Unless you got something really messed up like System Files or those are just badly optimized. Best wouldn't be gathered in one place or something like Layout's wouldn't be working as and flop.

I can understand, if you use command line in Windows XP and want to add some apps from old/new systems there as common use where ever CMD is running.. Meaning like 'Run DOS BOX Here...' with right folder click and when you get command line to that folder and would forexample need something like dosrar, but none of these system are needed with todays technology.

I also readed your questions.. and no haven't altered any I have although builded personal Layout.ini, optimized memory usages, windows graphical interface, System welcomes, boot loading with sysinternals: AUTORUNs & ListDLLs and top of the crop I have done major defragmenting through layout to add all startup Files: Drivers, software, in waves to start. as boot->GUI->Software in to start of the Partition so everything is there in loading order..

Anyhow, my machine is AMD Athlon 2000+ with 512 RAM, ATI x9600 XT, Maxtor UDMA 5;D and my windows XP Pro starts inside 10-13 Seconds with everything.. AV & Firewall, and bunch of other softwares like daemon-tools.

*Edit*
and those last entries are 2 Java file types & last 2 are Help Wizard Files..

 

Hmmz.. forgot to mention.

the .DLL you added there makes absolutely no sense. Since that list is ment for runable files as far I know. (Might be wrong on this so someone confirm me) Anyhow, according now to my knowledge adding .DLL to PATHEXT makes absolutely no sense.. Since you simply cannot run DLL files in prompt and rundll's loads those.

 

PATHEXT treats DLL's the same as EXE, CMD, etc., extensions.
I thought I printed out my reference explaining this, but can't lay my hands on it, just now.
Will have to backtrack, or google for it.

These alterations I made certainly improve my daily running.
Adding the I386 reference is probably the key to my increased performance.
Adding DLL certainly didn't hurt, either. Bazza

===

 

Well, I am here now testing with extra equipment and I added just incase I am wrong those commands which, btw, should include many other formats as well, if this would be true to my Laptop & one Desktop and we'll see. I never say no, if someone actually manages to find a tweak in buggy M$ systems. So giving it a go. I'll do basic bench after basic tweaking of these two machines and will see. Laptop has Windows 2000 SP4+RU1 & Desktop Windows XP SP2 -> newest..

but I am still telling you there's no mind in this. Since neither of these setting shouldn't have anything to do with performance. Actually more like slowing down since both command serves as redirecting command lines, but we'll see..

*edit*
and btw, I assume \system32\i386 would be something like installCD store folder or servicepack since I don't have even I386 in system32.. but I checked proper paths with Autoruns/ListDLLs and those are there. So be honest I haven't even ever seen windows with '%systemroot%\system32\I386' in it, but go with the flow.. Maybe it's just my luck..

 

Still can't see any performance impact... I benchmarked it with 0 fragment disks with basic memory tweaking and adding that folder I386 nor the .DLL in the PATHEXT has no improvement.. I would say this is a hoax.. It doesn't even change anything on running software nor on startup logged around 8-10 startups and no impact at all. Not in Desktop nor in laptop.

I think you should try some of todays methods like Perfect Disk & some good tweaker like hmm Tweak-xp.com tweaking utility (search on google)(I know there's even better ones), but that one does the basic job. Since the idea which I was thinking that this .DLL might boost up would be to also gather DLLs in cached data, but it doesn't do that nor it should. the DLLs, SYSes, some OCX etc etc files are automatically directed by Layout.ini and as far I know gathering that information to one location boost up machine as this tweak would of meant to boost up machine.

Best case scenario I think to make decent clean and very fast windows system to run would be:

-Tweak memory for machine needs: improved Pagefile (no exec paging, not boost more stabile), File System Caches to ~32-128Mb max. (RAM 256Mb->UP), shoot icon cache up to 4096-8192

Make sure these registry keys are as below:
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management\PrefetchParameters]
EnablePrefetch=3
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\OptimalLayout]
EnableAutoLayout=1
-If they are then clean and remake prefetch (default: 'c:\windows\prefetch') (remake command in run: rundll32.exe advapi32.dll,ProcessIdleTasks)
-If Perfect Disk in use after apove progress stops boot up and wait 1-2 minutes and defragment (WinXP) with Let Perfect Disk Manage Layout.ini files and it will organize your entire system boot & current use of apps to first area of your boot partition.
-Wola.. Basic tweaking done and machine should run like a dream.

-There's also startup defragment which windows does only ones at:
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Dfrg\BootOptimizeFunction]
OptimizeComplete=Yes

When you installed windows it after 2 startups adds the Yes. well this is good if there wouldn't be any other software loaded as sys files like daemon-tools sptd, anti-virus softwares etc etc, but since we do install those often after first 2 bootups this might need to be redone as in:
change the 'OptimizeComplete=No' and it will do it in next boot up and give windows new value.

This is of course only few things can be tweaked as said basics, but for real. I don't see common path nor pathext doing anykind of boost to anywhere.

 

Thanks RPG for your replies. All I know is that it works for me in a duo-core setup.

The path less travelled.

to quote from p546 of my XP Bible, Windows XP annoyances for Geeks, by David A. Karp: Well worth USD$35, IMHO.

 

yeah tested on both.. have here Desktop with Athlon XP 2000+ & Intel Dual-core in Laptop..

About this David A. Karp you refer there says exactly same thing I was saying. Except that he believes that it works like so called "Improved Pagefile(s)" which wouldn't add DLL's either to Paging file, but force windows keep those in memory. Which yeah would improve system performance but adding .DLL extension to PATHEXT shouldn't do that nor according to my benchmarks it won't do that. If that would be made there's separate commands in registry, if that would be needed.

Basically, if that would be done I could understand quite big boost with lets say idea would be same as caching system core. Meaning that you cache everything else except EXE & DLL files leaving those in RAM and yes with enough of RAM that would work very much faster. This is only theory, but might be.

 

Thanks RPG for stirring my brain cells.
I'm going to printout your replies and study them offline.
I am a bit lost in theory versus practice, in this matter.
BTW I have 2 gigs of RAM. Bazza

===