![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
services.msc
- Thread starter mdlsFREAK
- Start date
- Status
Indexing service. I would also argue for Messenger service but if you are behind a firewall, then it's probably not necessary.
Do a thread search for MANY MANY arguments for and against service tweaking. Myself, I've tried both and notice no performance difference. And tweaking services is asking for trouble later on down the road.
Do a thread search for MANY MANY arguments for and against service tweaking. Myself, I've tried both and notice no performance difference. And tweaking services is asking for trouble later on down the road.
I've used the "safe" guide at http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm . They are easy enough to turn back on if you should need to.
GJSNeptune
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 12,372
I like to use this to reference each process that I regularly have running:
http://www.liutilities.com/products/wintaskspro/processlibrary
http://www.liutilities.com/products/wintaskspro/processlibrary
As GJSNeptune suggested, look up the processes. As long as they aren't spyware, it's not really going to save you much by disabling services and processes. It's one of the worst ways to tweak your system. If you had 50 or so running, then we could talk, but if your system seems slow with only 20 running, it's time to upgrade hardware.
QFT. You can see (not benchmark, mind you) performance differences with the Indexing service.arkamw said:
As for messenger, I think it's fine to have running behind a firewall. I use it to do some mundane stuff on a home server; no messenger spam gets past my Linksys.
...and consider djnes' references to QuackViper duly quoted. When your comp develops issues after you've followed instructions from that site, expect no help here beyond "put back whatever you broke."
Super Mario
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2003
- Messages
- 466
I think disabling services is a good way to tweak your system. However, it must be done with caution and care. But to say that disabling any service is all of a sudden a bad idea and doesn't save you any system resources is not very accurate. It may not save a lot, but why not disable services you don't need? There are a lot of people who just don't need to have eveyr service running. But it is important that you are careful with what services you do disable.
I'd say the following services are definitely safe to disable for home computers on a LAN:
Alerter (Only needed for sending administartive alerts on a corporate network)
Error Reporting (As long as you don't want to report errors to MS which I DON'T)
Indexing Service
Net Logon (only needed for domains)
Messenger (only needed for same reason as Alerter)
Remote Registry (only needed if your PC is part of a domain)
Remote Desktop Help Session Manager (Only needed for remote assistance which I hate)
System Restore (definitely can disable if you don't use system restore)
Windows Time (only needed to sychronize your time with a server. Not needed otherwise)
So, does anyone think that disabling any of those services I listed is really going to result in system instability or break critical functions on any applications for a typical home PC? I don't think so, so why do we always get a few saying that disabling any services is such a bad idea and such a risk to the functionality of your system. Clearly, all those services I mentioned are not needed for very much at all. Maybe system restore, but that's only if you use System Restore. WHy do you need your PC phoning an Internet server for time, when your PC's BIOS can already keep track of the right time. I personally don't like everything connecting to the Internet without you even knowing it.
I'd say the following services are definitely safe to disable for home computers on a LAN:
Alerter (Only needed for sending administartive alerts on a corporate network)
Error Reporting (As long as you don't want to report errors to MS which I DON'T)
Indexing Service
Net Logon (only needed for domains)
Messenger (only needed for same reason as Alerter)
Remote Registry (only needed if your PC is part of a domain)
Remote Desktop Help Session Manager (Only needed for remote assistance which I hate)
System Restore (definitely can disable if you don't use system restore)
Windows Time (only needed to sychronize your time with a server. Not needed otherwise)
So, does anyone think that disabling any of those services I listed is really going to result in system instability or break critical functions on any applications for a typical home PC? I don't think so, so why do we always get a few saying that disabling any services is such a bad idea and such a risk to the functionality of your system. Clearly, all those services I mentioned are not needed for very much at all. Maybe system restore, but that's only if you use System Restore. WHy do you need your PC phoning an Internet server for time, when your PC's BIOS can already keep track of the right time. I personally don't like everything connecting to the Internet without you even knowing it.
The reason we get them is because we have a million threads stating they are suddenly having problems, and the only thing the person did was follow QuackViper's guide. It's not always very easy to tell if a service is needed or not because of dependencies, etc. Add to that the fact many many people have benchmarked and tested the results before and after and found nothing different and nothing changed.
So, the bottom line is, if it isn't going to enhance the performance of your system, why bother? Your gaining nothing, and your increasing your risk that at some point, you may need one of those services. It's basically the equivalent of putting a red "R" sticker on your car. Some people swear it makes a difference, but when it comes down to it, it does nothing. There's plenty of other things to do and settings to configure that don't involve disabling services, but yet do make a difference.
You don't have to take my word for it. Ask Phoenix86 or GreNME what they think of disabling services.
So, the bottom line is, if it isn't going to enhance the performance of your system, why bother? Your gaining nothing, and your increasing your risk that at some point, you may need one of those services. It's basically the equivalent of putting a red "R" sticker on your car. Some people swear it makes a difference, but when it comes down to it, it does nothing. There's plenty of other things to do and settings to configure that don't involve disabling services, but yet do make a difference.
You don't have to take my word for it. Ask Phoenix86 or GreNME what they think of disabling services.
Super Mario
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2003
- Messages
- 466
I don't only disable certain services to gain performance. I also disable certain services because there are certain things i don't want and I want to make sure they are disabled as much as posssible to prevent anything from starting them. For instance, I don't like Remote Assistance, so I disable that service just to make sure nothing can start it. I even set a Group Policy against it, just to make sure it is as disabled as possible. I look at that service as a useless piece of garbage that is basically just a spy gadget. And it's not at all needed. I also don't like Error Reporting, so I do a lot to disable that completely inclusing disabling the service, and registry tweaks to shut it off all together for all Microsoft applications.
Super Mario said:
I actually disabled both of those "features" as well, but I do them both from the System Properties. Maybe it's the same thing, maybe not. I am mainly referring to the people who go in disabling services like crazy, strictly for performance.
Well, disabling services will definitely not improve performance, no matter what Quackviper and whomever else says. When someone can show actual measurable and repeatable performance increases we can address that possibility. All of the "feels faster" testimonials have little more than signs of placebo in every single case.
As for security, don't let yourself be fooled: only an authenticated user can take advantage of services on your machine. If an intruder is using your services, your machine has already been owned. It's really that simple.
Now, there are some services for which there have yet to be any destructive properties. However, there are only a small handful of these, while other services often disabled actually cut off innocuous things that are usually never thought about until you need them. The Alerter or the Windows Time services, for example, shouldn't damage anything when disabled. The disadvantages with them are little things like alerts that use the service not popping up or you not being able to sync your time with accurate sources (I use time.nist.gov myself), but nonetheless they are capabilities you are removing by disabling them. That's your choice.
The Indexing service is a bit more tricky, because it is known that the service is superfluous on drives that aren't really large (40-100 GB). However, it becomes quite helpful with larger drives (160-200 GB), and speeds up Windows searches when looking through thousands of files on a server. Error Reporting can be helpful in that it contributes information pertaining to program crashes to Microsoft. Sure, it's not what you could call a "necessary" service, but it is integral in providing information that can lead to patches of products or Windows itself, leading to greater overall stability. That can easily be ignored if you don't give a damn, I'm sure.
Then there are some straw men that some proponents of disabling service bring up. Did you realize that Routing and Remote Access is disabled by default? Did you realize that Net Logon and Remote Desktop Help Session are both set to manual and not running by default? Telnetmanual and not on by default. Remote Access Connection Manager (and Auto Connection Manager)manual and off by default. Network DDEdisabled on XP by default. Bullshitters like Quackviper would have you believe that Windows leaves all services on auto and running by default and requires the user to intervene and "fix" things that aren't broke to begin with.
There are loads of uses I could get into for the services that are set to auto and running when Windows starts, but for almost every explanation someone can say "I don't need that," normally when referring to using a browser or playing Doom III or some such activity. On one hand, they aren't wrong about needing them for the mundane websurfing or playing games, but that doesn't mean disabling them is useful in any possible way. It won't make your machine more secure. It won't give you higher frame rates. It won't make your machine run better.
This is why I recommend seriously against disabling services overall. It simply isn't worth it in the long run. Even the infamous Quackviper himself can offer no real-world proof (and what I accuse as fake benchmark caps) with no repeatable corroborrating results. Disable them at your own risk. There are a few for which setting them to manual will at least enable them to be started when necessary, but even here there is no guarantee of stability when running processes that call on them.
Do so at your own risk. Do not expect it to be supported by many people here if you do. Do not take Quackviper as an example of a "good example" of services.
If you want my honest opinion, your most serious service issues would be solved if you just ran XP Home instead of Pro, which has more services to begin with (for professional workstation use, hence the name to begin with).
As for security, don't let yourself be fooled: only an authenticated user can take advantage of services on your machine. If an intruder is using your services, your machine has already been owned. It's really that simple.
Now, there are some services for which there have yet to be any destructive properties. However, there are only a small handful of these, while other services often disabled actually cut off innocuous things that are usually never thought about until you need them. The Alerter or the Windows Time services, for example, shouldn't damage anything when disabled. The disadvantages with them are little things like alerts that use the service not popping up or you not being able to sync your time with accurate sources (I use time.nist.gov myself), but nonetheless they are capabilities you are removing by disabling them. That's your choice.
The Indexing service is a bit more tricky, because it is known that the service is superfluous on drives that aren't really large (40-100 GB). However, it becomes quite helpful with larger drives (160-200 GB), and speeds up Windows searches when looking through thousands of files on a server. Error Reporting can be helpful in that it contributes information pertaining to program crashes to Microsoft. Sure, it's not what you could call a "necessary" service, but it is integral in providing information that can lead to patches of products or Windows itself, leading to greater overall stability. That can easily be ignored if you don't give a damn, I'm sure.
Then there are some straw men that some proponents of disabling service bring up. Did you realize that Routing and Remote Access is disabled by default? Did you realize that Net Logon and Remote Desktop Help Session are both set to manual and not running by default? Telnetmanual and not on by default. Remote Access Connection Manager (and Auto Connection Manager)manual and off by default. Network DDEdisabled on XP by default. Bullshitters like Quackviper would have you believe that Windows leaves all services on auto and running by default and requires the user to intervene and "fix" things that aren't broke to begin with.
There are loads of uses I could get into for the services that are set to auto and running when Windows starts, but for almost every explanation someone can say "I don't need that," normally when referring to using a browser or playing Doom III or some such activity. On one hand, they aren't wrong about needing them for the mundane websurfing or playing games, but that doesn't mean disabling them is useful in any possible way. It won't make your machine more secure. It won't give you higher frame rates. It won't make your machine run better.
This is why I recommend seriously against disabling services overall. It simply isn't worth it in the long run. Even the infamous Quackviper himself can offer no real-world proof (and what I accuse as fake benchmark caps) with no repeatable corroborrating results. Disable them at your own risk. There are a few for which setting them to manual will at least enable them to be started when necessary, but even here there is no guarantee of stability when running processes that call on them.
Do so at your own risk. Do not expect it to be supported by many people here if you do. Do not take Quackviper as an example of a "good example" of services.
If you want my honest opinion, your most serious service issues would be solved if you just ran XP Home instead of Pro, which has more services to begin with (for professional workstation use, hence the name to begin with).
hulksterjoe
older and wiser now
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2001
- Messages
- 2,900
In all honesty I say just leave them on, if you were installing xp on a piii800 and wanted a little extra room then tweak it, but for the real amount of gain you get by disabling some little function that dosent really suck up much, espcially on a system only running 20 services anyways it, crazy. you'd be lucky to measure the gain..
what little ram you have,, What are you running that 512 is such a little amount ?
what little ram you have,, What are you running that 512 is such a little amount ?
And honestly, that's just not true. Just because your response to anyone who has shut off a service and subsequently had a problem is to turn them back on doesn't mean the service was the problem.djnes said:
EXAMPLE: The guy who had problems getting system restore working turned all the default services back on, and still had the problem.
CONCLUSION: It wasn't a service related issue.
I should have been more detailed so you could follow along. There were at least 10 threads where someone said they were suddenly having a problem with their system, that sounded like it was service-related, and when asked for any recent system changes, they mentioned going to Blackviper.com and follow his advice. Now, have you followed me around, posting everywhere I have? Please tell me your not going to turn this into an argument. It's standard procedure on here when someone states they are having a problem, ever since following QuackViper's guide, that we respond, asking them to undo all changes made at that site, as the first step to troubleshooting. If you have a problem with that, create a thread to take it up with the myriad of people who suggest undoing any of his changes.O[H]-Zone said:
Super Mario
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2003
- Messages
- 466
Whatever the case may be, these services are ones you DEFINITELY DO NOT WANT TO DISABLE because it may result in system instability and/or a system that doesn't function anymore.
Plug and Play
Remote Procedure Call
Workstation
Those services are without question the most critical for the overall functionality of your system. Without Remote Procedure Call, your system may not even boot. Your system won't be stable with Plug and Play. You will loose a great deal of functionality and your system will probably behave like it's in safe mode all the time without the workstation service. Now, I'm not saying these are the only services that are dangerous to disable, but the most dangerous to disable. There are a lot of services that are potentially dangerous to disable. But that doesn't mean tweaking your system by disabling unneeded services isn't a bad idea. As long as you are careful. know what you are doing, and don't go over board on disabling dervices just to sqeeze every bit of performance you can get out of your system, disabling services is a good idea.
Plug and Play
Remote Procedure Call
Workstation
Those services are without question the most critical for the overall functionality of your system. Without Remote Procedure Call, your system may not even boot. Your system won't be stable with Plug and Play. You will loose a great deal of functionality and your system will probably behave like it's in safe mode all the time without the workstation service. Now, I'm not saying these are the only services that are dangerous to disable, but the most dangerous to disable. There are a lot of services that are potentially dangerous to disable. But that doesn't mean tweaking your system by disabling unneeded services isn't a bad idea. As long as you are careful. know what you are doing, and don't go over board on disabling dervices just to sqeeze every bit of performance you can get out of your system, disabling services is a good idea.
And no one is telling anyone to never disable services. You seem to be under that impression, and you definitely seem like your itching to turn this into a flame war. Our points that we usually make is that when someone complains about system instability, and they also mention that they've just followed Quackviper's guide....the most obvious, logical step is to undo his changes and see if that resolves the issue. PM Phoenix86 and ask him if he thinks Quackviper's guide can lead to problems. Do the same with GreNME or any other user you feel is very knowledgeable.O[H]-Zone said:
Badger_sly
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2002
- Messages
- 1,594
mdlsFREAK said:
repo man said:
Just use the "safe" column, as repo man posted. It will give you slightly faster boot times and performance. If there are any issues, simply revert back. It's not going to hurt for you to try it out yourself and make your own decision.
Myself, I've used Black Viper's safe list with vanilla XP, sp1, and sp2, and it's never caused any problems.
It's like every time certian words are brought up in a thread certian posters always come...djnes said:
Anyways, it's been a recommended TSing step for quite some time for me and others. It doesn't mean the service is to blame, it's just a logical TS step. BTW search the forum for "quackviper", there are quite a few threads where disabled services were the cause of the OPs issue.
Like a moth to a flame...
Oh snap, double-entendre!
Just wanted to say hi, these "services threads" aren't complete till the whole gang has showed up. 
Do all your tweaking via the normal Windows configuration screens and you'll be fine. Then you'll never be doing anything MS can't plan for when they release security updates, patches, etc., in the future. The concept I speak of is:
Turn system restore off using the System Restore tab of System Properties
Turn indexing off using the Preferences area of Search
Turn Remote Desktop/Assistance off via the Remote tab of System Properties
MS reserves the right to change whenever they want all the stuff that happens when you click those checkboxes and disable things the "home user appropriate" way. Better safe then sorry. When you go in manually with fiddly-fingers you are deviating from the norm. You had better be damn knowledgeable and have lots of free time to study in that case. Or you can spend all the time you'd be troubleshooting bad choices having sex with someone instead.
Do all your tweaking via the normal Windows configuration screens and you'll be fine. Then you'll never be doing anything MS can't plan for when they release security updates, patches, etc., in the future. The concept I speak of is:
Turn system restore off using the System Restore tab of System Properties
Turn indexing off using the Preferences area of Search
Turn Remote Desktop/Assistance off via the Remote tab of System Properties
MS reserves the right to change whenever they want all the stuff that happens when you click those checkboxes and disable things the "home user appropriate" way. Better safe then sorry. When you go in manually with fiddly-fingers you are deviating from the norm. You had better be damn knowledgeable and have lots of free time to study in that case. Or you can spend all the time you'd be troubleshooting bad choices having sex with someone instead.
Ding ding ding! Correcamundo!KoolDrew said:
This is why there are no measurable performance gains. Also, if a connected user hasn't privs to use the service (unlike the RPC mistake, which allowed unauthenticated users elevated privs), the weak link isn't the service. If services are being used by unauthorized users, then your machine is already owned.
Sometimes I read a thread title, and I think..."No good can come of this". No offense to the OP of course, who had a legitimate question. As you say, the moths do come.Phoenix86 said:It's like every time certian words are brought up in a thread certian posters always come...
Anyways, it's been a recommended TSing step for quite some time for me and others. It doesn't mean the service is to blame, it's just a logical TS step. BTW search the forum for "quackviper", there are quite a few threads where disabled services were the cause of the OPs issue.
Like a moth to a flame...
Oh snap, double-entendre!
KoolDrew said:
If a service is started, then it's using at least a thread, a handle, and some memory, as well as a few CPU cycles on an ongoing basis. Most services don't have a noticable impact on performance, but saying that they don't use *any* system resources is demonstrably incorrect.
Actually, it is not. Even if a service is started, once it passes a certain threshold of not being in use, it is paged out into virtual memory and not used in CPU cycles or active memory. There are even parts of the OS kernel itself that get paged out, even during normal everyday use. This is one of those aspects of the newer NT (and *nix, by the way) operating system kernels that allow for the most performance to be directed where it is being utilized by the user, instead of by a bunch of clandestine background processes.rcolbert said:
Welcome to the modern age of pre-emptive multitasking.
Yes, and no.rcolbert said:
Yes it uses CPU cycles and memory to start, then the OS realizes it's not being used, and gets paged. At which time it sits as unused memory on your HDD until the OS needs that service. At which time it gets paged from disk to RAM and used.
So disabling them will yield a hair faster boot time, and will cause decrease your PF requirements (who cares about disk space?). It won't yeild any performance boosts once everything's up and running/paged though, so no extra FPS in a game.
Disabling services gives you a faster booting computer at the expense of flexibility. Not worth it since I don't recall having "boot races" with anyone. However I do ask my OS to do different things all the time, so I like the services running when needed.
Actually, you are both mostly incorrect.
As this output from memsnap.exe shows, there are certainly resources in use on all running processes. Sorry that I don't have the time to make the formatting look better. If you download memsnap.exe via any recent MS support tools pack you can run memsnap to find out exactly how much of each active process is paged vs. nonpaged:
(you can cut and past this into excel and then use "text to colums" and select space delimited to see the rows a little easier)
Process ID Proc.Name Wrkng.Set PagedPool NonPgdPl Pagefile Commit Handles Threads User Gdi
00000000 (null) 16384 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
00000004 System 221184 0 0 0 32768 415 51 0 0
00000188 smss.exe 430080 5208 560 155648 155648 23 2 0 0
000001B8 csrss.exe 1753088 54860 6168 1777664 1777664 519 12 0 0
000001D0 winlogon.exe 6823936 62440 10816 6840320 6840320 397 19 13 41
000001FC services.exe 3395584 30884 9112 3850240 3850240 318 16 0 4
00000208 lsass.exe 4247552 46100 9544 5849088 5849088 620 22 1 6
000002B0 svchost.exe 3563520 25260 5968 2801664 2801664 323 8 0 4
000002F0 svchost.exe 28622848 120256 40200 27848704 27848704 1739 83 3 4
0000035C svchost.exe 1667072 15460 5000 1093632 1093632 80 6 0 0
00000378 svchost.exe 4268032 36336 8696 2637824 2637824 251 16 0 0
000003E0 spoolsv.exe 4993024 38504 4952 4874240 4874240 158 13 0 4
0000045C awhost32.exe 3080192 36884 6512 2035712 2035712 167 13 8 30
0000048C DefWatch.exe 1085440 19608 1800 512000 512000 37 3 0 8
000004BC MDM.EXE 1548288 30812 2520 872448 872448 86 4 0 4
0000050C Rtvscan.exe 14295040 48596 11008 14958592 14958592 352 34 4 12
00000608 Wuser32.exe 815104 33064 5728 1196032 1196032 100 10 39 33
0000063C CcmExec.exe 13475840 54704 12136 13336576 13336576 687 14 1 4
00000790 wmiprvse.exe 2871296 20268 3160 3493888 3493888 128 6 0 0
0000013C wmiprvse.exe 3424256 20296 3040 1630208 1630208 135 6 0 0
00000318 explorer.exe 9445376 104820 17576 15732736 15732736 786 17 237 424
0000012C hkcmd.exe 2600960 32104 3040 1396736 1396736 79 2 2 8
000006AC VPTray.exe 3428352 41828 4120 3932160 3932160 144 2 11 27
00000BC8 WISPTIS.EXE 3600384 170348 2840 2625536 2625536 97 3 1471 2948
00000850 OUTLOOK.EXE 7041024 132932 16776 10866688 10866688 798 21 172 342
00000D2C WINWORD.EXE 37756928 237312 12896 15597568 15597568 402 11 57 212
000008F8 mmc.exe 1949696 55992 9288 7393280 7393280 203 5 0 0
00000C84 WZQKPICK.EXE 2232320 25700 1600 528384 528384 19 1 16 19
00000ED0 firefox.exe 4173824 48496 7336 18468864 18468864 176 7 43 123
00000AEC cmd.exe 942080 15716 1360 1495040 1495040 20 1 0 4
00000DB0 IEXPLORE.EXE 17244160 83644 20768 19259392 19259392 669 21 117 365
00000634 msiexec.exe 6914048 34256 3680 2519040 2519040 123 6 0 4
00000638 memsnap.exe 1114112 15296 1304 339968 339968 13 1 0 4
As this output from memsnap.exe shows, there are certainly resources in use on all running processes. Sorry that I don't have the time to make the formatting look better. If you download memsnap.exe via any recent MS support tools pack you can run memsnap to find out exactly how much of each active process is paged vs. nonpaged:
(you can cut and past this into excel and then use "text to colums" and select space delimited to see the rows a little easier)
Process ID Proc.Name Wrkng.Set PagedPool NonPgdPl Pagefile Commit Handles Threads User Gdi
00000000 (null) 16384 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
00000004 System 221184 0 0 0 32768 415 51 0 0
00000188 smss.exe 430080 5208 560 155648 155648 23 2 0 0
000001B8 csrss.exe 1753088 54860 6168 1777664 1777664 519 12 0 0
000001D0 winlogon.exe 6823936 62440 10816 6840320 6840320 397 19 13 41
000001FC services.exe 3395584 30884 9112 3850240 3850240 318 16 0 4
00000208 lsass.exe 4247552 46100 9544 5849088 5849088 620 22 1 6
000002B0 svchost.exe 3563520 25260 5968 2801664 2801664 323 8 0 4
000002F0 svchost.exe 28622848 120256 40200 27848704 27848704 1739 83 3 4
0000035C svchost.exe 1667072 15460 5000 1093632 1093632 80 6 0 0
00000378 svchost.exe 4268032 36336 8696 2637824 2637824 251 16 0 0
000003E0 spoolsv.exe 4993024 38504 4952 4874240 4874240 158 13 0 4
0000045C awhost32.exe 3080192 36884 6512 2035712 2035712 167 13 8 30
0000048C DefWatch.exe 1085440 19608 1800 512000 512000 37 3 0 8
000004BC MDM.EXE 1548288 30812 2520 872448 872448 86 4 0 4
0000050C Rtvscan.exe 14295040 48596 11008 14958592 14958592 352 34 4 12
00000608 Wuser32.exe 815104 33064 5728 1196032 1196032 100 10 39 33
0000063C CcmExec.exe 13475840 54704 12136 13336576 13336576 687 14 1 4
00000790 wmiprvse.exe 2871296 20268 3160 3493888 3493888 128 6 0 0
0000013C wmiprvse.exe 3424256 20296 3040 1630208 1630208 135 6 0 0
00000318 explorer.exe 9445376 104820 17576 15732736 15732736 786 17 237 424
0000012C hkcmd.exe 2600960 32104 3040 1396736 1396736 79 2 2 8
000006AC VPTray.exe 3428352 41828 4120 3932160 3932160 144 2 11 27
00000BC8 WISPTIS.EXE 3600384 170348 2840 2625536 2625536 97 3 1471 2948
00000850 OUTLOOK.EXE 7041024 132932 16776 10866688 10866688 798 21 172 342
00000D2C WINWORD.EXE 37756928 237312 12896 15597568 15597568 402 11 57 212
000008F8 mmc.exe 1949696 55992 9288 7393280 7393280 203 5 0 0
00000C84 WZQKPICK.EXE 2232320 25700 1600 528384 528384 19 1 16 19
00000ED0 firefox.exe 4173824 48496 7336 18468864 18468864 176 7 43 123
00000AEC cmd.exe 942080 15716 1360 1495040 1495040 20 1 0 4
00000DB0 IEXPLORE.EXE 17244160 83644 20768 19259392 19259392 669 21 117 365
00000634 msiexec.exe 6914048 34256 3680 2519040 2519040 123 6 0 4
00000638 memsnap.exe 1114112 15296 1304 339968 339968 13 1 0 4
GreNME said:
In fact the task list has exactly one less entry since (null) doesn't show up. Sorry, but you're theory about the magical processes that completely page and don't utilize any CPU at all is just plain wrong.
Again, I agree that there is no perceptible impact to performance.
However, you have the difficult task of proving an absolute. I'm arguing against the use of the word "any" which is pretty easy to do.
Good for you: you are a semanticist. However, you are still woefully incorrect. Instead of senseless pedantics, I suggest you look up terms like "preemptive multitasking." It's not just about being paged, which you seem utterly locked upon for your narrow definition of "any" for using resources. Windows XP (and 2000) are preemptive multitasking OSes, moreso than 9x and as much as any *nix. If you wish to learn more about how preemptive multitasking actually works in relation to using actual system resources, I can suggest a few books that deal with preemptive multitasking on the kernel level.rcolbert said:
What I'm not going to do is take part in a long and fruitless argument over the meaning of "any" according to you. As far as processing cycles and actual resource usage goes, unused services are not using them. If it's semantics you are quibbling over, then this really isn't going to go anywhere for either of us.
[edited to add] I just re-read what I wrote, and I want to assure you I'm not starting a fight here. I'm making it a point that I don't buy what you're selling, and that semanticizing over the word "any" isn't doing you or me any good on this. I'm telling you where I got my info from, and that it isn't just some downloadable tool you run that gives you an "aha!" moment of clarity. I'm just too tired to get into a fight over it, especially when it gets no one anywhere.
Pre-emptive multitasking has nothing to do with anything. It's simply prioritized timeslicing. Perhaps you simply have a overly-narrow definition of what a system resource is.
And by the way, your prior assertion that services will only respond to authenticated users is laughable. Where do you come up with this crap?
PS - the next time you're not starting a fight, terms like: semanticist, woefully, senseless pedantics, utterly, and quibbling probably don't belong in your statement. Nor does a condescending statement such as "If you wish to learn more about how preemptive multitasking actually works in relation to using actual system resources, I can suggest a few books that deal with preemptive multitasking on the kernel level."
But I'm glad to know you're not starting a fight.
And by the way, your prior assertion that services will only respond to authenticated users is laughable. Where do you come up with this crap?
PS - the next time you're not starting a fight, terms like: semanticist, woefully, senseless pedantics, utterly, and quibbling probably don't belong in your statement. Nor does a condescending statement such as "If you wish to learn more about how preemptive multitasking actually works in relation to using actual system resources, I can suggest a few books that deal with preemptive multitasking on the kernel level."
But I'm glad to know you're not starting a fight.
I'm not starting a fight, but as I said, I ain't buying what you're selling, and I think you're full of it. If you think "authenticated user" is so laughable, I challenge you to name a single service that can currently be started on a machine without priveleges (read: authenticated).
hulksterjoe said:
CS....vtm bloodlines....battlefield .....moslty games...when built my comp i didnt expect to run games on my rig...my old..heh.."rig" was a 1997 micron lap top with 1.9 gig hdd. celeron procesor. and 64mb ram...basicly the equivilent to hell for anyone here.
my new rig: pentium 4, 2.44 ghz, 80 gig hdd w/ 8mb buffer, 2mb chache, 512 ram, 300 watt power, MSI 838P Neo-V mobo, radeon 9600 series 120 mb.........quite modest compaired to others on [h]
- Status