What happened to Blackviper's site?

[rcolbert]

It seems to me that it's pretty easy to enable a disabled service. Would folks make the same argument against overclocking? It's just as easy to encounter mystery problems down the line, and just as easy to overlook the fact that the overclock might be the culprit, and just as easy to set the clock back down to stock speeds once you figure it out.

I think the burden of proof lies on the wrong side of the argument in the opinions of those arguing against disabling services. Why would someone have to prove that 38 running processes is a leaner configuration than 40 running processes? In the real (non-computer) world when you performance tune something, it's a whole lot of little things that add up. Microscopic changes may not be individually measured, but do you really want the guy who designs the 777 that you're flying in to "eyeball" it? Or would you rather he got under the microscope and optomized each and every material for it's intended purpose? It's already a given that you can't measure the impact of disabling a given service under most circumstances by observation at the macro level.

Conversely, would everyone agree that we've all experienced times when our computers seemed to scream with speed, and other times when things felt a little sluggish? I'm not suggesting services have any impact on that at all. What I am saying is this: How do you quantify what is sluggish and what is not? If we can't even agree on what we're measuring then how do we apply the various evidence being presented?

If you want observable performance gains, then the best thing to do is increase your mouse pointer speed. If you want to win this argument, then good luck. It'll never happen here.

Of course everyone does agree that disabling services was the right thing to do prior to XP SP2, right?

 

[SJConsultant]

So you admit that the other four were drivel? So you're a confirmed drivel-poster, good luck with that...
.

No, I was using the first three as an example. Thanks for the unjustified name calling.

Lay off with the attacks, you don't see me posting attacks against you or calling you names. Just because you've got problems with others doesn't give you the right to attack everyone that asks for clarification on your points or disagrees with you.

We've had our disagreements and I was going to try to have a decent discussion, but considering your responses, it's not worth my time or energy.

Have a good day.

 

[KoolDrew]

Of course everyone does agree that disabling services was the right thing to do prior to XP SP2, right

For the messenger service, but that is it.

 

[O[H]-Zone]

No, I was using the first three as an example. Thanks for the unjustified name calling.

Lay off with the attacks, you don't see me posting attacks against you or calling you names. Just because you've got problems with others doesn't give you the right to attack everyone that asks for clarification on your points or disagrees with you.

We've had our disagreements and I was going to try to have a decent discussion, but considering your responses, it's not worth my time or energy.

Have a good day.

Unjustified? You trailed along after me posting those same 7 links in three different threads trying to make it sound like it was oh-so-easy to find examples of disabled-service related problems. And I actually have had to point out to you three times that the links you provided were drivel (having little of nothing to do with the issue). But you knew that; you even trimmed a few off your list, because they were very drivlelous.
Yet you still continued posting them. I'd say pointing out that you post drivel is wholly justified. You earned it, bucko...
So you go have a good cry, and you'll feel better.

 

[SJConsultant]

Unjustified? You trailed along after me posting those same 7 links in three different threads trying to make it sound like it was oh-so-easy to find examples of disabled-service related problems. And I actually have had to point out to you three times that the links you provided were drivel (having little of nothing to do with the issue). But you knew that; you even trimmed a few off your list, because they were very drivlelous.
Yet you still continued posting them. I'd say pointing out that you post drivel is wholly justified. You earned it, bucko...
So you go have a good cry, and you'll feel better.

3 threads? Check again. There are only two threads. This one and the other that got locked.

Trimming the list? My post of the links remains *unedited* and as I pointed out later in this thread I referenced the first 3 links as an *example*.

It's not like I kept posting the same links over and over, I only posted the links *ONCE* and referenced to them.

It's clear that you can't calm done and talk this in a sensable manner without resulting in throwing insults. But if your going to continue making false accusations and calling names, it's only going to look worse for you since I am trying to make an honest effort to remain civil.

 

[Met-AL]

Thank God this thread didn't get locked down too so we can continue on with the same stupid argument that got the other thread locked.

The last thread was actually starting to go somewhere with Joni Nitro who was going to do some benchmark testing and post some results, but instead, O[H]-Zone had to keep up with the crap till it was locked.

 

[O[H]-Zone]

SJConsultant:
You posted the list twice and linked to it once...wow, there's a huge distinction. Getting back to things that matter, the list was drivel. You posted it. Live with it. And how strange that the list was supposed to be ALL examples, and then you trimmed off four, to make three...examples. Logic?

Met-Al:
I have done nothing but post true information and defend myself. If that bothers you, tough. Speaking of crap, though...how did that post add to the discussion?

 

[odoe]

Cut it out. Some of you guys need to read your PM boxes.