what Processes have you disabled? FW model

what background processes have you disabled from you laptop?

currently i am running at 61 , which is still a lot!

any suggestions

 

61 is NOT a lot. Plus the number of processes is not a measure of performance, the cpu cycles consumed by them is what you should be concerned about. The fact that Vista has loaded a process and then paged it out awaiting some trigger, is in no way degrading the performance of your machine. In point of fact it is just the opposite. A paged out process can be started MUCH more quickly when the appropriate trigger occurs. This trend for folks to be concerned with the aggregate NUMBER of processes is ill-conceived. It is meaningless.

Gary

 

Well not quite - processes use RAM and once they run the laptop does find something, so its a little CPU use here and there...

Also: If you don't need something why should it load and take up your memory?

However Gary is very right when he says 61 is not a lot.

My SZ was at 61 this morning, left on to "sort itself out" overnight - normally I'll have somewhere between 65 and 62/63 after startup.

 

hmm i am just comparing it to my LG laptop and clean install and loaded all my apps and i am at 49, and they can degrade performance when some on the Sony are running at 35,000kb .. etc.

the less processes the more system memory.

there are some there i am sure that are all Vaio Software bloated crap. just not sure which .

 

You get some Vaio Essentials like the Vaio Event Manager (I believe its called) which controls the Fn combination, the S1 & S2 buttons.
Then You've got the Smart Wi-Fi utility which comes in handy...

Without a clean instal you are hard pressed geting under 60 on a Sony SZ - and that's disabling the odd service. (e.g. what do I need readyboost for on a 4GB system??)

 

"The less ACTIVE processes the more system memory", would be more correct. Once a process is loaded, it can be paged out to give up the memory it occupies. It only comes back into memory once the appropriate trigger event occurs.

That was the point I was trying to make. Inactive processes do not consume system memory, except for a small footprint to that keeps track of their identity and that they have been paged out.

Eliminating a given process may have little, if any, effect on performance and memory use. Others have a HUGE impact.

Yes, there is no point i loading ones which will never be used. That much is clear, but the trend here of late has been for folks to go crazy and try to eliminate as many as possible.

Gary

 

I suspect you are right - now about loading stuff.

About what, a month ago I reinstalled Vista... and I wondered where at least 30min of battery life went, well I found them again.
a) switching of bluetooth
b) booting on AC - my SZ needs a lot of electricity to actually fill its cache after starting - about 20-30min of my battery life (so I will now get well over 4 hours on an 80% charge)

Also - a lot of processes that run for applications will mirror stuff in the background, do things.
Say quicktime loads automatically - it doesn't shut down - it'll keep itself active as a quick load option, it'll check for updates - and this means it uses resources.

I suspect you also have to differentiate between "extreme tweaking" and "tidying up".
I didn't disable anything I think I could use - for example in the services tab.

In comparison stuff like Adobe quickstart, quicktime and realscheduler are disabled.

Anyway - what's the consensus?
Reducing the amount of processes (unless its 10 or 20 I'd say) will not significantly increase system performance, however it may still be useful to get rid of completely unused processes.

PS: Rep for you.