Vista and Processes

Ok so I don't know Vista that well, nor have I dealt with too many laptops, but I feel uncomfortable having some 40 odd processes running. I had about 50 something when I first started, and after checking a few Vista guides I was able to do some optimization like I do in XP Pro. The thing is, for XP Pro on my desktop I have less then 30 processes, at almost all times, and that's with winamp and opera and my nod32 running and my IM client.


So what's the normal number of processes for Vista on a notebook? Do you think I could cut down on some more, or should I not even worry about it?

 

If your computer is running smoothly and the memory/cpu/hard drive usage is not excessive and causing slow downs, then I wouldn't worry so much about the # of processes. I'd rather have 60 processes and the computer run smooth vs. 30 processes that completely bog down the system.

So look more into the quality of processes (aka having the ones that take up the least amount of resources) as apposed to simply the quantity of them.

Just like you, I'm a minimalist, and in XP I have 23 processes at startup. But in Vista, the lowest I can get to is in the high 30s.

 

Oh it runs just fine, I just don't entirely know what somethings are, so I guess I'll just start researching every process and see what I can get rid of.

 

Just FYI, in XP right as I type I have 71 processes running. This includes instances of SQL 2000 and 2005. I need this for work. It is definitely feeling the effects of some programs.

I agree with adinu, if you aren't getting bogged down don't worry about it. You can, however, definitely remove processes you aren't (and the system isn't) using.

 

Having processes loaded does not necessarily meant they take up CPU time or anything else. Most of them simply sleep until they're needed. So the only price you pay for having them loaded is the few MB of virtual memory they take up. And since they hardly ever actually get executed, they'll take up space on the pagefile rather than RAM, which means you quite literally lose no performance whatsoever.

 

optimization freaks hate it when I say this, but here goes:

unused resources are wasted resources.....

I agree with the calmer heads above. if you cannot tell they are running by the feel of your computer, then do not worry about them.

Yes, you can shave 27 kbs off by of memory usafe and .9 percent of cpu usage by quitting some services, but if the services are performing properly (this is sometimes not the case with the third party services) then it does not matter if they are there or not

 

Eh don't fully agree with that, unused resources are wasted resources until an application like a demanding game cant use those resources to squeeze out more performance because they are being used by unnecessary processes/services.

 

Yes, I agree, my answer was incomplete...I was only addressing the notion of stopping services for the sake of stopping them so you can have as many free resources as possible

 

Yeah, but unless a process consumes like 500MB of ram and uses at least half of your CPU power constantly, closing a few MB's worth of resources isn't going to boost your game performance all that much...

 

There are services that can be shut down/ prevent it from starting up. This way, there will be more free resources to do other stuffs, and at the same time, harden your computer's security by closing unnecessary services that may post a security risk.

 

You would be surprised. I guess maybe not if you just got a new laptop, but give it a few months and then do it and you will see a huge boost in performance with a full optimization (registry, startup, services, processes). I did one for my friends comp and he says his gaming prowess has greatly improved.

 

The first part has been addressed already, the second is worth discussing.

While very true for Windows XP rtm and Sp1, the notion of closing unnecessary services became less relevent in Sp2 and less relevent still for Vista.

A number of strategies/practices have greatly limted the security issue previously associated with XP.

For example, Vista services are isolated, meaning a service can access required objects without using things like LocalSystem now.

Another concept is called "least priovilidge" which simply means that a service runs using an account with the least privileges necessary to accomplish the service's goals. No more super priviledges that can be exploited. Again,using Windows Xp as an example, the LocalSystem account could basically do anything to your machine, Under Vista services requiring LocalSystem-only rights can still use the LocalSystem account, but can be configured to be granted only those rights that are required for the service to operate, and no more.


Vista also implements network access restrictions in which Windows services are restricted a by TCP/UDP port, protocol, or even by the direction that network traffic is flowing. This makes it more difficult for hackers to exploit the service (although, once again, a third party service that is poorly written could be exploited--but we are talking about basic Windows services here)

Another thing Microsoft did with services is to no longer allow applications to run in the base session--usually called session 0. Previously, services and applications could potentially run in this base session, which meant that if an application was written poorly or was exploitable the services running the same session were more vulnerable

By removing all applications from session 0, the services are more secure.

Is it risk-free? No...give people time and they will find a way to mess up a system. But the service-security issue is not as scary as it once was.

 

At the moment I have to say it really seems fine, I was playing Dawn of War and Company of Heroes for 8hours or so straight without a single problem, DoW maxed out, and CoH pretty close, just no AA or DX10. I don't see what's left for me to get rid of helping anything now.

Still i'm sure in 2months i'll reinstall Vista, and maybe on my own clean install I can get it to a level I like more hehe. Still a few interesting opinions in here, things to think about.

 

Well with Vista 64bit(not sure if that makes a difference regarding this issue) I only have around ~25 processeses running with ie and some other stuff on. I'm not sure how u dont understand what the processoses are as vista automaticly describes what each one does. There are only 3 on my list that dont have a description and a quick google gives me the answer. I'd be curious to see ur long list of processes if u could post it.

 

It's not that I don't know what they do or don't do, just more along the lines that the notebook is slightly different then my desktop as it has notebook type stuffs and a different OS then I am use too.

I'd take a screenshoot but im lazy, and it's not that long only 40 processes -_-

 

Which resources are those?
The 8MB that are taken up on the pagefile? Your game needs those?
You need to buy more RAM then.
CPU time? The entire point is that most of these processed don't use any CPU time when they're not actively running (which, for most of them, does not happen except in very unusual cases)

So which resources is it your game needs?

And I suppose you've got benchmarks to back this up?
Also, you're mixing a lot of unrelated issues together. Yes, cleaning up the list of startup apps has a huge impact on startup time. But how does this relate to gaming performance?
As for your friend? Two things.
1: Placebo effect.
2: We've only talked about "normal" well-behaving processes. Of course it is possible to install processes that do hog system resources. And yes, getting rid of those can help. But did your friend see a noticeable difference in ingame performance solely from disabling standard Windows services?

No, I didn't think so.

 

Thats why I said a full optimization. Gaming performance? Processes take up ram and idle cpu usage. I didn't say only standard windows services. That is why I also claimed that most likely not a noticeable improvement on new laptops but older ones.

I like how you claim that I have no benchmarks to back this up yet you do a hypocritical approach and claim its the placebo effect without actually seeing benchmarks yourself or even speaking to him.