Windows proccesses ?

When I go to msconfig, which processes do I need to keep. Im down to 37
processes. I do have 512 MB ram which is sufficant, but when I am
playing a game sometimes I get a lag. This is also happening when I am
working on large graphics.
I am looking for a list of absalute bare mininumum of processes to keep
running. I did a google search and found some info but not a list of
which I am thinking of.
Docfl

"docfl" wrote in message
news
When I go to msconfig, which processes do I need to keep. Im down to 37
processes. I do have 512 MB ram which is sufficant, but when I am playing
a game sometimes I get a lag. This is also happening when I am working on
large graphics.
I am looking for a list of absalute bare mininumum of processes to keep
running. I did a google search and found some info but not a list of which
I am thinking of.
Docfl


Doc,

First, being "down to 37" is a misnomer. Generally, one probably hopes to
end up with a dozen or even less enabled programs there. What I'm saying is
that your machine is still loaded up with unnecessary slag.

Here's a quick link, though I suspect you can find better by using
www.google.com :

http://www.pcpitstop.com/faq/disable.asp



Stew

"Unnecessary slag?"

There is so much hype on the web about Windows services. I'm so tired of it.
And that's exactly what it is: hype spewed by people with big egos who
imagine that they're doing something beneficial to their computers by
tinkering with the internal plumbing of Windows. [I'm obviously not
referring to you.]

Unless someone has a specific problem with a particular Windows service, the
only good reason to change the behavior of a service is for security.
Otherwise, in a computer that's properly equipped to run Windows XP, it
doesn't make a d**n bit of difference except in the mind of someone who
imagines themselves smarter than the designers of Windows.

The public newsgroups are filled with posts from people who mess up their
machines by playing with things they don't understand. And then a Service
Pack is issued that expects to see Windows configured properly, and when
that Service Pack destroys someone's computer whom do they blame?

OK, I'm off my soapbox.

Ted Zieglar

"S.Lewis" wrote in message
. ..

"docfl" wrote in message
news
When I go to msconfig, which processes do I need to keep. Im down to 37
processes. I do have 512 MB ram which is sufficant, but when I am playing
a game sometimes I get a lag. This is also happening when I am working on
large graphics.
I am looking for a list of absalute bare mininumum of processes to keep
running. I did a google search and found some info but not a list of
which I am thinking of.
Docfl


Doc,

First, being "down to 37" is a misnomer. Generally, one probably hopes to
end up with a dozen or even less enabled programs there. What I'm saying
is that your machine is still loaded up with unnecessary slag.

Here's a quick link, though I suspect you can find better by using
www.google.com :

http://www.pcpitstop.com/faq/disable.asp



Stew

"Ted Zieglar" wrote in message
...
"Unnecessary slag?"



That's an accurate quote. I stand by it.


Stew

Well, my friend, in that case my computer is filled with "unnecessary slag."
And she runs beautifully, as in speedy and reliable.

Ted Zieglar

"S.Lewis" wrote in message
.. .

"Ted Zieglar" wrote in message
...
"Unnecessary slag?"



That's an accurate quote. I stand by it.


Stew

Try he

http://www.answersthatwork.com/Taskl...s/tasklist.htm


"docfl" wrote in message
news
When I go to msconfig, which processes do I need to keep. Im down to 37
processes. I do have 512 MB ram which is sufficant, but when I am
playing a game sometimes I get a lag. This is also happening when I am
working on large graphics.
I am looking for a list of absalute bare mininumum of processes to keep
running. I did a google search and found some info but not a list of
which I am thinking of.
Docfl

"Ted Zieglar" wrote in message
...
Well, my friend, in that case my computer is filled with "unnecessary
slag." And she runs beautifully, as in speedy and reliable.

Ted Zieglar



Ted,

As the cliche' goes, "each to his own". And further, if that works for you
(and works well), cheers to you.

Obviously, the more powerful the system, the less of an issue it likely is.
And I'm guessing you're not running a 1.1GHz Celeron with 256mb and WinXP.

Stew

Your guess is correct. In fact, I have a Dimension 4500. Not exactly stock:
I've added memory, improved the hard disks and replaced the video card, but
that's not why she runs so sweet.

My Dimension zings because I've learned how to run her well. After years of
fumbling in the dark with Windows, I found enlightenment. And one of the
things I learned is not to tweak things that don't really matter. If the
average user's computer performs so poorly that they have to drop otherwise
benign Windows services just to get acceptable performance, then it's time
for a new computer.

On the other hand, if someone wants to open 'er up to see what she can do
and they have a good backup, I'd say play with your computer until it starts
to smoke. Most users who ask 'what services they can do without' aren't
nearly that sophisticated.

Ted Zieglar

"S.Lewis" wrote in message
.. .

"Ted Zieglar" wrote in message
...
Well, my friend, in that case my computer is filled with "unnecessary
slag." And she runs beautifully, as in speedy and reliable.

Ted Zieglar



Ted,

As the cliche' goes, "each to his own". And further, if that works for
you (and works well), cheers to you.

Obviously, the more powerful the system, the less of an issue it likely
is. And I'm guessing you're not running a 1.1GHz Celeron with 256mb and
WinXP.

Stew

"S.Lewis" wrote in message
.. .

"Ted Zieglar" wrote in message
...
Well, my friend, in that case my computer is filled with "unnecessary
slag." And she runs beautifully, as in speedy and reliable.

Ted Zieglar



Ted,

As the cliche' goes, "each to his own". And further, if that works for
you
(and works well), cheers to you.

Obviously, the more powerful the system, the less of an issue it likely
is.
And I'm guessing you're not running a 1.1GHz Celeron with 256mb and WinXP.

Stew

OK, after a reboot I'm seeing 20 under the logged in user account and 28
under SYSTEM/LOCAL
SERVICE/NETWORK SERVICE. So that's 48 processes and I'm running 512MB with
a chunk of that going to graphics. I don't see any paging. If push came to
shove, I could shut down some of the stuff running in the background. If I
was running 256MB I'd definitely have issues though.

"Ted Zieglar" wrote in message
...
Your guess is correct. In fact, I have a Dimension 4500. Not exactly
stock: I've added memory, improved the hard disks and replaced the video
card, but that's not why she runs so sweet.

My Dimension zings because I've learned how to run her well. After years
of fumbling in the dark with Windows, I found enlightenment. And one of
the things I learned is not to tweak things that don't really matter. If
the average user's computer performs so poorly that they have to drop
otherwise benign Windows services just to get acceptable performance, then
it's time for a new computer.

On the other hand, if someone wants to open 'er up to see what she can do
and they have a good backup, I'd say play with your computer until it
starts to smoke. Most users who ask 'what services they can do without'
aren't nearly that sophisticated.

Ted Zieglar


snip


For the record, I'm under the impression that the OP is referring to
msconfig/startup applications enabled, *not* services (msconfig/services).

Perhaps I've misinterpreted the OP's definition of "processes".

Obviously, there are a ton of services running on most all machines. I
currently have 81 (not that I've counted until tonight) enabled/running, and
I have no performance issues.


Stew