Minimal processes in Vista ?

[Zenoth]

Hey,

In Windows XP SP2, after my usual optimum optimizations I ended up with 15 running processes upon arriving at the Desktop, and that included a few programs I wanted to but weren't part of the OS, such as RivaTuner for example.

Well, now, in Windows Vista I have a shocking 32 processes running, and not only the but my CPU usage varies between 2% to 6%, and the physical memory used averages at 22% ! I need to know if there is a known list of "useless programs" I can disable without screwing up the whole thing. If not, could you guys at least tell me how many processes are running in your Vista ? And what's the CPU/Memory utilization like ?

Thanks.

 

[mechBgon]

1.3GB RAM in use, CPU utilization 8% with surges as high as 40% on an X2 3800+ @ stock. 61 processes on the All Users list. Ok, so I'm logged on with two accounts and one is running a Win2000 session in a virtual machine

If there's one thing not to worry about, it's having your RAM get used in Vista. I wish I had 8GB of RAM, and if I did, I would want to see SuperFetch park 7GB of my most-frequently-used stuff in it.

 

[Nothinman]

Well, now, in Windows Vista I have a shocking 32 processes running,

Why is 32 shocking? I've got ~160 right now counting kernel threads on my Linux box.

and not only the but my CPU usage varies between 2% to 6%, and the physical memory used averages at 22%

If that 2-6% is when the box is idle then startup taskmgr and see what's using it, if it's not getting accounted to anything then it's likely a driver. And 22% of 2G is 450M which is a bit high but if that includes the filesystem cache then it's completely reasonable.

I need to know if there is a known list of "useless programs" I can disable without screwing up the whole thing.

One person's useless is another's must have, only you can decide what you do and do not want to use.

 

[Zenoth]

Good points Nothinman. But basically all I wanted to do was to reduce the number of processes to a strict minimum for a proper off-line and basic on-line functionality. When I first installed XP I also had a good number of processes, around 30+ I believe, and that, to me, is "shocking" simply because I never needed that many services running in the background, only eating up some (even if negligible at times) system resources that could be put to better use.

I often heard that Vista's "minimal" amount of processes for a working system is still higher than what can be achieved on XP, that Vista will always inevitably use more resources than XP whatever is done. That I can like with it, but I doubt that 30 to 32 processes is "the best" I can do without screwing up the system. And, again, to me, 450MB to 480MB of my RAM used for the OS is significantly higher than XP, which used around 260MB after I disabled the useless services. And in a game like Oblivion, with the textures modifications installed, that extra 250MB taken by Vista compared to XP will be lacking, because in such a game even 2GB of RAM sometimes is asking for more.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Zenoth
Hey,

In Windows XP SP2, after my usual optimum optimizations I ended up with 15 running processes upon arriving at the Desktop, and that included a few programs I wanted to but weren't part of the OS, such as RivaTuner for example.

Well, now, in Windows Vista I have a shocking 32 processes running, and not only the but my CPU usage varies between 2% to 6%, and the physical memory used averages at 22% ! I need to know if there is a known list of "useless programs" I can disable without screwing up the whole thing. If not, could you guys at least tell me how many processes are running in your Vista ? And what's the CPU/Memory utilization like ?

Thanks.

Frankly thats low, and the fact that you are concerned with it suggests you might be trying to overengineer a solution for a non-existant problem.

 

[Zenoth]

No no it's ok I'll live with it. It'll be ok. Keep in mind that I've been using XP since around Q1 2002. It'll take me a while to get used to Vista.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Zenoth
Good points Nothinman. But basically all I wanted to do was to reduce the number of processes to a strict minimum for a proper off-line and basic on-line functionality. When I first installed XP I also had a good number of processes, around 30+ I believe, and that, to me, is "shocking" simply because I never needed that many services running in the background, only eating up some (even if negligible at times) system resources that could be put to better use.

I often heard that Vista's "minimal" amount of processes for a working system is still higher than what can be achieved on XP, that Vista will always inevitably use more resources than XP whatever is done. That I can like with it, but I doubt that 30 to 32 processes is "the best" I can do without screwing up the system. And, again, to me, 450MB to 480MB of my RAM used for the OS is significantly higher than XP, which used around 260MB after I disabled the useless services. And in a game like Oblivion, with the textures modifications installed, that extra 250MB taken by Vista compared to XP will be lacking, because in such a game even 2GB of RAM sometimes is asking for more.

Turn off the indexer, aero glass, and every other new feature, and you'll bring the memory usage down to basically XP levels. But then you'll also be missing out on everything you paid for.

If oblivion needs the RAM, it'll take it. You might get a little more swapping than on XP, but it wont slow you down too much.

 

[lxskllr]

I have 54 processes running. Computer works great, with snappy response

 

[Raduque]

I have 40 processes running (including FF with several tabs, mIRC, sidebar and Winamp), CPU idles at around 3% (taskman uses 2%), and 38% of my 2gb used. My Superfetch cache isn't built completely yet, as I haven't installed everything I used to use in XP on a daily basis. With Vista (and with XP to a lesser extent) unused ram is wasted ram. Also, regardless of how much ram the OS uses, if a game needs ram, Vista will give it.

 

[stash]

Seriously, who cares? I'd rather use my computer for the things I use it for than sit around and count processes.

 

[jzodda]

the situation with Vista is different then with XP. Whats one of the first things people do when then install XP? Disable indexing on all drives. Do that on Vista and then you mess up some really good features.

So I would not assume that Vista is just like XP in any way, shape or form.

There are some service guides out there and sure there are some stuff you can disable but I would be careful. Vista runs under the hood far better then XP and gives any game you run what it asks for up to your limits.

As to just startup stuff using msconfig. Well mostly thats the same as XP. See what you need and uncheck what you are not using.

You have 2G of ram so you should be just fine.

 

[stash]

Whats one of the first things people do when then install XP? Disable indexing on all drives

That's doubtful, given how indexing wasn't enabled by default on XP. But I agree with you that doing that on Vista would be silly.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: stash

Whats one of the first things people do when then install XP? Disable indexing on all drives

That's doubtful, given how indexing wasn't enabled by default on XP. But I agree with you that doing that on Vista would be silly.

Are you sure about that? It seems to me that it was always on by default. I used to turn it off in XP because I couldn't discern any difference in performance. The indexing seems to work much better in Vista, and though I don't use it much, it works very well when I do.

 

[jzodda]

Originally posted by: stash

Whats one of the first things people do when then install XP? Disable indexing on all drives

That's doubtful, given how indexing wasn't enabled by default on XP. But I agree with you that doing that on Vista would be silly.

It was always on every time I reloaded XP. I am not talking about the service, I am talking about turning off from Drive Properties, and unchecking indexing. I don't remember the details about the service however. I am sure I turned that off as well though if it was on

I used to be a huge fan of turning off services with abandon, but not as much anymore unless its something that I know I will never use and its turning off is not something that "may" gets used a few years from now.

 

[stash]

It was always on every time I reloaded XP. I am not talking about the service, I am talking about turning off from Drive Properties, and unchecking indexing.

Hmm. I was always under the impression that box didn't do anything unless the service was running. Not sure though. Never bothered me on XP to leave it alone though.

 

[the Chase]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Zenoth
Good points Nothinman. But basically all I wanted to do was to reduce the number of processes to a strict minimum for a proper off-line and basic on-line functionality. When I first installed XP I also had a good number of processes, around 30+ I believe, and that, to me, is "shocking" simply because I never needed that many services running in the background, only eating up some (even if negligible at times) system resources that could be put to better use.

I often heard that Vista's "minimal" amount of processes for a working system is still higher than what can be achieved on XP, that Vista will always inevitably use more resources than XP whatever is done. That I can like with it, but I doubt that 30 to 32 processes is "the best" I can do without screwing up the system. And, again, to me, 450MB to 480MB of my RAM used for the OS is significantly higher than XP, which used around 260MB after I disabled the useless services. And in a game like Oblivion, with the textures modifications installed, that extra 250MB taken by Vista compared to XP will be lacking, because in such a game even 2GB of RAM sometimes is asking for more.

Turn off the indexer, aero glass, and every other new feature, and you'll bring the memory usage down to basically XP levels. But then you'll also be missing out on everything you paid for.

If oblivion needs the RAM, it'll take it. You might get a little more swapping than on XP, but it wont slow you down too much.

Well yes and no. Vista will give up what it can for the game, but it won't slim itself down to anywhere near XP levels. Bf2 mod with 2GB of memory and textures on high- XP= smooth as silk- Vista= unplayable and even crashing due to swapping/low memory.

Not sure on Oblivion but would assume close to the same at high res and large textures.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: the Chase

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Zenoth
Good points Nothinman. But basically all I wanted to do was to reduce the number of processes to a strict minimum for a proper off-line and basic on-line functionality. When I first installed XP I also had a good number of processes, around 30+ I believe, and that, to me, is "shocking" simply because I never needed that many services running in the background, only eating up some (even if negligible at times) system resources that could be put to better use.

I often heard that Vista's "minimal" amount of processes for a working system is still higher than what can be achieved on XP, that Vista will always inevitably use more resources than XP whatever is done. That I can like with it, but I doubt that 30 to 32 processes is "the best" I can do without screwing up the system. And, again, to me, 450MB to 480MB of my RAM used for the OS is significantly higher than XP, which used around 260MB after I disabled the useless services. And in a game like Oblivion, with the textures modifications installed, that extra 250MB taken by Vista compared to XP will be lacking, because in such a game even 2GB of RAM sometimes is asking for more.

Turn off the indexer, aero glass, and every other new feature, and you'll bring the memory usage down to basically XP levels. But then you'll also be missing out on everything you paid for.

If oblivion needs the RAM, it'll take it. You might get a little more swapping than on XP, but it wont slow you down too much.

Well yes and no. Vista will give up what it can for the game, but it won't slim itself down to anywhere near XP levels. Bf2 mod with 2GB of memory and textures on high- XP= smooth as silk- Vista= unplayable and even crashing due to swapping/low memory.

Not sure on Oblivion but would assume close to the same at high res and large textures.

I dunno what youre talking about...I play BF2142 maxed out on a vista system that isnt cut down, with 2gb, and it never swaps. Same with oblivion.

 

[n7]

http://www.speedyvista.com/

Disclaimer!

I do not recommend doing all the tweaks they mention.
That does give a rough guide for what stuff does, but the majority of things should be left running.

An example of their services' guide being stupid is that they recommend disabling Superfetch

So i would carefully look into what you are disabling before doing it, as you may very well be doing more harm than good.

I will say that yes, you can get Vista down to very low RAM usage if you so desire.
But in doing so, you will have basically defeated the purpose of running Vista.

 

[n7]

And i must add some screenies to scare more newbie Vista users :evil:

Typical RAM usage for me (my normal stuff running + a few extras - nothing intensive though) = 1.8 GB
http://www.imageannex.com/image/4564.jpeg

Processes
http://www.imageannex.com/image/4565.jpeg

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: n7
And i must add some screenies to scare more newbie Vista users :evil:

Typical RAM usage for me (my normal stuff running + a few extras - nothing intensive though) = 1.8 GB
http://www.imageannex.com/image/4564.jpeg

Processes
http://www.imageannex.com/image/4565.jpeg

lol

*hears the sounds of fainting XP tweakers everywhere

 

[bsobel]

Typical RAM usage for me (my normal stuff running + a few extras - nothing intensive though) = 1.8 GB
http://www.imageannex.com/image/4564.jpeg

You wanna scare em eh? My typical usage OfficePC_Taskman.jpg

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Typical RAM usage for me (my normal stuff running + a few extras - nothing intensive though) = 1.8 GB
http://www.imageannex.com/image/4564.jpeg

You wanna scare em eh? My typical usage OfficePC_Taskman.jpg

That's smoking hot. 32GB of memory and 8 cores!!! What's the fifth and eighth core doing with those peaks (from left to right)?

 

[bsobel]

That's smoking hot. 32GB of memory and 8 cores!!! What's the fifth and eighth core doing with those peaks (from left to right)?

I think one of my vm's was booting.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: bsobel
You wanna scare em eh? My typical usage OfficePC_Taskman.jpg

Very nice, very nice!

 

[zig3695]

75 processes. i think orb takes up half of those. wait a minute, why do i have orb installed on my main pc!? *running to the control panel* that program is a recourse zapper like no other.... but useful