Performance-oriented Windows tweaking

[GeneralAres]

Basically, yes. That's the pattern followed by Anand, by XBit Labs, Digit Life, and any other good review website. When Anand tests a new video card, he doesn't test it's effect on level loading times or system boot time. Why? Because it isn't important and it's not relevant.

You are not testing hardware but software, in this case services. Testing load times is a legitimate test.

BV's tweaks are, according to him, supposed to free up memory and CPU cycles which are supposed to make the computer faster for general useage, especially gaming (which, to BV, seems to be the sole purpose of a computer). They don't. My tests prove that. End of story.

Disabling services does free up memory and at the very leasy improves boot times.

I'm not paying any particular attention to the rest of your post because it's trolling. You have no proof or evidence, you just want to bicker and argue over any conceivable point no matter how minor, irrelevant or petty. If you have some substantial evidence I'll hear it, but until then it's just hot air.

Denial shows through when you bust out the trolling moniker. You declare something "irrelevant" and therefore everyone else should? Please. I've made a valid argument that you have dismissed it with no proof.

For instance, despite all your conjecture you have absolutely no proof that these tweaks decrease boot times anyway! I could just as well say that the tweaks increase boot time, and you'd have nothing to really dispute that with.

I just tested it and with all the Windows Services enabled it increased my boot time by 30 seconds. What other things does having unneeded services effect then? The point is you just don't know and have not proven otherwise.

 

[Rilex]

Disabling services does free up memory

Free memory == useless memory

Since services don't put much pressure on memory and are quickly paged out, disabling them for the purpose of "saving memory" is absolutely useless.

As for boot time? You reboot? Disabling services to shave off 30 seconds of boot time seems like more of a waste of your time. But, YMMV.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: GeneralAres
Lots of stuff

Please go back and read the first page. You have drifted from the topic. It is run time that was the whole point. And, it can be just a minor thing that will totally throw off your results regardless of what services are on or off during start (time outs, etc.).

I suggest you get the Embedded Toolkit ($995 still?) You can build a custom version of XP specifically for your computer that only loads the specific device drivers and services it needs. The OS loads many plug and play hooks that it "might" need. Then you can also get a speedy XP on a 233 with 64MB of memory (you need to decide what you want to support.)

Otherwise, you can be wasting more time tweaking it than you save.

 

[SSJ Dude]

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: GeneralAres
Lots of stuff

Please go back and read the first page. You have drifted from the topic. It is run time that was the whole point. And, it can be just a minor thing that will totally throw off your results regardless of what services are on or off during start (time outs, etc.).

I suggest you get the Embedded Toolkit ($995 still?) You can build a custom version of XP specifically for your computer that only loads the specific device drivers and services it needs. The OS loads many plug and play hooks that it "might" need. Then you can also get a speedy XP on a 233 with 64MB of memory (you need to decide what you want to support.)

Otherwise, you can be wasting more time tweaking it than you save.

Or just get nLite. Which is free. And is probably a less retarded decision.


And your point is stupid (was there really a point?). The whole point of tweaking is changing settings so you wouldn't have to do such things like building your own OS version.

If we can disable some services we'll never use (or set them to Manual, which can be synonymous), then why not do it? It saves the resources it takes to start it, (supposedly) page it all out, and then stop it. If you don't care to do so, then that's your problem. But if we gain something from it, then it's our benefit, and nothing you guys can say will negate that fact. Just because you don't care about it, doesn't make it useless.

 

[SSJ Dude]

Originally posted by: Rilex

Disabling services does free up memory

Free memory == useless memory

Since services don't put much pressure on memory and are quickly paged out, disabling them for the purpose of "saving memory" is absolutely useless.

I've seen this several times, but who really is saying that the whole process is being swapped out? Weren't some of you guys vehemently arguing that Windows doesn't swap, it pages? I fail to see how it's self evident that an unused process will be completely put aside and forgotten about.

As for boot time? You reboot? Disabling services to shave off 30 seconds of boot time seems like more of a waste of your time. But, YMMV.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. If you know what you're doing, you can properly disable many unneeded services in a matter of seconds, or minutes for the less proficient. This is a one time event. How many times do you think you will boot your PC over it's lifetime? Even if you're one of the very select few in this thread that supposedly never boots, you eventually will need to for whatever reasons, and will easily make up those seconds or minutes from the original tweaking. That's what this type of tweaking is all about.

In fact, I just installed Windows XP again the other day, and it only took a minute to go through the list and set about 10 services to Manual and stop them. And since I just installed Windows again, I also had to re-update it too, as well as reinstall all of my programs. That alone caused me to reboot several times.

---

Originally posted by: gsellis
Rilex - no point in answer that user. He is the user that gets banned every day. He is coming in through a proxy, so it is difficult (not impossible) to cut him off. Just let the little troll rant. His ego is bigger than his actual brain.

QFT by AnandTech Moderator

 

[Rilex]

I've seen this several times, but who really is saying that the whole process is being swapped out? Weren't some of you guys vehemently arguing that Windows doesn't swap, it pages? I fail to see how it's self evident that an unused process will be completely put aside and forgotten about.

No one said that the entire process gets "swapped" out.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. If you know what you're doing, you can properly disable many unneeded services in a matter of seconds, or minutes for the less proficient. This is a one time event. How many times do you think you will boot your PC over it's lifetime?

I reboot my PC once a month (patches), unless a program absolutely requires it (such as WinFS). I can't say I feel that much more aged because I may have lost as much as 30 seconds during boot time. I can say the amount of troubleshooting I'd need to do to properly select unneeded services would be more of a hassle then losing up to 30 seconds of my life per month. I'd think you would have more to worry about than that.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: Rilex

I've seen this several times, but who really is saying that the whole process is being swapped out? Weren't some of you guys vehemently arguing that Windows doesn't swap, it pages? I fail to see how it's self evident that an unused process will be completely put aside and forgotten about.

No one said that the entire process gets "swapped" out.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. If you know what you're doing, you can properly disable many unneeded services in a matter of seconds, or minutes for the less proficient. This is a one time event. How many times do you think you will boot your PC over it's lifetime?

I reboot my PC once a month (patches), unless a program absolutely requires it (such as WinFS). I can't say I feel that much more aged because I may have lost as much as 30 seconds during boot time. I can say the amount of troubleshooting I'd need to do to properly select unneeded services would be more of a hassle then losing up to 30 seconds of my life per month. I'd think you would have more to worry about than that.

Rilex - no point in answer that user. He is the user that gets banned every day. He is coming in through a proxy, so it is difficult (not impossible) to cut him off. Just let the little troll rant. His ego is bigger than his actual brain.

 

[Rilex]

Ah, ok, thanks

 

[KoolDrew]

Originally posted by: Rilex

Disabling services does free up memory

Free memory == useless memory

Since services don't put much pressure on memory and are quickly paged out, disabling them for the purpose of "saving memory" is absolutely useless.

As for boot time? You reboot? Disabling services to shave off 30 seconds of boot time seems like more of a waste of your time. But, YMMV.

I was going to make the same exact points. The only thing I can say disabling services will help is boot time, but it seems like a waste of time to disable services just for a faster boot time. With modern computers and Windows XP boot time is not slow at all. Also, most people here leave their computers on 24/7 or at least use Hibernation.

 

[JackMDS]

LOL, the whole thread turned into Verbal Ego Technology fight at best.

If I disable the few services that I really do not use I save 3sec.

Those people who claim 30sec. saving probably test it on 233 that is not connected to a Network with No Internet capacity, and it is used as Doorstop that makes Noise. I do not care if my Doorstop takes extra 30sec. to boot.

:sun:

BTW Doorstops are inexpensive these days, you can find PII-233 in NYC's thrifts shops for $10-$20 apiece. :thumbsup:

 

[swamyg1]

you guys are funny... hehe

 

[imported_Myth]

Nice Work

 

[emailnew]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
The only thing I can say disabling services will help is boot time,

Because you don't know any better.

but it seems like a waste of time to disable services just for a faster boot time.

Then don't bother.

With modern computers and Windows XP boot time is not slow at all.

It never really was. But having newer parts doesn't always mean a faster boot. Sure, some stuff may load faster, but other crap is still bogging it down. Have you really noticed boot times improving over the years? Since 2000, you'd think that one of today's computers would be several times faster, but average boot times are still nearly a minute. Reducing the crap does more than getting newer parts.

Also, most people here leave their computers on 24/7 or at least use Hibernation.

Uhh, so? And I doubt it's "most". You're just pulling figures out of the air, and I've only seen a few people here say that they supposedly never have to reboot. Even if, it wouldn't matter anyway, because the point isn't limited to the members of this forum.

Originally posted by: JackMDS
LOL, the whole thread turned into Verbal Ego Technology fight at best.

If I disable the few services that I really do not use I save 3sec.

Those people who claim 30sec. saving probably test it on 233 that is not connected to a Network with No Internet capacity, and it is used as Doorstop that makes Noise. I do not care if my Doorstop takes 30sec. to boot.

:sun:

BTW Doorstops are inexpensive these days you can find PII-233 in NYC's thrifts shops for $10-$20 apiece. :thumbsup:

Claims, claims, claims. How about you make a useful post for once and contribute some kind of facts, instead of just talking about how the conversation is going and speaking some nonsense conjecture.

Originally posted by: gsellis
Rilex - no point in answer that user. He is the user that gets banned every day. He is coming in through a proxy, so it is difficult (not impossible) to cut him off. Just let the little troll rant. His ego is bigger than his actual brain.

You're so full of yourself. I wasn't banned for not having a point, or making bad arguments. It doesn't make my points any less valid. It's just that some people are being pretty damn stupid and I didn't feel like censoring myself. If you're going to comment, try proving someone wrong instead of being a dick.

Originally posted by: Rilex
No one said that the entire process gets "swapped" out.

Then you're a liar? Either the memory gets freed up or it doesn't. You guys are acting like any unused process will not being using up any memory at all, which would have to be a 100% swap. Otherwise, there would still be remnants in memory, and you guys are saying that just doesn't happen.

Someone before was like, "well, I don't know what else would stay in memory besides the waitingforsomethingwhatever() code", but how could you assume such a thing? People have been saying these things, but have no proof or sources.

I reboot my PC once a month (patches), unless a program absolutely requires it (such as WinFS). I can't say I feel that much more aged because I may have lost as much as 30 seconds during boot time. I can say the amount of troubleshooting I'd need to do to properly select unneeded services would be more of a hassle then losing up to 30 seconds of my life per month. I'd think you would have more to worry about than that.

Well good for you. But even if, there's still a chance that you or someone else would need to reboot for some other reason, possibly multiple times. If that happens, then you won't have to wait around as long. You just won't get that benefit.

And unless you don't know what you're doing, there's no "troubleshooting" going on. I already mentioned my case. I guess you didn't troubleshoot my post well enough to see that. You also conveniently ignored my other examples.


Basically, nobody is giving any good reason not to optimize the settings for you or your PC, just saying that they don't want to bother with it.

 

[gsellis]

The problem with being incompetent, is that you do not have the ability to recognize your own incompetence. No matter how many people tell you that you are wrong, you argue that they are. When that doesn't work, you scream and yell and get kicked out. sigh.

 

[larryj133]

Wow, this thread degenerated pretty badly.

While I appreciate attempts like this to verify performance gains from his tweaks, I personally liked blackviper's site and found it very useful.

The main reason I used his site was that is gave a well organized list and description of window's services that was easy to find. I am one of those "foolish" people that went thru the list and turned off services that I don't use. One of those was windows firewall, but only because I have a different firewall running. I did not use any of the set configurations because I wanted to know what I was turning off.

It may not help my performance or security to have these services turned off but it certainly doesn't hurt it either. My windows installation is far from broken. One service I'm really glad I turned off is the network message service, you know, the one that allowed people to send spam straight to my desktop (maybe that's changed since service pack 2, not sure).

I have no hard proof but it seems to have helped stability too. Although, in my experience games are the only programs that consistently have stability problems. I can tab in and out of very finicky games such as those from Paradox with no problems. Many people I've talked to either can't tab out of some games at all or risk a crash when they do.

It may have helped with boot speed but not much. The thing that sped up my boot speed dramatically was changing my bios and windows settings to "no drive installed" on empty IDE and SATA slots. (but I guess that's a bit off topic)

I for one appreciate blackvipers efforts and am glad that his site lives on in many mirrors and caches.

This is just my opinion, please don't flame me or question my intelligence.

 

[yacoub]

Bumping this thread (found through Google while looking for BlackViper's XP Services website) to ask the following:

What about security? What services are better off Disabled for security reasons?

I believe Remote Registry falls into this category. What others can safely be disabled while still allowing normal file sharing on the LAN and whatnot? How about any of the ones with "server" in their name?

 

[Rilex]

Remote Registry is not much of an issue unless you expose NetBIOS ports and the "remote user" has the ability to authenticate to your PC.

If one or the other, or both of those is not the case, then the RR service is just fine.