Users to Microsoft: 'Just make Windows faster'

By toadeater
in Back Page News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Proficient

CrimsonBetrayal

Posted
Posted
  brianshapiro said:
Oh yea, it would be nice to be able to strip down windows, just for the sake of flexibility. But can you name the services that add bloat and explain why customers would want them out?

Low end techies I mean what you said, geeks who are hobbyists. They know enough about the OS to complain about it.

Okay, I'm running standard configuration right now, some of the useless services are:

Application Layer Gateway Service

Automatic Updates (maybe not for home users)

Background Intelligent Transfer Service

Computer Browser

Cryptographic Services

DNS Client

Fast User Switching

Just to name a few...

Processes:

iexplore.exe ( 75MB)

svchost.exe (30MB) <- that's a lot just for managing some services...

WLLoginProxy.exe (8MB) I don't even use windows live...

services.exe (5MB) <- again with the services...

winlogin.exe(3MB) <- but I'm already logged in...

  Quote
And than you got all the noobs, mom and pops running around saying how much windows sucks because it does not have something they want to do already enabled.

This argument can go both ways.

I guess my point is, there needs to be more transparency when it comes to these things, and maybe the next version should have three editions.

Tech/Geek edition (bare-bones, add-ons optional, technical papers)

Home edition (basic and advanced home users /w add-ons and eye-candy)

Professional edition (office and corporate edition /w addons and no eye-candy - we're not here to look pretty, we're here to work)

Grand Master

HawkMan

Posted
Posted
  CrimsonBetrayal said:
Okay, I'm running standard configuration right now, some of the useless services are:

Application Layer Gateway Service

Automatic Updates (maybe not for home users)

Background Intelligent Transfer Service

Computer Browser

Cryptographic Services

DNS Client

Fast User Switching

Just to name a few...

Processes:

iexplore.exe ( 75MB)

svchost.exe (30MB) <- that's a lot just for managing some services...

WLLoginProxy.exe (8MB) I don't even use windows live...

services.exe (5MB) <- again with the services...

winlogin.exe(3MB) <- but I'm already logged in...

I guess my point is, there needs to be more transparency when it comes to these things, and maybe the next version should have three editions.

Tech/Geek edition (bare-bones, add-ons optional, technical papers)

Home edition (basic and advanced home users /w add-ons and eye-candy)

Professional edition (office and corporate edition /w addons and no eye-candy - we're not here to look pretty, we're here to work)

And guess what, none of those services realistically affect yoru performance, outside of taking space onr your list of runnign services.

Grand Master

+Warwagon MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted
  HawkMan said:
And guess what, none of those services realistically affect yoru performance, outside of taking space onr your list of runnign services.

Well automatic update could, if they have a lot of crap in the systemdistrubtion folder which can spike svchost.exe at 100% for minutes on end.

Grand Master

DELTETHISACCOUNT

Posted
Posted
  CrimsonBetrayal said:
svchost.exe (30MB) <- that's a lot just for managing some services...

HAHAHA!!! I'm going to fall off my chair from laughter!! QUOTE OF THE DAY!!!

Proficient

CrimsonBetrayal

Posted
Posted
  39 Thieves said:
CrimsonBetrayal, have you actually bothered to check as to what those services actually do?

Yes I did, and I also shut them off on my performance profile. :p

  HawkMan said:
And guess what, none of those services realistically affect yoru performance, outside of taking space onr your list of runnign services.

They can, and sometimes do, my point is, if I don't need nor use them why be there. Just making notes at this point as I am capable of turning them off, just don't see why they need so much "built-in"

  Ruiz said:
HAHAHA!!! I'm going to fall off my chair from laughter!! QUOTE OF THE DAY!!!

Okay okay, so it does more than manage a few services, however, it's still a lot of bloody memory. Win2K didn't use nearly that much, at least, my Win2K box at home doesn't... :s

I'm just making marketing suggestions for Microsoft, so that they may better services the entire computer user base, rather then the majority, and let the minority fend for themselves. :p

Grand Master

Linkinfamous

Posted
Posted (edited)
  CrimsonBetrayal said:
Application Layer Gateway Service

Automatic Updates (maybe not for home users)

Background Intelligent Transfer Service

Computer Browser

Cryptographic Services

DNS Client

Fast User Switching

Just to name a few...

Uh, what? BITS is very important for Windows Update, even if you're not a home user. In addition, it can be invoked by 3rd party applications for the same purpose that WU uses it for: Intelligently transferring files in the background using idle bandwidth.

ALGS is used for some network things, Computer Browser is very useful if your computer is on a network with even one other PC, Cryptographic services is needed for anything involving certificates,

DNS Client makes DNS queries quicker by caching them locally, as a DNS client is supposed to. If you shut it off, every DNS query must go through your network connection, and will add some latency to simple internet browsing.

  Quote
svchost.exe (30MB) <- that's a lot just for managing some services...

You don't understand what it's doing, clearly. It's not just 'managing' the service. Services are being completely housed inside that process.

  Quote
winlogin.exe(3MB) <- but I'm already logged in...

Sigh. This is why I hate reading these threads sometimes. People post all sorts of things, and might look like they have a clue what they're doing to some people!

Winlogon is responsible for a lot of things. Including, but not limited to (As in, this is just off the top of my head): Handling Ctrl+Alt+Del, controlling your screensaver, and if I'm not mistaken, it is the process that automatically restarts the shell if need-be (Can anyone confirm that last one? I know it's responsible for actually starting your shell, but that doesn't offer anything in response to 'but I'm already logged in')

  Quote
services.exe (5MB) <- again with the services...

THAT is the process 'managing' your services.

  Quote
Tech/Geek edition (bare-bones, add-ons optional, technical papers)

This is obviously not the version for you, based on what you've posted. Unless, was this sarcasm? It's so hard to tell these days...

Edited by MioTheGreat
Mentor

jesseinsf

Posted
Posted

Where is Vista slow? You tell me. I've had no problems and never seen any problems. If you're talking about system responsiveness then you might think XP is faster when in fact it isn't. When a program is started in Vista, Vista takes time to give the fade in illusion and fade out illusion. Maybe that illusion is what people see as slowness. If you don't like that then turn it off. I actually like the fade in and out illusion, so I keep it turned on. Also, don't be judging Vista when your "Experience Index" is 3 and under (and that also goes for Laptop and desktop hard drives that are 5400RPMs). :rolleyes:

Veteran

xpgeek

Posted
Posted

I've had people complain to me about that too, and Vista "feels" much faster to them without the animation effects when opening/closing/minimizing/maximizing windows. I used to turn it off first thing too for a faster feel, but I've actually grown to quite like it.

Proficient

CrimsonBetrayal

Posted
Posted
  MioTheGreat said:
Uh, what? BITS is very important for Windows Update, even if you're not a home user. In addition, it can be invoked by 3rd party applications for the same purpose that WU uses it for: Intelligently transferring files in the background using idle bandwidth.

Not useful for me. I actually download all my stuff manually, as I always have, I don't like "automatic" processes happening on my computer.

  MioTheGreat said:
ALGS is used for some network things, Computer Browser is very useful if your computer is on a network with even one other PC, Cryptographic services is needed for anything involving certificates,

I don't use "My Network Places" or "Browse Network Computers". I know the addresses of the computers I access and type them in directly into a command launcher tool. So again for me... not relevant.

  MioTheGreat said:
DNS Client makes DNS queries quicker by caching them locally, as a DNS client is supposed to. If you shut it off, every DNS query must go through your network connection, and will add some latency to simple internet browsing.

And? I have broadband internet, both at home and at work. Can't say it's important enough for me to warrant an entire service managing it.

  MioTheGreat said:
You don't understand what it's doing, clearly. It's not just 'managing' the service. Services are being completely housed inside that process.

I don't understand what it's doing? really? I do, but clearly you've made your own assumptions. I still think 30MB for a host process which "houses" (I'll use that word to make you happy) services is insane. Especially when most of the services aren't doing anything.

  MioTheGreat said:
Sigh. This is why I hate reading these threads sometimes. People post all sorts of things, and might look like they have a clue what they're doing to some people!

Winlogon is responsible for a lot of things. Including, but not limited to (As in, this is just off the top of my head): Handling Ctrl+Alt+Del, controlling your screensaver, and if I'm not mistaken, it is the process that automatically restarts the shell if need-be (Can anyone confirm that last one? I know it's responsible for actually starting your shell, but that doesn't offer anything in response to 'but I'm already logged in')

Really? Winlogin handles ctrl+alt+del? Well isn't that handy. I need a whole bloody process running to handle one keystroke combination? It also has changed roles significantly from XP to Vista. The point I was trying to make here was "Transparency!"

  MioTheGreat said:
THAT is the process 'managing' your services.

No, that's the process that monitors svchost.exe which "manages" services. It's all a words game isn't it?

  MioTheGreat said:
This is obviously not the version for you, based on what you've posted. Unless, was this sarcasm? It's so hard to tell these days...

I thank you sir for insulting my intelligence in an otherwise mature discussion. Shall I send my certifications your way to prove to you I'm not an idiot as you've said twice... oh wait. I don't care.

The only point I was trying to make was they need more distinctive versions and better transparency. That's it. No need to get personal. :p

Grand Master

redfish

Posted
Posted
  jesseinsf said:
Where is Vista slow? You tell me. I've had no problems and never seen any problems. If you're talking about system responsiveness then you might think XP is faster when in fact it isn't. When a program is started in Vista, Vista takes time to give the fade in illusion and fade out illusion. Maybe that illusion is what people see as slowness. If you don't like that then turn it off. I actually like the fade in and out illusion, so I keep it turned on. Also, don't be judging Vista when your "Experience Index" is 3 and under (and that also goes for Laptop and desktop hard drives that are 5400RPMs). :rolleyes:

My experience index is 2.5, its brought down only because I'm using a laptop with a standard integrated graphics card. But Vista runs perfectly fast on my system there is no real lag in Aero at all

By the way even with a single core processor thats rated 4.2 and with 2GB RAM thats rated 4.0

Grand Master

HawkMan

Posted
Posted
  CrimsonBetrayal said:
And? I have broadband internet, both at home and at work. Can't say it's important enough for me to warrant an entire service managing it.

:rolleyes:

  Quote
Really? Winlogin handles ctrl+alt+del? Well isn't that handy. I need a whole bloody process running to handle one keystroke combination? It also has changed roles significantly from XP to Vista. The point I was trying to make here was "Transparency!"

that's part of what it does, but it doesn' techncially handle the entire login session more or less.

Experienced

Shannon

Posted
Posted

What the hell. We have budget computers today that can blitz 3D games, yet people still complain Vista is sooo much slower than XP. Seriously people, drop the placebo... Having said that, I'm all for a modular OS with customizable options. I really don't need half the crap that comes with Vista (or even half the crap that came with XP), if only to cut down on install times...

Grand Master

TEX4S

Posted
Posted

I have a tri-boot on my main system.

Ubuntu64

XP Pro 64

Vista Ultimate 64

I have practically problems with Vista, and it runs just as fast as XP even when I have 10 apps running, Dreamscene and whatever else.... I cant stand it when people dog on Vista - then you ask them, "Oh yeah, why do you think it sucks ?" - and their deplorable reply is, "Uh..... I dunno" or "Cuz its so slow"

NEWSBREAK:

BUY A FASTER COMPUTER !!

By no means am I a Microsoft fanboy - but I dont like to hear all the crap from people who dont know as much as my 2 cocker spaniels when it comes to computers , and all they are doing is simply repeating what they heard or read, and passing it off as their own opinion from experience...

RANT FINISHED

:)

Proficient

39 Thieves

Posted
Posted
  CrimsonBetrayal said:
I thank you sir for insulting my intelligence in an otherwise mature discussion. Shall I send my certifications your way to prove to you I'm not an idiot as you've said twice... oh wait. I don't care.

Whatever institute of learning or academic facility that issued you your 'certifications'...were I you, I'd politely request a refund.

I don't know a more polite and straightforward way of saying this; you really really don't understand what you're talking about.

Grand Master

Chicane-UK Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
  The Grinch said:
If Microsoft set around staying in old Technology, my pc now wouldn't be as fast as it is. Neither would any of the other Vista ready machines. Why can't you simply understand that? Making OS's for old outdated hardware isn't going to help anything out. It's only going to simply delay advancement in technology.

It's not like i'm some luddite who prefers to stick to a chalk board and an abacus for heavens sake. I'm a tech enthusiast, I have a 3 month old iMac at home and my work PC is a Vista PC (complete with multi-core CPU and GB's of RAM, and nearly 2TB of disk!) - of course I can understand that they need to push the envelope and advance the market. But i'm still firmly of the mindset that it should not be the operating system that does that - the OS should be as light and unobtrusive as possible, to give as much breathing room for the applications and such that you wish to run on the computer.

I'm not wanting to draw Apple into this for debating reasons as i'm sick to death of the Apple vs Microsoft arguments on here BUT I think the direction they're taking with Snow Leopard is EXACTLY where i'd want them to go. Leopard is a great product, now lets trim off the fat and make it a leaner / sleeker product. If Microsoft could do that with Vista then that'd be a major step forward.

Grand Master

tsupersonic

Posted
Posted
  abcdefg said:
XP matured? :x It's still duct taped bug festival.

And Vi$ta, really matured, how could they improve it. Tough.

http://www.aerotaskforce.com/

Maybe we just need better computers. :whistle:

Yes, XP is a matured OS. It's been out for 8 years and Microsoft is supposed to support it till 2014. It is the most used OS in the world right now.

Nice use of $ in Vi$ta. Only shows a mature post :rolleyes:

And I can't believe people are bringing in the Compiz vs Vista's Aero debate. MS is not responsible for 3rd party drivers... O_o It's like an average user complaining about their old printer not working on Vista. You guys know better than that, at least I think...

Mentor

1759

Posted
Posted
  Chicane-UK said:
It's not like i'm some luddite who prefers to stick to a chalk board and an abacus for heavens sake. I'm a tech enthusiast, I have a 3 month old iMac at home and my work PC is a Vista PC (complete with multi-core CPU and GB's of RAM, and nearly 2TB of disk!) - of course I can understand that they need to push the envelope and advance the market. But i'm still firmly of the mindset that it should not be the operating system that does that - the OS should be as light and unobtrusive as possible, to give as much breathing room for the applications and such that you wish to run on the computer.

I'm not wanting to draw Apple into this for debating reasons as i'm sick to death of the Apple vs Microsoft arguments on here BUT I think the direction they're taking with Snow Leopard is EXACTLY where i'd want them to go. Leopard is a great product, now lets trim off the fat and make it a leaner / sleeker product. If Microsoft could do that with Vista then that'd be a major step forward.

I like where SL is going too, but I see it as more of a "Leopard has some problems were want to resolve, but we'll make it full OS, and likely Intel only". From the various feedback I've read online, the dev seeds of SL aren't really that much faster than 10.5 ATM, some paring down of extra languages and whatnot.

The potential lies with Grand Central and Open CL, (and maybe QT X, but I hate QT, so I'll be a harsh judge there), and I only see some of that tech really benefits Macs with dedicated graphics, possibly on the higher-end of the spectrum.

I think how Apple handles 64-bit is way better than MS too. MS seems to go forward by dragging 20 years of legacy cruft with it, and that's it's largest asset and hindrance IMO.

Grand Master

HawkMan

Posted
Posted
  1759 said:
I think how Apple handles 64-bit is way better than MS too. MS seems to go forward by dragging 20 years of legacy cruft with it, and that's it's largest asset and hindrance IMO.

If anything 64 bit is where Apple needs to learn a thing or two from MS.

Grand Master

giga Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
  Mikee99 said:
^For compatibility's sake, it's great. However, the underlying kernel and system is all 32-bit.

And what's the problem--a bit more overhead on the kernel? I'd take the convenience of compatibility any day, to be practical.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.