I think this may be useful.
http://wiki.eeeuser.com/howto:nlitexp
Slimming Down Windows XP Professional Using nLite
Moderators: Bill Smith, Pilot
-
jose.miami
- MagicJack User
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:27 am
to really slim down xp and its services
Black Viper
this site has the best way to trim down the services in winxp. I ruduced my runing services from 26 to 11. This site explains all in detail what each service is needed or not needed.
this site has the best way to trim down the services in winxp. I ruduced my runing services from 26 to 11. This site explains all in detail what each service is needed or not needed.
Re: to really slim down xp and its services
LisaD wrote:Black Viper
this site has the best way to trim down the services in winxp. I ruduced my runing services from 26 to 11. This site explains all in detail what each service is needed or not needed.
What are the 11 services needed for a magicjack only machine?
This will save me hours of testing and possiable errors. Thanks!
I'm running XP with SP2. Thanks again..
part 1 of slimming down
these are the sevices on the task manager that i have running, there are more to be stopped from the ADMIN tools, blackviper explains it pretty clear, I will post the image of my ADMIN services later...this will help for now
taskmanager image
these are in the admin tools..there might be more than what i said but it is still less than what anybody normally has..this will also speed up you pc
admin tools
taskmanager image
these are in the admin tools..there might be more than what i said but it is still less than what anybody normally has..this will also speed up you pc
admin tools
-
GreenMonkey
- magicJack Apprentice
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:48 am
Re: to really slim down xp and its services
It's been shown that using the Black Viper guide actually reduces performance (benchmarks show this). The default setup is pretty good on Windows, tweaking individual services does little good.LisaD wrote:Black Viper
this site has the best way to trim down the services in winxp. I ruduced my runing services from 26 to 11. This site explains all in detail what each service is needed or not needed.
http://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD//XPMyths.html
Myth - "Disabling these Services improves performance."
Reality - "Disabling these Services actually reduces performance."
See here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview ... y&arctab=y
Even on a P2-300mhz/160MB system they fail to help, and oftentimes reduce performance.
The Windows folks really do what they are doing with the default services setup. The Black Viper tweaks are highly regarded but really do pretty much nothing. It's a good source for what services do, but disabling/enabling them makes little difference.
this will explain about the above post
Tweak Rant
Now, taking into consideration what the original poster had in mind on Anandtech forums... it means that in 4+ years, 2GB RAM modules will be... cheap, and systems sold in 2011 will be more then qualified to run Vista vice systems as we see them today. So based on the post, a Vista system built today would perform better with 1GB (2 times recommended for Home Basic) or 2GB (2 times recommended for the other flavors) of memory vice the Microsoft recommended value of 512MB/1GB? Duh? Wow, nice news flash there, yes? The poster even admitted the system was poor at running XP... but that is the configuration Microsoft recommended... and I posted tweaks for, not a system that was going to be built 4 years later with 16 times the minimum memory amount.
I put my Windows XP configurations online in 2001 and in 2007 with a dual core CPU and 4GB of memory standard... they are not valid and not needed? Duh? However, take that over clocked 300Mhz system they used as a "low end" benchmark and knock it back to 233 and hit it up with only 64MB of memory... then my "savings" for disabling unneeded services using 12MB to 70MB would be very important. The forum post showed that upon fresh install, the OS was using 90MB of the 160MB... more than 50% of the memory for the OS... Just like the example coming up!
I tested a system with Vista Home Basic and upon first boot, the OS was using 350MB of memory. It was knocked down to around 205MB or so after being on for several hours. Now... wait... lets just say "256MB" for easy math and a good average number. So, that means that the OS is using 50% of the memory available on a 512MB system? Using XP as an example, that would mean XP on a "recommended" system would only use 64MB out of the 128MB... that sounds pretty good to me! The forum post verifies that fact with a memory usage from 85-90MB down to 57-66MB. However, if you throw 3+Ghz CPU and 2GB at the OS, it will increase the performance of the system... another "duh?"
Price wise, it is correct to throw more memory at the system. However, back when 300Mhz systems were mid range, 1GB RAM modules were not $89.
Checking out Newegg.com like the original poster did... I see 2GB modules for around $150-$200 each... so to fill a system with 4 slots and 8GB, it would cost $600. In a fit of irony, I cannot even find any 4GB Ram Modules to even price compare those (to go in line with my 16x recommended value above for Premium, Business and Ultimate). Would you rather save a few bucks and tweak your 1GB system down a bit in memory use or wait 4 years because 2GB modules will "be the norm" and go down in price... only you and your wallet can choose.
Also, upon the release of Service Pack 2 for XP, I put up this message:
So it sounds to me that my "Safe" setting with lots of crappy services (such as messenger service) was the right choice in 2001 but lacking in "performance value" in 2005? Duh again?!? Maybe because after the installation of SP2, the "Safe" and default were really close... so the gap closed? Yeah, I thought you would agree with me.
These recommendations also were coming off the heels of a reader dumping Windows 98/ME (*shudder*) and skipped Windows 2000 due to being marketed as a "business" OS. Those same 98/ME systems did need help in getting the memory down a bit to a reasonable level.
Also, my "Safe" configuration turned out to be the one that SP2 uses? Why not "Bare Bones" you ask? Because for a dedicated system doing specific tasks as the Bare Bones was fully capable of, does not equal a "general purpose computer system for the masses." That, of course, is once again: "Safe."
I have since removed my "Power User" and "Bare Bones" service recommendations for XP:SP2 (SP1a is still there though) as they are way out of date and no longer required as SP2's "Default" is pretty good, but "Safe" still can do better. Also, I am no longer using XP as my desktop OS so I cannot use it daily to confirm the do's and don't or what services are "required" for daily, normal use.
I state many times throughout my information the pros and cons of performing speed modifications to a system. I post "Power User" and "Bare Bones" not because they are for everyone, but only for reference because that is the configurations "I" used! Me! BV! This is also the reason I always recommend "Safe" for everyone else. I know what it is like to break a system and the frustration of getting it back. I have worked with Windows Services for many years and fielded thousands of E-Mails with regards to the information I posted. I know what each does and their value pertaining to me. In no way can I possibly predict what is good for you. That is why I list the "Safe" configuration and recommend it beyond all others.
Conclusion
Anyway, I would love to be able to predict the future and "tweak" my systems OS performance for something built 4 years later that will still be valid, but my crystal ball is broke...
I am not here for a pissing contest. If you do not like my tweaks, feel free to not use them.
Until next time a rant is placed online about me, maybe benchmarks will be done on systems "in the now" and valid benchmarks at that and not almost 4 years after the fact. I will, however, tweak Vista for systems built today, and not for systems built in 2011.
Black Viper
March 23, 2007
quote from blackviper
Until next time a rant is placed online about me, maybe benchmarks will be done on systems "in the now" and valid benchmarks at that and not almost 4 years after the fact. I will, however, tweak Vista for systems built today, and not for systems built in 2011.
Now, taking into consideration what the original poster had in mind on Anandtech forums... it means that in 4+ years, 2GB RAM modules will be... cheap, and systems sold in 2011 will be more then qualified to run Vista vice systems as we see them today. So based on the post, a Vista system built today would perform better with 1GB (2 times recommended for Home Basic) or 2GB (2 times recommended for the other flavors) of memory vice the Microsoft recommended value of 512MB/1GB? Duh? Wow, nice news flash there, yes? The poster even admitted the system was poor at running XP... but that is the configuration Microsoft recommended... and I posted tweaks for, not a system that was going to be built 4 years later with 16 times the minimum memory amount.
I put my Windows XP configurations online in 2001 and in 2007 with a dual core CPU and 4GB of memory standard... they are not valid and not needed? Duh? However, take that over clocked 300Mhz system they used as a "low end" benchmark and knock it back to 233 and hit it up with only 64MB of memory... then my "savings" for disabling unneeded services using 12MB to 70MB would be very important. The forum post showed that upon fresh install, the OS was using 90MB of the 160MB... more than 50% of the memory for the OS... Just like the example coming up!
I tested a system with Vista Home Basic and upon first boot, the OS was using 350MB of memory. It was knocked down to around 205MB or so after being on for several hours. Now... wait... lets just say "256MB" for easy math and a good average number. So, that means that the OS is using 50% of the memory available on a 512MB system? Using XP as an example, that would mean XP on a "recommended" system would only use 64MB out of the 128MB... that sounds pretty good to me! The forum post verifies that fact with a memory usage from 85-90MB down to 57-66MB. However, if you throw 3+Ghz CPU and 2GB at the OS, it will increase the performance of the system... another "duh?"
Price wise, it is correct to throw more memory at the system. However, back when 300Mhz systems were mid range, 1GB RAM modules were not $89.
Checking out Newegg.com like the original poster did... I see 2GB modules for around $150-$200 each... so to fill a system with 4 slots and 8GB, it would cost $600. In a fit of irony, I cannot even find any 4GB Ram Modules to even price compare those (to go in line with my 16x recommended value above for Premium, Business and Ultimate). Would you rather save a few bucks and tweak your 1GB system down a bit in memory use or wait 4 years because 2GB modules will "be the norm" and go down in price... only you and your wallet can choose.
Also, upon the release of Service Pack 2 for XP, I put up this message:
So it sounds to me that my "Safe" setting with lots of crappy services (such as messenger service) was the right choice in 2001 but lacking in "performance value" in 2005? Duh again?!? Maybe because after the installation of SP2, the "Safe" and default were really close... so the gap closed? Yeah, I thought you would agree with me.
These recommendations also were coming off the heels of a reader dumping Windows 98/ME (*shudder*) and skipped Windows 2000 due to being marketed as a "business" OS. Those same 98/ME systems did need help in getting the memory down a bit to a reasonable level.
Also, my "Safe" configuration turned out to be the one that SP2 uses? Why not "Bare Bones" you ask? Because for a dedicated system doing specific tasks as the Bare Bones was fully capable of, does not equal a "general purpose computer system for the masses." That, of course, is once again: "Safe."
I have since removed my "Power User" and "Bare Bones" service recommendations for XP:SP2 (SP1a is still there though) as they are way out of date and no longer required as SP2's "Default" is pretty good, but "Safe" still can do better. Also, I am no longer using XP as my desktop OS so I cannot use it daily to confirm the do's and don't or what services are "required" for daily, normal use.
I state many times throughout my information the pros and cons of performing speed modifications to a system. I post "Power User" and "Bare Bones" not because they are for everyone, but only for reference because that is the configurations "I" used! Me! BV! This is also the reason I always recommend "Safe" for everyone else. I know what it is like to break a system and the frustration of getting it back. I have worked with Windows Services for many years and fielded thousands of E-Mails with regards to the information I posted. I know what each does and their value pertaining to me. In no way can I possibly predict what is good for you. That is why I list the "Safe" configuration and recommend it beyond all others.
Conclusion
Anyway, I would love to be able to predict the future and "tweak" my systems OS performance for something built 4 years later that will still be valid, but my crystal ball is broke...
I am not here for a pissing contest. If you do not like my tweaks, feel free to not use them.
Until next time a rant is placed online about me, maybe benchmarks will be done on systems "in the now" and valid benchmarks at that and not almost 4 years after the fact. I will, however, tweak Vista for systems built today, and not for systems built in 2011.
Black Viper
March 23, 2007
quote from blackviper
Until next time a rant is placed online about me, maybe benchmarks will be done on systems "in the now" and valid benchmarks at that and not almost 4 years after the fact. I will, however, tweak Vista for systems built today, and not for systems built in 2011.