Technical Discussion
  >> Windows Issues


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.


Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | [3] | 4 | 5 | 6 | (show all)   Print Thread
Standard User Anji
(regular) Tue 08-Apr-14 08:03:24
Print Post

Re: The Start Menu is Dead


[re: johnjburness] [link to this post]
 
Removing Aero in Windows 8 was a great move. Just one of the reasons that it is so much less of a resource hog, and is more responsive, than Windows 7. Unfortunately some Linux distributions seem to value a "pretty" interface over function - and they don't even get "pretty" right.
Standard User camieabz
(sensei) Tue 08-Apr-14 15:38:56
Print Post

Re: The Start Menu is Dead


[re: johnjburness] [link to this post]
 
Assuming Vista?

If not tweaked, try:

http://www.camieabz.co.uk/files/settings.jpg

In addition, there are a lot of services which can go.
Standard User Pipexer
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Tue 08-Apr-14 15:55:05
Print Post

Re: The Start Menu is Dead


[re: johnjburness] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by johnjburness:
It certainly appears to be a resource-hogger. Additionally, it causes delays when I start up a proggie that is not compatible with it & it has to revert to a conventional display!

Hmm yes that is quite true.. Must admit I think its been years since I launched an application that needed it disabling. Must be running some bespoke stuff there!

Zen 8000 Pro


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.

Standard User Pipexer
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Tue 08-Apr-14 15:55:23
Print Post

Re: The Start Menu is Dead


[re: camieabz] [link to this post]
 
You're not going to like this but disabling a few services doesn't really make that much difference - 1-2% at most? - services are optimized out of the box. Also, unticking some of those boxes in your screenshot boxes can make your system perform worse, depending on the graphics card it has, be careful with that.

Vista had and still does have some quirks built-in to the operating system, the UAC prompt is a lot less reliable at coming to the front on Vista compared to later versions, but assuming it is running on well balanced hardware it runs relatively OK, then again so did XP to some degree. 7 was a definite improvement to address those quirks, and as usual 8 an improvement again. You should have taken up that upgrade offer, I think you would have been very pleased, even if you needed to run the stardock or something.

Zen 8000 Pro

Edited by Pipexer (Tue 08-Apr-14 16:02:16)

Standard User camieabz
(sensei) Tue 08-Apr-14 23:46:20
Print Post

Re: The Start Menu is Dead


[re: Pipexer] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Pipexer:
You're not going to like this but disabling a few services doesn't really make that much difference - 1-2% at most? - services are optimized out of the box. Also, unticking some of those boxes in your screenshot boxes can make your system perform worse, depending on the graphics card it has, be careful with that.


Grannies sucking eggs and all that. Every Windows operating system is tweakable. I have tested each of the disabled services and tick boxes individually to come to a slick setup. About 1.0 to 1.2GB of 4GB memory used five mins after boot (no, not the cached memory - that's different).

Of 162 available services, 39 (24%) are started. That 76% of available services not running. Of the 39 running ones, 11 are manual, meaning they only start when some other program or service starts them. Meaning they stay off until needed, and reset to off after reboot.

59 or 36.5% of services available are disabled. Vista is a fine OS if you tweak it and it's stable.

That 1-2% may or may not be accurate. When one tweaks tens of 1-2% scenarios, we're talking 20-40% or more. Oh and one of those tick boxes (I forget which) made an immediate, noticeable difference to memory usage. In the realms of 50-100 Meg. Probably one of the fades, or the background image one.

Edit: Oh and the scheduled tasks are all gone too. smile

Edited by camieabz (Tue 08-Apr-14 23:47:53)

Standard User MrTAToad2
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Wed 09-Apr-14 08:16:41
Print Post

Re: The Start Menu is Dead


[re: Desmond] [link to this post]
 
Having the usual Windows icons on a Metro application certainly looks weird at the moment.

The Update 1 isn't detailed in System - that still states 8.1, instead of, perhaps 8.1.1

Now with plusnet
Twitter

Edited by MrTAToad2 (Wed 09-Apr-14 08:17:57)

Standard User Pipexer
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Wed 09-Apr-14 10:46:39
Print Post

Re: The Start Menu is Dead


[re: camieabz] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by camieabz:
Grannies sucking eggs and all that. Every Windows operating system is tweakable.

Absolutely! That is what makes it so good, Microsoft give you the choice. Some people abuse it (not referring to you - more people who either get malware installed through their own foolishness or otherwise mess up the system badly and then say Windows is ****), but those who know how to use it properly can reap rewards.

Zen 8000 Pro
Standard User camieabz
(sensei) Wed 09-Apr-14 11:13:55
Print Post

Re: The Start Menu is Dead


[re: Pipexer] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Pipexer:
Absolutely! That is what makes it so good, Microsoft give you the choice.


Excuse me, but stop it. Stop it! Stop spinning every post into a 'MS is great' moment. smile

If it was we would not need to tweak. Many services are not necessary for typical users. Ergo, they are bloatware. Tweaking is not the result of a manufacturer giving their customers the choice. It is the result of a manufacturer not releasing the optimum product.

MS and choice does not ring true with regards DEP, licensing, and changes to products which impact on productivity (such as the MS Office ribbon - the latter of which is not optional). It does not give 'choice' to users. It gives users a product and those with knowledge and patience end up having to make the product more efficient, more safe, and more stable, by tweaking it.

If MS were great, they wouldn't release sub-standard products to the public and force them to test them for weaknesses.
Standard User Pipexer
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Wed 09-Apr-14 12:09:10
Print Post

Re: The Start Menu is Dead


[re: camieabz] [link to this post]
 
I am sorry Camie but you're wrong, all of those services are there and running for valid reasons, you have chosen to disable and tinker with them because it might fit your bespoke situation - but that certainly does not apply to most. If you adhered to well informed Microsoft advice you would know not to fiddle with system services because it may result in unpredictable and hard to track down problems. The only person on this forum that talks about tweaking (aside from GUEST_AGAIN) is you, and I am not sure I would call unticking a few checkboxes and disabling services tweaking, there is a bit more to it than that. It is like back in the days when people would faff around with paging file settings - it's not necessary any more 99.9% of the time, and yet people still do it thinking they know better.

You should be thankful Microsoft are giving you the options to faff with these settings - they could revoke it and behave like Apple/Google, who are far from perfect, and on the flip side, could be like an open source OS, and I doubt you are going to be recompiling a Linux kernel any time soon to do your "tweaks".

The fact remains if you want the most efficient Windows operating system on your machine you should have upgraded to Windows 8 - and put the stardock menu on it if you really hated Metro so much. Your system would have run far better than it does now, but you obviously didn't want to spend the £25.00 at the time.

I'll just have to disagree with your way of thinking on this one.

Zen 8000 Pro

Edited by Pipexer (Wed 09-Apr-14 12:12:44)

Standard User camieabz
(sensei) Wed 09-Apr-14 15:35:35
Print Post

Re: The Start Menu is Dead


[re: Pipexer] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Pipexer:
I am sorry Camie but you're wrong, all of those services are there and running for valid reasons


Ok. Let's try three. I could pick ten, but we would be here for weeks:

1. Readyboost - Enabled as default (Automatic started). If you know what readyboost is, you would know that it is useless as a default option, unless the user is aware of what it is. If they are aware of what it is, they will have planned additional hardware to suit (which begs the question, why didn't they plan additional internal hardware to suit in the first place?).

It is useless, unless the system in question is lacking in suitable hardware, in which case why is it lacking in additional hardware?

1.1 - Bad Planning of hardware setup - Possibly the user has been badly advised. Is MS allowing for this? Surely MS is not planning that PC builders will build with less than ideal hardware?
1.2 - MS anticipates that hardware will not be able to cope with software demands. Ergo, it is being badly released (i.e. mis-reporting of hardware requirements), or is expected to place too much demand on hardware, but they haven't worked out why (poor coding).
1.3 - MS anticipates that the OS will be used in upgrade situations and existing hardware will not cope with the requirements - so MS is giving customers the option to not upgrade their hardware to cope with the software demands? Unlikely. They don't generally do this.
1.4 - MS anticipates that the OS will be installed on laptops, and typical laptops don't possess the facility for ideal hardware to run the OS, so are making readyboost available for them. Possibly, but, again, why would MS design for existing hardware, when it easier to market it for future hardware?

So we return to the point. Is readyboost for all systems? If so, why? Why not market the OS with higher hardware requirements? If not, why is it enabled by default?


2. DNS Client - Enabled as default (Automatic Started). Completely unneeded in single PC situations. Maintaining one requires that it remains up to date. Easier to disable it and let the DNS servers on the router manage it all. In some cases disabling improves web browsing speeds.

3. Distributed Link Tracking Client - Enabled as default (Automatic Started). Useless in single PC situation. Per 2 really.

In fact if we go down the line of single PC, no Internet Connection Sharing, we can disable all manner of services.

In reply to a post by Pipexer:
, you have chosen to disable and tinker with them because it might fit your bespoke situation - but that certainly does not apply to most.


I put it to you that the majority of non-tech users do not require most networking services (single PC setup) and many will not require ICS as a result.

A more simple setup would have been a single PC / multi PC option from the beginning, rather than this slipshod one size suits all manner.

In reply to a post by Pipexer:
If you adhered to well informed Microsoft advice you would know not to fiddle with system services because it may result in unpredictable and hard to track down problems.


Hard for whom? Non-techs, who should not have said services enabled in the first place? Techs who can work it out anyway?

In reply to a post by Pipexer:
The only person on this forum that talks about tweaking (aside from GUEST_AGAIN) is you


The only person who talks about MS in such high regard is you. 2 to 1 so far. Lest you forget, this is a technical site, and as I mentioned before 'grannies sucking eggs'. If you want a site where no one fiddles with you precious Windows, go to the Windows fanboi forum.

In reply to a post by Pipexer:
and I am not sure I would call unticking a few checkboxes and disabling services tweaking, there is a bit more to it than that. It is like back in the days when people would faff around with paging file settings - it's not necessary any more 99.9% of the time, and yet people still do it thinking they know better.


There are in excess of 200 tweaks that I have done on my system. Services, processes, tick boxes, registry alterations, hardware tweaks, disabling motherboard settings that are not required. It all adds up, but the vast majority (more than 90%) off the tweaks are MS Windows, naturally.

With regards your comments on pagefile settings, that's all you know about it. You don't tweak (if you follow your own advice), so how can you tell that it does or does not work? Are you seriously telling me that setting a static pagefile of a sensible size is better than having a dynamic one which resizes according to demand? Think about it. With the massive amount of disk space, it makes more sense now than ever before, and if you think that a pagefile is not necessary, think again.


In reply to a post by Pipexer:
You should be thankful Microsoft are giving you the options to faff with these settings - they could revoke it and behave like Apple/Google, who are far from perfect, and on the flip side, could be like an open source OS, and I doubt you are going to be recompiling a Linux kernel any time soon to do your "tweaks".


Are you reading back your posts before hitting the send button?

In reply to a post by Pipexer:
The fact remains if you want the most efficient Windows operating system on your machine you should have upgraded to Windows 8 - and put the stardock menu on it if you really hated Metro so much. Your system would have run far better than it does now, but you obviously didn't want to spend the £25.00 at the time.


I have the most efficient Windows operating system on my machine. That's the point.


In reply to a post by Pipexer:
I'll just have to disagree with your way of thinking on this one.


Indeed you will, and I'll disagree with you when you call for out of the box setups over customised setups, or when you sing the praises of MS over peoples' product needs or complaints.

"Who cares. It's a Start Menu" - says it all really. You think that something is useful only if you use it. I think that any part of the system might be useful, but at least give the option to decide, rather than give me (and everyone else) all the useless stuff and take away the things we've been used to for 20 years. Respond to the users, and by all means give the IT fashionistas their toys, but allow it to be a productive tool too.
Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | [3] | 4 | 5 | 6 | (show all)   Print Thread

Jump to