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.
, 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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.