|
|
Post by phoney on Feb 20, 2009 13:51:24 GMT
Just read Louise's msconfig thread and saw mikkh's suggestion to look at the Task Manager which I did.
Windows Task Manager
Processes 78 (When I select Processes Tab I count 32 objects)
CPU Usage fluctuating between 3% and 6%
Physical Memory: 40%
Why does the bottom bar say 78 processes and there are only 32 in the list.
I assume each item on the list can have more than one process associated with it.
What's the advantage given the CPU usage and Memory in deleting a few off the list such as Google Desktop which I don't expect to use.
I should really take a crash course in IT. Must check locally for something.
|
|
|
|
Post by ken on Feb 20, 2009 14:43:42 GMT
Processes like svchost.exe can be running several things at the same time. If you stopped svchost.exe, your computer would crash. I doubt that Windows would allow you to stop it though.
KC
|
|
|
|
Post by larrye on Feb 20, 2009 17:05:39 GMT
You have to click on the "Show processes for all users" and that will display all 77 of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by phoney on Feb 20, 2009 18:05:22 GMT
Cheers, yes looked at "all users" and there they are.
I googled a few of the .exe's and every time the advice was it performs a necessary function, leave it there.
I'm not having any problems, just trying to find out where eveything is and what it does.
I suppose the first thing to do with a new computer is RTFM and then ask for help.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikkh on Feb 20, 2009 22:39:10 GMT
If it's XP you have, 77 is way, way too many. If it's Vista, which starts with about 50 anyway (before you install anything) it's about par for the course, although you can trim that to a reasonable bloat - if there is such a thing!
Post a HJT log and I'll cut it down to size
If you have lots of installed programs, like google desktop that you never or hardly ever use, uninstall them first.
Biggest offenders are things like HP printers, mobile phone software, ipod bloat and multimedia drivers like java, quicktime, real player etc which insist on having 'updaters' running all the time
|
|
|
|
Post by phoney on Feb 21, 2009 8:51:47 GMT
Thanks for that mikkh. I waded through the majorgeeks site and the more you read the more it seems you need to worry about.
I'll have a go at trimming the processes myself first as it will be a valuable learning experience anyway. I'm running Vista Home Premium and I haven't downloaded any software (intentionally anyway) apart from the automatic windows/toshiba drivers/McAfee updates.
If you can operate with only 25 processes running and I have 77 it does seem a bit over the top.
I do wish Toshiba wouldn't bundle so many trial versions of software on their computers.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikkh on Feb 21, 2009 9:04:16 GMT
My 25 is on XP don't forget. In Vista I've managed to get it around 40 without sacrificing too much - and yes major manufacturers do put far too much software on in a bid to make them more user friendly and to alleviate the guilt for charging you too much ! Black Vipers site offers some useful advice and cuts through some of the geek speak when trimming services This is a good place to start www.blackviper.com/WinVista/supertweaks.htm |
|
|
|
Post by phoney on Feb 21, 2009 9:42:34 GMT
Just read blackviper.com and that is a good clear step-by-step guide.
I have System Restore enabled which he says uses around 15% of your hard drive which can be 20/30GB!! He doesn't like it:
Quote:
System Restore Service creates system snap shots or "restore points" for returning to at a later time. This is the first thing that I get rid of on a clean installation. If you use this and enjoy it, good for you. I never will. I feel it is faster and less hassle to just install clean
I have created Recovery Discs and you can restore from the Recovery hard disk drive so I suppose disabling System restore is an option.
It seems there are different viewpoints for every procedure and you have to make up your own mind which way to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by ken on Feb 21, 2009 17:48:17 GMT
If you have a restore image with all your programs on it, you dont need System Restore. I never have it turned on, I think of it as a corner where nasties can lurk. You have to turn it off to get rid of nasties anyway, whats the point of giving them somewhere to hide.
KC
|
|
|
|
Post by movieman36 on Feb 23, 2009 10:41:20 GMT
I make images of my system using Acronis whenever I make major changes to my system so if things go pear shaped I can restore the whole system in about 30 minutes. But, I also keep System Restore running on all my machines. The reason I do is with most PC's nowadays having massive hard drives as standard the odd 10% or so taken up by the saved restore points is, in my opinion, negligible. System Restore has got me out of a spot on numerous occasions over the years. After installing a driver or small program, after un installing stuff and then the system starts to play up I have found System Restore, with a few clicks, has sorted the problem out. Although the idea of going back to the image and starting from scratch is great every now and again, for day to day, keep the system going and getting on with work type situations I recon System Restore fits the bill just fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by ken on Feb 23, 2009 13:39:06 GMT
I understand what your saying MM; but apart from being a bugs nest, its still an extra resource running. I keep My Documents on a separate partition, so restoring the C: drive is easy. I can restore an image as fast if not quicker than System Restore and its a clean system again. I have got 3 Tb of internal drives, but my C: is only 70 Gb and the Paging File is in its own 30 Gb partition. I keep my processes cut back to the bone. Just because you computer is big, don't mean it has to be slow.
KC
|
|
