Startup processes on Z60

Operating System, Common Application & ThinkPad Utilities Questions...
Post Reply
Message
Author
erasmus99
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 10:37 pm

Startup processes on Z60

#1 Post by erasmus99 » Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:59 pm

I do not want to fresh install windows on my Thinkpad (yet). I'd rather using msconfig and shut down services.

BUT I have a problem. Whenever I disable Symantac services, my computer hangs big time when I log on to my profile (like over a minute at least). When I enable them again, it loads my profile almost immediately.

I basically want to run as little startup processes and services as possible in order to conserve ram and speed boot up time. All I want to keep is the battery software, shock protection, and fingerprint software.

Any help? Any one know why it is hanging? And how to fix it?

Thanks.

GomJabbar
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9765
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 6:57 am

#2 Post by GomJabbar » Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:36 pm

If you don't want Symantec services, uninstall Norton Antivirus. Of course you lose your antivirus protection.
DKB

a31pguy
Moderator1
Moderator1
Posts: 605
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:14 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

#3 Post by a31pguy » Wed Apr 26, 2006 4:19 pm

Try this site to see what starts up.

http://www.sysinternals.com/

I use autoruns to disable services. You might just want to disable and uninstall the entire symantec installation. Especially the firewall.

I've heard good things about AVG free edition. I used blackice for my laptops - but there are several free ones as well like zonealarm.

erasmus99
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 10:37 pm

#4 Post by erasmus99 » Wed Apr 26, 2006 8:11 pm

Thanks. I just uninstalled Norton altogether after I figured out the installation package was already on my C:.

Now to widdle down the other 40 or so processes that IBM gives you...

jdhurst
Admin
Admin
Posts: 5831
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 6:49 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

#5 Post by jdhurst » Wed Apr 26, 2006 8:59 pm

Do as you wish, but I think you are on the wrong track.

Ram: It's cheap. Real cheap. I have 768 Mb (lots here have more) and I run 70-odd processes, can run Ubuntu at the same time as XP, and have memory left over. What is to conserve? and why? Get the memory you need and forget about processes.

Startup time: A lot of people in here worry about startup time. I am different, I guess. I work for hours on things. So it takes 3 or 4 minutes to fully start. Who cares? It is less than a washroom break in a day.

Obsession with processes and startup times is just chasing your tail. At least that is how I see it.
... JD Hurst

a31pguy
Moderator1
Moderator1
Posts: 605
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:14 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

#6 Post by a31pguy » Thu Apr 27, 2006 1:12 pm

You have a good point - loading up on RAM helps.

I was amazed one day when I stripped out some key startups on how much faster my system ran.

However, I'm with you on startup times - any Windows OS isn't known for quick startup times to start with.

DIGITALgimpus
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 774
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 1:01 pm

#7 Post by DIGITALgimpus » Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:53 pm

jdhurst wrote:Do as you wish, but I think you are on the wrong track.

Ram: It's cheap. Real cheap. I have 768 Mb (lots here have more) and I run 70-odd processes, can run Ubuntu at the same time as XP, and have memory left over. What is to conserve? and why? Get the memory you need and forget about processes.

Startup time: A lot of people in here worry about startup time. I am different, I guess. I work for hours on things. So it takes 3 or 4 minutes to fully start. Who cares? It is less than a washroom break in a day.

Obsession with processes and startup times is just chasing your tail. At least that is how I see it.
... JD Hurst
+1, great post.

I run about 80 processes myself on boot. And boots in 3~4 minutes as well. But with 1.5GB RAM... it's still faster than these kiddies and their stripped down windows on 512MB RAM. And no different when they add more.

idle processes don't do anything bad for you. Only if they use CPU (which the vast majority don't). The whole "to many are bad" thing is just an old myth these days. The number of processes is meaningless, its's all about how much free physical memory you have, and how little is paged to the disk.
T43 (2687-DUU) - 1.86GHz, 1.5GB RAM, 100GB 5400 (non IBM-firmware Hitachi 5k100) HD, Fingerprint Scanner, 802.11abg/Bluetooth, ATI x300

erasmus99
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 10:37 pm

#8 Post by erasmus99 » Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:36 pm

I agree with you about more RAM being good.

HOWEVER, when the processes are using the CPU, it decreases my battery life, which is quite important to me. Undervolting definately helped my battery, as does turning down the display. Thus, limiting processes and services seems like the next best thing to increase battery life. Although there may be something else I am missing.

jdhurst
Admin
Admin
Posts: 5831
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 6:49 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

#9 Post by jdhurst » Thu Apr 27, 2006 10:33 pm

If I am idle, CPU is running at less than 2 percent more than 99 percent of the time. Processes only use CPU (that will use battery) when they are doing something and that only happens (most of the time) when you are using some application. At that point, your screen and hard drive are using most of the power. I understand your point, and I always say do as you wish, but I don't think there is much to be gained. ... JD Hurst

Post Reply

Return to “Windows OS (Versions prior to Windows 7)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests