Startup processes on Z60
Startup processes on Z60
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.
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.
-
a31pguy
- Moderator1

- Posts: 605
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:14 pm
- Location: San Francisco Bay Area
- Contact:
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.
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.
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
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
-
DIGITALgimpus
- Senior Member

- Posts: 774
- Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 1:01 pm
+1, great post.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
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
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.
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.
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
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests





