Too many processes in Vista x64?

Biglunn

Biglunn

Biglunn

Associate
Joined
26 Aug 2005
Posts
483
Location
Slough, Berkshire
Hello

I currently have 60 processes running on my Vista Home Premium setup. Closing a couple of startup taskbar programs (except for Kaspersky 7.0 AV)drops that to 57, but do you guys think that this is too many? Ive gon through a guide to cut down any non essential apps, and this is the best I can seem to get. Computer runs fine though, but running XP Pro I only seem to get about 38 running.

Should I be worried???
 
Yeah I've noticed this too

I can get XP running on 25 with Anti Virus and Firewall but Vista is still on about 50 or so

Guess it's OK as it had loads running on a fresh install too and it seems to be fine!
 
yeh 50 is about right for a fresh install, your sound a little high if you've closed everything down.

i've got about 3 apps running as well as FW and spyware a download client and am currently running at 56processes. haven't stopped or reduced any windows services. However I am running 64 ultimate.

with just firewall and active spyware it's 51 processes.
 
Why are people obsessed with processes? Surely if the system is running fine it shouldn't matter?

I have 95 processes running, which would seem high but my system is running nicely.
 
JonRohan said:
Why are people obsessed with processes? Surely if the system is running fine it shouldn't matter?

I have 95 processes running, which would seem high but my system is running nicely.
Click to expand...
Extra processes mean more vectors of attack for viruses et al, more context switching for the CPU, and less "free" memory. Plus people like to know what's running on their PC, I for example always disable services that I know I will never (e.g. wireless configuration service on my wired desktop pc, I will never put a wireless card in my pc so I don't see any reason to leave it running.).

akakjs
 
I agree but for the home user I feel that worrying about the amount of processes running is a little overkill. Servers then yes, only install what you need. PC's, as long as the PC is running OK then it wouldn't bother me.
 
There's no point having processes there that aren't going to be used though. Most people don't actually worry about it in the first place (and end up having all manner of odd things running in the background).
 
Currently have 47 processes running with a few IE windows, Stream, MSN, Media Player, Mobile Device Centre.

On process I dont like are the ones with *32 next to them :( but till MS release a 64bit version of MSN and the same for steam they will always hover around

Kimbie
 
gronbek said:
Hi,

I got 23 processes running and 12 % mem usage at startup

Runs great
Click to expand...

On Vista? ;)

Used to be an obsessive nliter, so now my xp runs with ~17 processes..

Was shocked how many Vista has at stock, and even after disabling all useless services I couldn't get it down to a decent number!
 
50-65 processes is nothing for an everyday Vista32 or 64bit. Vista uses at least double the running default processes of XP and runs the same or better. IT is a more memory and cpu efficient OS afterall.

Know your processes, look at the process names and soon enough you will only need to glance at task manager to know if a particular process seems strange or unkknown.
 
There are no noticeable performance gains, only the amount of ram used by those processes which coincidently is tiny to begin with.

vista.jpg


Getting more ram will make apps and games load faster and close faster with no hdd thrashing for x seconds but Vista will still run the same speed (either fast if you have a decent system or average if you have a system made in the 1890s)
 
mrk said:
There are no noticeable performance gains, only the amount of ram used by those processes which coincidently is tiny to begin with.

vista.jpg


Getting more ram will make apps and games load faster and close faster with no hdd thrashing for x seconds but Vista will still run the same speed (either fast if you have a decent system or average if you have a system made in the 1890s)
Click to expand...
like i thought.. not worth worrying about unless ram is tight.
 
Idle processes are first on the list to be paged out of main memory when memory is tight anyhow. You won't see any noticable performance gain by disabling these things.
 
i used to be tweak mad when using xp. using nlite etc and i even used vlite for awhile on vista. but i recently re-installed vista with everything at default. the only things i've disabled are windows defender and system restore and i can't tell the difference between this and my mega-tweaked vlite install. i think from now on i'll give up on tweaking. vista runs just fine on my meagre setup. (4 year old s478 mobo, 2 year old pentium m and 2gb ram). :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom