How many non-Microsoft processes are you running?

Discussion in 'polls' started by Minimalist, Sep 13, 2014.

?

How many non-Microsoft processes are you running?

  1. None

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. 1-2

    2 vote(s)
    8.0%
  3. 3-5

    4 vote(s)
    16.0%
  4. 6-10

    6 vote(s)
    24.0%
  5. 11-15

    2 vote(s)
    8.0%
  6. 16-25

    3 vote(s)
    12.0%
  7. more than 25

    8 vote(s)
    32.0%
  1. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    5,088
    How many non-Microsoft processes and services are you running after Windows system boot up, before you manually launch any application?
     
  2. guest

    guest Guest

    Excluding drivers for display, audio, etc and EMET, only ReflectService.exe. And this poll reminds me that I was about to disable it as well.
     
  3. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    8,046
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Most of the time about 20, I made this screen-shot a while ago on Win 8. :)
     

    Attached Files:

  4. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
    For processes that stay running, I have 7 including Tor. Not counting batch files, there's 4 more non-MS executables that run during bootup, then terminate. I have the number of MS running processes down to 5.
     
  5. guest

    guest Guest

    Now that I have disabled ReflectService.exe, it is virtually 0. But if counting important drivers and services by hardware manufacturers, it is one... two... uh... five!
     
  6. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    Too lazy to count services, but 50 non-Microsoft processes.
     
  7. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,468
    A LOT! :D
     
  8. luciddream

    luciddream Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2007
    Posts:
    2,497
    5 processes, as you can see attached. 2 each for Comodo FW/D+ & Sandboxie, and 1 for Shadow Defender.

    2 Services: Comodo Internet Security Helper Service, & Sandboxie Service
     

    Attached Files:

  9. luciddream

    luciddream Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2007
    Posts:
    2,497
    Wow, you're even more hardcore than me. I have 9 MS processes running myself.
     
  10. bo elam

    bo elam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Posts:
    3,770
    Location:
    Nicaragua
    Luciddream, something that I don't understand is Why, my XP computer running with all the services that it came with and not disabling any, the memory usage in my XP is less than in yours. The only service that I disable in XP is Adobes Flash updater. I would disable Windows remote management in XP like I do in W7 but that service is not installed in my XP.

    untitled.JPG


    Bo
     
  11. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,700
    Never checked really ...
    Mrk
     
  12. Keatah

    Keatah Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2011
    Posts:
    853
    I don't know..
     
  13. Tarnak

    Tarnak Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2007
    Posts:
    3,890
    I don't count them.
     
  14. luciddream

    luciddream Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2007
    Posts:
    2,497
     

    Attached Files:

  15. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    5,088
    I run two services (Macrium Reflect and HP SI service) and two programs (Classic Start Menu and Launchy).

    Processes.png
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2014
  16. luciddream

    luciddream Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2007
    Posts:
    2,497
    Ah... just looked at an old Taskman screenie I posted in here long ago, and my Commit Charge at boot was 81. Not sure what caused the dramatic change. Back then I didn't use Shadow Defender, or have Sandboxie set to autostart. Also I think it may have been after a fresh reformat, whereas I haven't done that in quite some time now. Those could be reasons too.

    Also I admit I don't really understand too well what Commit Charge really is in comparison to cached memory.
     
  17. luciddream

    luciddream Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2007
    Posts:
    2,497
     
  18. luciddream

    luciddream Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2007
    Posts:
    2,497
    I just realized that Commit Charge is actually the Pagefile, so that has nothing to do with physical memory. And after looking back at those old screenies I posted again I realized that wasn't the only thing that changed. My physical memory usage has increased dramatically too, even though basically nothing has changed on my setup since then, except... the amount of RAM that I have. And came to the conclusion that that must be it. Because I remember it happened before:

    I remember back when my physical memory (cache) at boot was like 116,000 when I had only 1 GB of RAM. Then when I upgraded to 2 GB it raised. And now at 4 (3.25), did again. Nothing else on my setup has changed in that time. In fact if anything it was heavier back then, as I used a real-time AV and a few other anti-spyware apps (S&D & Spyware Blaster). And have even learned more tweaks to trim dead wood since then. So I can only surmise that when you give your apps more RAM, they use it... like having more room to breath. I think it's a good thing though, as it actually makes them more responsive.

    This takes me back to an argument I was having with a guy (who knows much more about computers than I do), who told me using a low system cache total was a poor measurement for performance. Turns out he was right in light of this. Obviously programs can get by with less, because I remember having this XP setup run, and run pretty well even back when I had only 512 MB of RAM. I bet my system cache was REALLY low then at boot. But it runs much better now given more room for those apps to breath. I used to think that just because my setup ran fine with only 512 MB, with some to spare, that there was no use adding more RAM. But I was wrong. Add more, and your apps will use more, and be even more responsive.

    So that could be it, if you have less than 4 GB of RAM. Or because like I said before, I hadn't rebooted in a long time and ran a lot of apps to skyrocket that cache. Or because we confused commit charge for physical memory. Or some of -or- all of the above.

    And it makes sense that the pagefile increased too since I make it 1.5X the amount of physical RAM.
     
  19. Veeshush

    Veeshush Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2014
    Posts:
    643
    I more so ask myself "How many non-MS, open source processes are you running?" and then get very, very stupid paranoid.

    I'm honestly not sure, maybe over 5. Because I always ran under spec'd junk machines growing up- it always made me obsessive over getting only the essentials to run to increase performance. That mindset paid off.
     
  20. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    Probably more now, 126 total processes and nothing much changed from default in terms of Windows processes. Only extras apart from startup are Chrome with one tab open and Windows Explorer separate process for folder windows.
     
  21. MrBrian

    MrBrian Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Posts:
    6,032
    Location:
    USA
  22. ArchiveX

    ArchiveX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2014
    Posts:
    1,018
    Apps (2)
    Background (20)
    Windows (20)
    ______________
    42
     
Loading...