Need Full Windows Services List

computersplus said:

DarkPhoenix you may want to have a look at scheduled tasks in Windows 7 more so than services I think you will be shocked when you see whats scheduled to happen and the event triggers also it sounds like to me that using Vlite on your installation disc would be right up your alley you could pretty much strip out anything you don't want prior to installing Windows

I will look at that.. thanks..as far as Vlite.. it's too late until I can back up a few hundred gigs. I wish I knew about that before I installed Windows.. but at least this way I can learn about what i do not want and exclude it next time.

What exactly are your specs? Do you have enough resources for 7?

Frostmourne said:

What exactly are your specs? Do you have enough resources for 7?

LOL .. Yes of course I do! It runs very well.. that is not the reason I want total control over this system. (it's not only about using less resources)

I have 4 gigs of ddr2 ram and an older pentium 4 (D) (cedar Mills) processor with hyperthreading. a 500 watt power supply, a new ATI HD 5750 1 gig ddr5 direct 11 video card, a new 500 gig hard drive with 32 mb of cache. An ECS GF7050VT-M motherboard with upgraded Bios.

Windows 7 smokes on this system for almost anything I want to do.

I understand the older processor can be a bottleneck, but I have had no problems and I do plan to upgrade it.. not for the operating system.. but so I can get more performance out of my video card for games.

Specs are average, here are mine:

Excellent gaming performance in 7

However, that CPU is a definite bottleneck guaranteed - limited cache and an old design. Why go for a 5750? That isn't a gaming card, relatively speaking.

Frostmourne said:

Specs are average, here are mine:

Excellent gaming performance in 7

However, that CPU is a definite bottleneck guaranteed - limited cache and an old design. Why go for a 5750? That isn't a gaming card, relatively speaking.

Actually it is.. ATI tells me it's considered a middle of the line video card. I got it for a gift and that was the best card within the budget so I took it, and with 1 gig of DDR 5 plus pixel sharer 5.0 and direct x 11 support, it wasn't a bad deal at all. I picked it out over a lot of other cards I had to choose from. For the price it was the best. Better than Nvidia even because they do not support direct x 11 yet.. this according to the folks at the Nvidia forum.

It's the more affordable version of the 5800 series. But if you look at the specs for them both, my card is not that far off.

I can play most games on very high settings with no problems

The only things you have over me is the CPU, 4 extra gigs and the fact they are ddr3 and not ddr2. My Motherboard will not support ddr3.. If I can get one cheap enough, I may look into changing the board when I get ready to change the processor. But my system was not bad considering it only cost me 300 bucks a year ago and the board was made in early 2008. I'm on a budget, LOL

Your card has a bottleneck - 128 bit bus vs my 4890's 256-bit. My 4890 has 800 shaders running @ 850MHz, yours has 720 @ 700MHz - and your pixel fill rate is just over 11 Gigapixels, my 4890 increases that by over 30% among other specs. It isn't a good choice at high resolutions.

Frostmourne said:

Your card has a bottleneck - 128 bit bus vs my 4890's 256-bit. My 4890 has 800 shaders running @ 850MHz, yours has 720 @ 700MHz - and your pixel fill rate is just over 11 Gigapixels, my 4890 increases that by over 30% among other specs. It isn't a good choice at high resolutions.

I would not know.. I always use 1024x768 for games. Desktop resolution is set at 1280X1024. I figure as long as the game looks nice it does not need to be in a higher resolution, and I like to have those extra resources for the game itself. (because of my CPU)

That resolution is bottlenecked by the CPU and games take on a whole new dimension with a 22" 1080p widescreen monitor.

DarkPhoenix said:

Frostmourne said:

7 turns on services when it needs to. DON'T touch them. It will be a nightmare troubleshooting the side effects. Services also depend on other services. Honestly, why are people still concerned with resource usages? Hardware is cheap and you should never bother touching bits of OS to save 3MB. Put in 8GB of RAM, defrag your HDD, or run wiper.exe on an SSD, ensure your PC has enough grunt and get on with your life. 7 knows what its doing. That's what you pay Microsoft for.

With respect.. that is not what I pay Microsoft for. I pay for this system so I can learn about it, then cut 3/4's of it out and rebuild it in my own image.

Do I trust Microsoft to know what's best for the operating system I wish to use? No Way. Not since Bill stole the designs for the winows graphical user interface from Xerox and windows wants to phone home even if you tell it not to.. I use Windows operating systems to take advantage of the little good that's in it. If I were not a hard core gamer, I would chuck this system and use a version of linux.

Unfortunatly, the programs I want to run are made for this platform. When React OS grows up (a free version of windows xp) or Linux or another OS gets the ability to run all Microsoft compatible programs, I will leave MS in the dust.

I'm old enough to remember Microsoft as a small company. I remember all the dirty shady deals they tried to pull to try to get ahead. Most people in the know were shocked they ever made it to the top without some mafia type gangster getting in the way and taking them down. Trust them?? Not as far as you would trust Fidel Castro or Sadam Hussain.

Ha ha, this is all FUD against Microsoft spread by the crApple or LinSux fanboys. Microsoft has taken computing to the next level. They are the ones who care most about the end users. I have trusted Microsoft fully all my life and will forever do so.