Benchmarking a myth? (Service tweaks for Windows)

E

EinsteiN

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
358
I thought it could be fun to see if the one of the most debated topics in here could be proved useful or not.

I had to reinstall my machine last week, and then I've tried to use the Blackviper Service tweak as described here (main page is under construction).

I created 2 hardware profiles so I can boot up with default settings and another labeled gaming where almost all services have been disabled.

The machine in use:

CPU: AMD 3200+ Barton
RAM: 1024MB Kingston PC3200
GFX: ATI 9500 PRO, 128 MB RAM, AGP
MB: ABiT NF7-S
HD: Hitachi SATA, 250 GB, 8MB, 7200 RPM
Running Windows XP SP2 with ESET NOD32 AntiVirus

This picture shows the upstart usage of ressources with default profile:


This picture shows the upstart usage of ressources with gaming profile:


Gaming has the following services started and nothing else:

COM+ Event System
DCOM Server Process Launcher
Event Log
Network Connections
NOD32 Kernel Service
Plug and Play
Remote Procedure Call(RPC)
Security Accounts Manager
Security Center
Shell Hardware Detection
System Event Notification
Windows Audio
Windows Firewall
Windows Management
Windows User Mode Driver Framework
Workstation

The difference in memory used is app. 22 MB.

Benchmarking:

Both benchmarks where run like this: 1 one run to get machine "warm", then 2 runs where I noted down the scores, and took the averages of the 2 last runs.

Synthetic benching with CPUBench2003 beta2 version 1.5:



Realworld benching with CS: Source built in Benchmark tool.

Default: 85,06 FPS
Gaming: 84,23 FPS

Conclusion:

Gaining 22 MB isn't much when you have lot's of memory, but on machines with less memory (ex. 128 MB) Windows XP might be runnable.
As for the performance associated with this tweak. It's almost non existing much to my surprise this tweak only pays off a little in synthetic benchmarking. In a real world application tweaking like this actually gave worse performance.
The security is also a concern for some people who use this tweak, and there's no denying that it's impossible to hack a service that isn't running, but relying on this for security is a bad idea, also because it seriously affects the usability of the machine.
Instead use a firewall and antivirus.

Anyways I'm looking forward to hear from all you people who have an opinion about this.

-E



EDIT** : I might have been unclear on this, but the main goal was to see if the extreme/gaming tweak had any realworld use/gain for the avarage user. :)
 
the real world gains are significant when you're doing something useful like folding

in this thread i shaved off like 4 seconds or so per frame, that's a couple hours per WU.

that's a lot.

 
My experience is that the fastest folding is done with the console version running as a service - with NOBODY logged in :) for me it's the difference between 9 pph or 10 pph. Seems not to care about tweaks when it's running at the login prompt.

-E

 
EinsteiN said:
it seriously affects the usability of the machine.
Click to expand...
Not true. That's part of the problem...I keep hearing about how shutting off unneeded services will cause problems, instability and will "seriously affect the usability of the machine". So far, out of 8,000 registered users here at the [H]ardForum, one person has had a real, actual problem from a disabled service. And the service was RPC (remote procedure call), one of the services NOBODY should shut off. The problem was that he couldn't defrag...not exactly the end of the world.
EinsteiN said:
Instead use a firewall and antivirus.
Click to expand...
Nobody ever suggested shutting off services instead of running a firewall and anti-virus. You should shut off unneeded services and run a firewall and anti-virus.

So basically what you're saying is that I can free up 22MB of RAM by shutting off services that:
  1. I'm not using
  2. Can easily be turned back on
  3. Could conceivably be used as an attack vector
  4. Won't cause me any problems being shut off
Sounds win-win to me.
 
Your results prove the point most of us have been trying to get through to people....that service tweaking is not a means of improving performance. As O[H]-Zone likes to keep spouting, in terms of security it can make sense to disable some services. However, SP2 pretty much handles the security aspect of this anyway, so you really have nothing to gain. Good anti-virus software and a hardware firewall will protect you, provided you keep up with the updates.

As far as your tests, they seem pretty thorough, but I'm still left asking one question. It seems several people have wanted to do something like this recently, and all have created different hardware profiles. This is what I don't understand. Why create different hardware profiles, when your making configuration changes in software? Hardware profiles are more for a laptop that sometimes is on a port replicator or dock that has it's own hardware. You'd create a docked and undocked profiles. I doubt it would have made any difference in the results, but I've always seen hardware profiles become corrupt much easier than user profiles, which is the route I would have gone. I would have had a normal account for normal usage, and then a gaming account where things could have been disabled.
 
:cringe

Here we go again...

"Oh, I can get 1 more FPS in CS:S! Disable EVERYTHING! OMG, my 'puter is broke! Hpl me plz! OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG"

Yeah. Don't disable services. Bad mojo there. I think the benchmarks prove that point, too. 1-2 FPS in a game aren't going to matter. Anybody running XP on 128MB RAM just needs to give it up, and get another stick of RAM.
 
As for the performance associated with this tweak. It's almost non existing much to my surprise this tweak only pays off a little in synthetic benchmarking. In a real world application tweaking like this actually gave worse performance.
Click to expand...

If you nip a services or process in the bud that is an active process you will see gains in free memory. "Unneeded"services and processes are not active and do not use much if any RAM, it should be paged to disk. This is what the page file is for, it stores pages of memory that aren't needed in RAM freeing RAM for "active" processes.

Remember, lower total commit charge usage does not equate to more available RAM. This is why you saw no gains.

Carnival Forces, however killed explorer.exe :eek: ;) :cool:
That's always active, so he saw gains.

O[H]-Zone said:
So far, out of 8,000 registered users here at the [H]ardForum, one person has had a real, actual problem from a disabled service.[/q]
Don't troll, please we linked you to many threads and articles from the MS KB last time.
O[H]-Zone said:
So basically what you're saying is that I can free up 22MB of RAM by shutting off services that:
  1. I'm not using
  2. Can easily be turned back on
  3. Could conceivably be used as an attack vector
  4. Doesn't benefit the system.
Sounds a placebo to me.
Click to expand...
Fixed.
Click to expand...
 
bah, explorer is nonessential.

just use File / New Task (Run) and type in the shortcut from memory.

like if i want to run firefox, i hit:
*Alt*
*f*
*n*
(type in)"Mozilla Firefox.lnk"
*enter*

works fine., who needs icons and start menu anyway? i'm too [H]ard for that :cool:


and Phoenix: the gains i saw were without disabling explorer (read on, other people got it too), it's like the diff. in booting in "Safe Mode w/ Networking" vs. normal mode, Safe Mode w/ N/wing = more free resources.

but yes, killing explorer.exe = good move.

 
O[H]-Zone said:
....
  1. I'm not using
  2. Can easily be turned back on
  3. Could conceivably be used as an attack vector
  4. Won't cause me any problems being shut off
Sounds win-win to me.
Click to expand...

Attack vector? did you seriously write that?
 
Not true. That's part of the problem...I keep hearing about how shutting off unneeded services will cause problems, instability and will "seriously affect the usability of the machine". So far, out of 8,000 registered users here at the [H]ardForum, one person has had a real, actual problem from a disabled service. And the service was RPC (remote procedure call), one of the services NOBODY should shut off. The problem was that he couldn't defrag...not exactly the end of the world.
Click to expand...

When running the gaming profile, among other things you can't upgrade windows or windows components, access disk manager, do themes, defrag, print etc. tons of stuff gets disabled or will fail with cryptic errors because of dependencies.

And the point is that the avareage user won't know which service(s) there need to be enabled and in what order to avoid dependencies to fail.

So the performance "increase" is hardly worth the effort to disable/enable services when needed.

-E

 
Shark said:
Attack vector? did you seriously write that?
Click to expand...

Any other common IT phrases throw you off? How about 'Surface Area?' 'Use-case scenario?' 'Demand Management?'
 
As Drucifer said, here we again. Except, I'm referring to the fact everyone disagrees with what O[H]-Zone has to say. Give it a little time and he will come back, no doubt to say why we are all idiots and we're all wrong. As Phoenix posted in his "Fixed" section, we've all been through this before. We gave him all the proof he asked for...including a MS Windows developer who told him he was wrong, but he still insisted on arguing. Then the threads were all locked by the mods because he reduced himself down to flaming everyone else.

To Shark and EinsteiN, just let him go. He will continue to post the same trolling comments over and over until the thread eventually gets locked due to his flaming. He has a problem admitting defeat, despite the amount of information he's presented with. Someone like that really degrades the forums because they refuse to admit they were wrong and learn from it. So, the best thing to do is ignore his comments, and continue on with the normal discussions.

I will give O[H]-Zone some credit because his comment about security in regards to services is legit. However, most of that has been remedied in SP2. And, as mentioned before, a good AV program coupled with a firewall will protect your networks anyway.
 
rcolbert said:
Any other common IT phrases throw you off? How about 'Surface Area?' 'Use-case scenario?' 'Demand Management?'
Click to expand...
If we wanted to degrade this down to a physics discussion the correct terminology would be attack point, but I have heard quite a few people use the term vector.....probably because it sounds more technical. I did have an Indian physics professor at Drexel who called them "wectors", however.
 
For the second heated topic, I just got myself a copy of Windows 2003 Server, Standard. [1] I've got a SATA controller and two identical disks waiting for me at the post office. I already have a windows XP CD. Sometime within the next weeks [2] I'll spend some quality time with windows installs, benchmarks, a stopwatch and a spreadsheet. If I feel really energetic, I'll throw in 2000 Pro, too.

I don't actually think the results will be too suprising, but there's only one way to be sure. :D

[1] Free, thanks to my school.
[2] I've got a few exams and project deadline coming up, so "before July" is as concrete as I want to be. :)
 
djnes said:
We gave him all the proof he asked for.
Click to expand...
This is another incorrect statement. You have never offered the slightest shred of "proof" other than "because you say so"...and say so and say so. Bad news; repeating it doesn't make it true Want to supply me with "proof"? My request still stands...if so many people have problems disabling services, please provide 10 links to people on this forum who have had problems subsequently found to have been caused by disabling services. Anything else you have to say does not interest me.

EinsteiN said:
When running the gaming profile, among other things you can't upgrade windows or windows components, access disk manager, do themes, defrag, print etc. tons of stuff gets disabled or will fail with cryptic errors because of dependencies.
Click to expand...
Then I guess you didn't turn off un-needed services.
Did you?
 
O[H]-Zone said:
This is another incorrect statement. You have never offered the slightest shred of "proof" other than "because you say so"...and say so and say so. Bad news; repeating it doesn't make it true Want to supply me with "proof"? My request still stands...if so many people have problems disabling services, please provide 10 links to people on this forum who have had problems subsequently found to have been caused by disabling services. Anything else you have to say does not interest me.
Click to expand...
You had a link to 75 results from me, 52 or so from someone else. You were given various links to Microsoft support pages disproving you. You had mods locking your threads, telling you stop the flaming and read the links. You don't need anything more than that. Anything else I have to say doesn't interest you because you don't want to here it. If you still have an issue with what you were given, that's not our problem. You were told by the mods to read the links and respond with something constructive, and you chose not to, only to post more flames. You didn't heed their warnings, and your threads were locked.
 
djnes said:
If we wanted to degrade this down to a physics discussion the correct terminology would be attack point.
Click to expand...

In truth, the meaning is more akin to "the direction from which an attack approaches" meaning what kind of attack or where the attack is 'aimed' and therefore 'vector' is a very correct term regardless of whether you're contemplating physics, geometry, philosophy, or linguistics since it is after all just a figure of speech. (IMO the phrase has no basis in physics)
 
djnes said:
You had a link to 75 results from me, 52 or so from someone else.
Click to expand...
Not one of which offered anything remotely like this "proof" you speak of. They were all links to threads where "problem" and "service" were mentioned. Most of them were ones where you added your thoughts about services. Not one ended with anything like a conclusion. Simple "throw garbage at it" principal. All drivel, all designed to cloud the issue. So again, got 10 links to threads where services being disabled caused a problem, if it's so easy?
djnes said:
You were given various links to Microsoft support pages disproving you
Click to expand...
I was? Were were these links? I never saw anything from M$ that said anything about me being wrong. More lies.
djnes said:
. You had mods locking your threads, telling you stop the flaming and read the links
Click to expand...
None of my threads ever got locked, no mod ever told me to stop flaming or to read any links. Again, you are making shit up. More lies.
djnes said:
and you chose not to, only to post more flames
Click to expand...
Another lie. Show me a link to a post where I flamed anybody.
 
*Trying to stem the trolling*

O[H]-Zone,

You're going down the same road as this thread. Same arguments, same replies. The "proof" you need starts ~ post#58 where I linked you to a shit ton of MS KB articles.

Should we wait and see if the results are the same in this thread (aka you get it locked)? Nope. I'm reporting this now.

It's one thing to play ignorant of the facts, but you are really just trying to start a fight every time a "service" thread gets posted.
 
Here's three that were locked when you were reported. And yes, I know they were locked because YOU were reported....and not by me.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=892729&page=7

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=890945&page=6

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=878887&page=9

I'm not about to make assumptions, but if you really have this much trouble admitting you were wrong on an internet forum, shouldn't that be a clear sign that maybe you should unplug and get out more...maybe find a way to relax and work out some of this aggression? I am being completely serious about this. You look for every chance to bring this topic back up. You just can't let it go. It's just an internet forum!
 
O[H]-Zone said:
I was? Were were these links? I never saw anything from M$ that said anything about me being wrong. More lies.
Click to expand...

OMG. There was a truckload of links in all 50 of the threads you crapped with your drivel. If you're not going to contribute to a discussion don't participate. It's hard to have a civil debate when the only thing you post is :

O[H]-Zone said:
I didn't see any links.
Click to expand...
O[H]-Zone said:
I didn't see any links.
Click to expand...
 
Not at all...you seem to thing "disagreement"="flaming", and it's just not so. I hear all this crap about all the dire stuff that will happen if you shut off unneeded services, and it just doesn't add up. We have 8,000 people registered here. One had a problem. Go over to the Video Card forum, and see how many people had problems OC'ing their vid cards.
More than one.
Now go to the AMD and Intel processor forums and see how many people had problems OC'ing their CPU's.
More than one.
The inescapable conclusion? Shutting off unneeded services is one of the safest things you can do to your computer. It carries less risk than OC'ing either your vid card or your CPU, and lots of people do that. It reduces the attack surface, frees system resources, and has almost no bad effects.
You're going to report me for disagreeing with you? Wow. Just wow.
 
Outside of the debate entirely it's good to see some benchies. Thanks for posting that to the OP.
 
This thread started off fine and could be a good discussion, so if you guys want to continue having a good discussion, please go on ahead, but stop being flinging shit around and calling people out.

I don't know how much more I can stress this, but attacking the argument is one thing and perfectly legit on this forum. Once you start attacking the member, then just get out because I'm not going to put up with it and it's against the forum rules. You all know that.

This thread can bring up some interesting points. Disabling services saved the OP some RAM, but didn't really help with performance. Ok, maybe on a lower end system the performance difference would be more significant or as some of our folders have mentioned, it can make a good difference in folding time. Is the potential there for something to break somewhere down the line? Sure, it's possible, but for that user is it probable? We're not talking about a corporate environment here, we're talking about someones gaming pc used for gaming and browsing. Different environemnt, different needs.

So in conclusion, you all need to grow up and stop with this "holier than thou" crap because I'm tired of it.
 
O[H]-Zone said:
Not at all...you seem to thing "disagreement"="flaming", and it's just not so.You're going to report me for disagreeing with you? Wow. Just wow.
Click to expand...

No, I reported it for trolling.

I have several times in the past tried to have an fruitfull discussion, but that didn't happen. You're arguing against facts, not opinions. You're also ignoring the *numerous* times you have had your "no one ever has problems disabling services" claim *factually* disputed. I have 0 problem with debating opinions, but you're asking me (us) to accept the fact that water is dry and the sky is full of pink ponies and flying pigs. Do it once, and I'll ignore it. Do it eleventy billion times and cause multiple threads to get locked and I see it as trolling.

Still want proof? I'll link it *again* It's from Microsoft's Knowledge Base. These are service specific errors. Disabled services errors. (this link is even better then the first one I linked to). From that link:

"SYMPTOMS
When you try to add a user to a group in Microsoft Windows XP, you receive the following error message and the user is not added to the group:
Local Users and Groups

The following error occurred while attempting to read the properties for the user UserName:

The Server service is not started.
CAUSE
This issue may occur when the Server service is not running.
WORKAROUND
To work around this issue, start the Server service. To do this, follow these steps...

And another...

SYMPTOMS
When you attempt to install Windows 2000 Service Pack 1 (SP1) on your computer or Windows 2000 Service Pack 2 (SP2) on your computer, you may receive the following error message:
Cannot install the Service Pack.
The Print Spooler service is not started.
CAUSE
This behavior can occur if the Print Spooler service is disabled.
RESOLUTION
To resolve this problem, obtain the latest service pack for Windows 2000. For additional information, click the following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:
To work around this issue, start the Print Spooler service before you install the service pack. To do this...

...et cetra, ad nasaum. I'm really not sure what more proof you want.

You have direct error messages and their solution (enable service) from the software developer, you have employees of the software developer telling you that is incorrect, you have just about every experienced member on the forum telling you the same.

In short, stop derailing every service thread in to a lock.

edit: Here's another thread *you* posted in that is a service error from this forum.
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=906951

edit2: and before you go there, the thread's issue was a missing file, but disabling the service would have had the same result.

***back to the thread***
 
I really want to know what that nitpick was now...

Why can't we just let whoever needs memory disable their services and suffer any possible consequences?

I know on my old 400MHz K6-II with 192MB ram, disabling some services made it feel more responsive. My dad has been using that computer for years without a single problem.

And disabling services can't be as bad as everyone says. Even Microsoft disabled their own Alerter and Messenger services in SP2, meaning that not everything is needed.
 
Phoenix86 said:
No...
Click to expand...
Just more and more about nothing. That link to M$'s site is a list of things that might happen; that link to the thread in this forum is laughable...did you read it? It's yet another example of some people jumping hysterically to the "ooh, you disabled services, therefore every problem you ever have is caused by that" conclusion. And being dead wrong, yet again. In that thread, the OP found that it was not actually a service-related problem; it was a problem uninstalling drivers.
Once again, a recap:
Disabling unneeded services is one of the safest things you can do to your computer; many orders of magnitude safer than overclocking. Of the over 41,000 (thanks, djnes!) people registered here, exactly one has had a problem resulting from disabling services... and he couldn't defrag. Odds: 0.0024%
M$ says "Important: Keep in mind that any service or application is a potential point of attack. Therefore, any unneeded services or executable files should be disabled or removed in your environment.
And thanks to EinsteiN, we now have confirmation that disabling services saves RAM too.
I still disagree with you...time to cry to a mod again.
 
I can agree on most of your points, but I would just say that disabling services is safe if you know what you are doing. Obviously, someone should know what their needs are if they are going to disable services, so they know what they may need. For example, I think most people have issues with the blackviper site is that as a guide, it doesn't really describe what the services do, but more of a "MY PC didn't break when I did this, so it must be ok." That's fine and dandy for him, but you might be doing something involving a home network or certain devices you use where the situation will be different.

I attended a conference where they showed how to in stall and secure a certain mapping server and they disabled services and blocked every port except for http and https ports. It was interesting, but it also described why things were done. For the most part, most people can get away with disabling services to try and squeeze out some extra performance without breaking anything on their machines. They just need to remember that when troubleshooting problems, to check over what they have done to if it's the possible culprit.
 
Absolutely; I agree with every word you say (type?)
Do research.
Don't trust just one site.
Only disable unneeded services.
Set ones you're not sure of to manual in case something needs it and can start it.
Don't expect huge gains.
Don't disable services in lieu of Anti-virus / firewall / anti-spyware.
Best idea:
Disable a service, try it for a few weeks, see if something changes.
We get people coming on here asking "what services should I disable?", and it really is totally dependant on the environment you're operating in. The only one I say kill every time is Remote Registry (unless you're at work); beyond that, it's just not black-and-white. But again, I just don't see people coming on these forums with problems that they've created by disabling services. If it was "dangerous" in any way, we would see threads ending with "it's ok now, I set [it] to automatic and the problem stopped". It's that lack that makes me think the risk is minimal.
I guess, in this area at least "your mileage may vary" applies more than usual. If you have 2 GB of RAM, shutting off services to save RAM is silly. If you have 128MB, it's not quite so. If you're fully "exposed" to the internet, the security is a concern; if you're behind a NAT router, no as much so. Shades of gray...
 
Disabling services is great in my case...
I have two Window's XPs on two HD's. One is for my main OS (web browsing, folding, everything) and another for purely games. I only have 512MB of RAM, and on the second gaming XP, I disabled a lot of services i *knew* I was *never* going to use. (such as print spooling [never going to print on this OS], themes [don't care if it's ugly], and other unnecessary things). It helped to free up extra RAM. I know I could easily buy more RAM, but I don't want to have to ditch a 256MB (only two banks). The difference of ~23MB in his test is more than worth it for me!

I wouldn't recommend it though unless you're low on RAM. Even then it's super easy to break something.

Just thought I'd share my little experience
 
serbiaNem said:
Why can't we just let whoever needs memory disable their services and suffer any possible consequences?

And disabling services can't be as bad as everyone says. Even Microsoft disabled their own Alerter and Messenger services in SP2, meaning that not everything is needed.
Click to expand...
Your just about right on the issue at hand. The problem was, people would follow these guides, such as Blackviper's, and disable a bunch of services. Some of these people had no idea what these services were for, and the sites in question didn't do a very good job of warning the user or explaining what each service did. Therefore, on here, and on plenty of other tech forums, people started complaining about instability, or apps not working, once they followed Blackviper's guide. The problem was traced back to a necessary service being disabled.

Your right that some services can be disabled....as SP2 does take care of some of this.

What some people, including my buddy O[H]-Zone, don't want to realize, is that there are literally billions of different computer configurations out there, in terms of hardware, software, uses, etc, A service may be safe for you to disable, but my system might rely on it. So, you can't just create a website or a guide telling people to go "willy-nilly" through their services and disabling them. Blackviper did a terrible job of explaining the services. His site was vilified left and right on the TechTV forums (R.I.P. TechTV), and on many other forums. If you do your research and find you truly do not need a service, you can always set it to manual.

The second part of this argument, that finally someone benchmarked to prove, is that on today's systems, by disabling a bunch of services, your not really going to gain anything in terms of performance. Honestly, if I freed up 22 MB of memory on my system, I wouldn't notice a bit. So when you add the chance of causing a problem, with the complete lack of performance gains, you come up with the result that disabling services in the name of performance is just a farce.
 
The descriptions on most services are pretty self-explanatory when you view them, but there are some that sort of just say, "If this is disabled, applications dependent on COM+ will not run." So someone comes along and may not know what COM+ is, so they turn it off. Maybe I missed it, but is there a link with extended desctriptions of what the services actually are or some other documentation that maybe an System Administrator would refer to when trying to lock down a system?
 
odoe said:
Maybe I missed it, but is there a link with extended desctriptions of what the services actually are or some other documentation that maybe an System Administrator would refer to when trying to lock down a system?
Click to expand...

Here is a list of services and descriptions for XP Home / Pro. I just pulled it up on Google, and haven't had time to fully look it over yet. He does give "real world" descriptions of the services too.

http://www.theeldergeek.com/services_guide.htm

XP Pro default service settings: Helpful if you want to tinker with services yourself, and need to know how to restore original settings.
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/.../proddocs/en-us/sys_srv_default_settings.mspx
 
Checkout Chapter 7 from Microsoft's Threats and Countermeasures guide.

That chapter contains about 55 pages on the services found in Windows XP and 2003 with detailed descriptions of the services. It does not go into great detail on dependencies and such, but should give anyone with enough information to determine if a particular service is needed on their system.
 
SJConsultant said:
Checkout Chapter 7 from Microsoft's Threats and Countermeasures guide.

That chapter contains about 55 pages on the services found in Windows XP and 2003 with detailed descriptions of the services. It does not go into great detail on dependencies and such, but should give anyone with enough information to determine if a particular service is needed on their system.
Click to expand...

That book should be a good read. Thanks for the linkage.
 
Hey Einstein,

Thanks for spending the time to do the benchmarks. Much appreciated man.
 
odoe: i have found a good way of discovering wtf services are is, after doing Start / Run "services.msc" is to right-click a service and click on properties.

then, click on 'Dependencies' -- it'll give what the service is dependant upon, and what system components depend upon it. Often reading the information of a service the service you're looking up is depandant upon will give you more information about the first service.

 
O[H]-Zone said:
Just more and more about nothing. That link to M$'s site is a list of things that might happen
Click to expand...
You say on a constant basis that disabling services has no negative side effects. Case in point:
O[H]-Zone said:
Of the over 41,000 (thanks, djnes!) people registered here, exactly one has had a problem resulting from disabling services... and he couldn't defrag. Odds: 0.0024%
Click to expand...
However, we have shown you multiple examples, most importantly MS KBs, where this is not true. You may recall part of my argument used to be with security. Since you have shown it a legit concern with security it's not brought up by me anymore. Can you learn the same lesson and stop preaching disabling services is "safe" and at least amend it to say be carefull of service dependencies or *something*?

Your other claims are more debatable.

99% of the problem you have with other members is not accepting obvious facts. Here's a simple *fact*.

Disabling services can cause system instability.

When will you stop preaching otherwise?
 
Wow, way to dredge up a dead thread...
Anyway, there's pretty much no point arguing with you, you obviously have your mind made up, and don't want to be bothered with inconvenient facts.
Bottom line is, you post drivel that's designed to draw attention away from reality. Here's the reality for you, yet again.
There are over 41,000 people registered on these forums. One has had a problem with a service he shut off, and it was a silly one. If this instability you're always on about wasn't a figment of your imagination, there'd be more. That's called probability.
Many orders of magnitude more people have problems with CPU and GPU overclocking. And still, many people here do it, looking for that last bit of power from their machines. Yet I don't see you in the CPU or GPU forums whining about how bad it is.
Disabling unneeded services:

  1. is one of the safest modifications you can do
  2. Uses fewer system resources
  3. Is recommended by M$ because "any unneeded services or executable files should be disabled or removed in your environment."
So...you're still wrong, and I still disagree with you. Guess it's time to cry to a mod.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top