Operating System Myths—v.1

[HHunt]

I still want to do something about the "BSDs are worse than linux as desktops" myth, too, but I think that will have to be tomorrow.
(I've stayed up to 03:50 just for this thread.)

Thanks, btw.

 

[Josh_B]

Stupid users are always the weakest link. I'm talking about the ones who leave their login and password taped onto their monitor because they can't remember the five characters for their login, and the eight characters for their password. They can remember the specs for their car stereo, but they can't remember their login.

The solution? $50.00 for each password reset. Also, by locking out people's accounts for violating the acceptable computer use policy through posting their password on the monitor, you can be assured a steady income. This income can be placed into a pool which would be used for user education regarding such things as social engineering, or spyware-proofing.

 

[Met-AL]

GreNME and HHunt...hat's off to you guys. This has to be the first debate I have read here on these forums that didn't turn into bitter insults, name calling, generalizations, and flat out bogus claims. You guys really showed you know what your talking about.

For anyone who doesn't see my point, head over to the video card forums and check it out and then come back here.

 

[Met-AL]

This income can be placed into a pool which would be used for user education regarding such things as social engineering, or spyware-proofing.

I have a similar policy in place, but for a diferent problem. It's a swear jar. When ever it reaches twelve dollars (25 cents per offense), someone takes it and stops at Krispy Kremes the next day for rolls. I usually eat free rolls every three days.

Seriously though, the clerk at where I work, has her login and pass written on the managers business card and tacked to her bulliten board. LOL....not much of a problem really, since everything is physicaly secure, but it makes me laugh. You have to type that thing every time your PC has more than ten minutes of idle time and every morning, you think you could remember it.

 

[penguin]

I'll tack on one that focuses more into your "Operating System A is more secure than Operating System B"

Windows is filled with insecurity holes and is prone to virii, more than Linux/BSD/Mac OS X

Yes, it may seem like that because every month, or possibly every week, we get reports in saying "New major critical security flaws found in Windows software," or "New virus/worm on the rampage on Windows machines."

Well, part of the equation is that MS owns something like 90% of the market with its operating system, and if people want to do damage with a virus or exploit, it's best for them to target the product with the biggest market share.

Linux/*BSD/Mac OS X aren't exactly impervious to security threats - you have to keep them updated and do many of the same things you'd be doing on a Windows box, like run a firewall and antivirus.

Linux has a flaw in the 2.6 kernel that would allow a certain piece of C++ code to crash the computer. It was fixed in the 2.6.7 kernel and I think patches might have been released for the other kernels (not sure).

I'm not really sure on the *BSD front myself, but as a whole, if you can't take care of your computer and protect it correctly, then it doesn't really matter what you're running, because you're still open to root kitting, trojans, etc.

Thanks to XOR != OR for expounding on the virtues of the firewall and AV for Linux, and those who shared Linux/Windows security knowledge

However, for reasons listed, viri are less of a threat to my Linux only box then they are to my family's windows boxes. It's not that Linux is more secure against viruses, but there are simply less, so the result of that is that I am safer.

 

[GeForceX]

Wow, I may seem off-topic but for a computer that only has so much memory should at least disable services to save memory. If you're going to have a PC that doesn't do any printing nor file transferring nor any intensive work nor office work then it makes sense to disable those not needed and get a more responsive system so you can enjoy chatting on AIM/MSN/whatnot and search the internet on the fly. I'm not sure how much megabytes you actually preserve when you disable all but the necessary services but I'm sure it is 1 to 4 MB for each service. For me, that is quite a bit. You *BET* you will see improved performance/smoothness if you disable your services while playing Doom 3 rather than letting it soak up the memory that Doom 3 would very much desire/need. For those that argue, I would like to see you set up a 300 MHz 64 MB RAM computer on Windows XP Pro. It could probably barely even run with the services enabled. Probably MAY run better without the services. I have yet to comprehend how disabling services does NIL performance for you. No, I am not necessarily speaking of frames per second or anything like that. But surely a responsive system with perhaps less file paging (although not that noticeable-- but enough for older PC's).

-J.

 

[GreNME]

Wow, I may seem off-topic but for a computer that only has so much memory should at least disable services to save memory. If you're going to have a PC that doesn't do any printing nor file transferring nor any intensive work nor office work then it makes sense to disable those not needed and get a more responsive system so you can enjoy chatting on AIM/MSN/whatnot and search the internet on the fly. I'm not sure how much megabytes you actually preserve when you disable all but the necessary services but I'm sure it is 1 to 4 MB for each service. For me, that is quite a bit. You *BET* you will see improved performance/smoothness if you disable your services while playing Doom 3 rather than letting it soak up the memory that Doom 3 would very much desire/need. For those that argue, I would like to see you set up a 300 MHz 64 MB RAM computer on Windows XP Pro. It could probably barely even run with the services enabled. Probably MAY run better without the services. I have yet to comprehend how disabling services does NIL performance for you. No, I am not necessarily speaking of frames per second or anything like that. But surely a responsive system with perhaps less file paging (although not that noticeable-- but enough for older PC's).

-J.

You save, at most, between 5-10 MB of memory disabling services. So, your argument about saving RAM—especially in your 512MB rig listed in your sig—is totally incorrect. You will not see improved performance, and you have no way to prove it. Shall we really go and get the latest 3D benchmarks and prove how wrong you are? Take it from someone who is doing some major looking into what different services actually do instead of cutting and pasting vague summaries (like some quacks have and then claimed originality and "research")—you are, at best, not getting anything from disabling services, and are more likely to be crippling your machine than improving it.

Oh, and as I've mentioned before, I have XP installed on a 233Mhz laptop with 192 of RAM and it works splendidly. Another person I knew had it installed on a 133 with 64MB of RAM. It didn't run very well, but it ran well enough to surf the internet.

Your post is a good example of how the myth of disabling services has gotten out of control.

 

[GeForceX]

Now I'm pissed off. I want to tweak my PC and now I don't even know how to. I'm so dumbfounded. What the hell do I do? What do I do about my services? Nothing? The inner "misinformed" geek inside me says you're crazy. WTF do I do? Do you have a recommendation of which I can turn on/off for the sake of preserving *10* megabytes? Seriously, I consider a TWEAK to at least involve the services.

-J.

 

[GreNME]

Why do you consider a tweak to involve disabling services? Because that's what you were told? Here's a hint: don't believe everything you hear. People like QuackViper have set the tweaking community back years in terms of gaining knowledge and factual information.

 

[GeForceX]

Okay, I've found a pretty good quick site here: http://fluffygerbil.com/windowsxp.php

Can you verify if it makes any sense? He says it's more propaganda which should be agreed by you. How come back then we hear of many cases of slowdowns caused by Windows XP services then?

-J.

 

[GreNME]

Can you verify if it makes any sense? He says it's more propaganda which should be agreed by you.

He's wrong about the list of services he's calling "security holes" on his list, as well as the ones he's claiming don't matter. He's once again going on vague information instead of tracking what each of the services actually do and are used for.

How come back then we hear of many cases of slowdowns caused by Windows XP services then?

Because people will blame any problems on the things they don't understand, since it's easier than actually learning to understand them and figuring out what is actually happening or going wrong.

 

[GeForceX]

lol this is horrible.

GreNME, can you please be a great friend and refer me to an actual PROFESSIONAL right-on-target website that explains everything about the services AND if other tweaks too? If you know any that is.

And... atm, I am downloading the SP2 package.

And... are you implying I should leave my services as INTACT as I installed Windows?

-J.

 

[GreNME]

There is no one website that will answer your questions. It's too broad and too vague a question for a single answer, which is why there are none. I'm working on an article to explain what the Windows-default services are, what they do, and why disabling them is not a good idea. Things like messenger and are usually okay to set to manual, but going much further than those is a recipe for disaster.

And yes, if you're installing SP2, having disabled services is likely to screw things up. I wish there were a decent way to get a tally of how many of these hosed systems had services disabled versus didn't as an example. I can guarantee you that if you have either QuackViper's or that fluffygerbil's recommendations for disabling services, you will very likely experience problems either during or after installing SP2.

 

[GeForceX]

Thankfully I haven't *tweaked* this PC YET. It's all at its default so I'm proceeding on installing SP2 as of now...

BBL with a chance of success. ;-)

-J.

 

[Moto Guzzi]

Because people will blame any problems on the things they don't understand, since it's easier than actually learning to understand them and figuring out what is actually happening or going wrong.

Agree, the Re-Format kiddies shall we call them.
The creators of the most important software & hardware, must be laughting there asses off reading forums, if they do, but something that really annoys me is the "Instant-Reformat-in-a-second" kiddies....It's faster.....Well you actually wipe all your possible self-learning capability from OS's that way. Unless you have a hardware problem that really messes every file up, the answer is always lying somewhere out there.

Services:I never found a need so far to disable MS Services, but certainly disable all other services from time to time if not required when playing a game or editing photos etc.

Security:Well while everybody argue which OS is more secure, I just have good Firewall, AV, delete Internet crap every hour when on interenet, and most important update everything 1st before exploring the internet.....Nothing attacted or exploited my PC so far.

Drivers:Well one could say that your main drivers for OS, display drivers and Firewall/AV should all be more or less of the same year, one tend to forget about some, until something major is updated like AV/Firewall, and ...bam..you got problems.

 

[O[H]-Zone]

There is no one website that will answer your questions. It's too broad and too vague a question for a single answer, which is why there are none. I'm working on an article to explain what the Windows-default services are, what they do, and why disabling them is not a good idea. Things like messenger and are usually okay to set to manual, but going much further than those is a recipe for disaster.

And yes, if you're installing SP2, having disabled services is likely to screw things up. I wish there were a decent way to get a tally of how many of these hosed systems had services disabled versus didn't as an example. I can guarantee you that if you have either QuackViper's or that fluffygerbil's recommendations for disabling services, you will very likely experience problems either during or after installing SP2.

I've got lots of services disabled, and had no problems with installing SP2. Windows Messenger is a service that's on by default, and it's baloney. Kill it. Also, the Corporate Pro version installs with the Remote Registry Modification enabled...I can't speak for you, but I don't want anybody remotely modifying my registry. Secondary logon service...I don't want anybody else logging on to my machine...disabled. Error reporting...disabled. Wireless Zero Configuration...disabled. Themes...disabled. Portable Media Serial Number service...disabled. QOS RSVP...disabled. Removable storage...aint got none...disabled. Routing and Remote acces...this machine doesn't do any routing, and I don't want anyone remotely accessing it...disabled. Task scheduler...disabled. None of these are needed...all use system resources.

 

[GreNME]

I've got lots of services disabled, and had no problems with installing SP2.

Oboy, here we go...

Windows Messenger is a service that's on by default, and it's baloney. Kill it.

Apparently, you weren't aware that SP2 disables that for you.

Also, the Corporate Pro version installs with the Remote Registry Modification enabled...I can't speak for you, but I don't want anybody remotely modifying my registry.

Since that's not how it works, you're showing your ignorance about the service.

Secondary logon service...I don't want anybody else logging on to my machine...disabled.

Concurrent logons are not possible in XP. Once again, you are ignorant to the purpose of the service.

Error reporting...disabled.

For ridiculous reasons, I'm sure...

Wireless Zero Configuration...disabled.

Even though when there are no wireless devices, this isn't taking up any cycles or RAM (and negligible ones when running). So you accomplished nothing by disabling it. Congratulations.

Themes...disabled.

When choosing classic accomplishes the same thing without risking a conflict. Congratulations again.

Portable Media Serial Number service...disabled.

Hope you don't bother syncing different portable media to that one machine. Expect problems if you do. PCMCIA conflicts can originate for people who disable this on laptops.

QOS RSVP...disabled.

For incredibly stupid reasons—don't believe the BS that is spread about QOS.

Removable storage...aint got none...disabled.

Then it doesn't run or take up resources anyway. The only time it actually runs is when you plug something in. Good job accomplishing nothing there, and screwing yourself if you buy a pen drive for transferring files later.

Routing and Remote acces...this machine doesn't do any routing, and I don't want anyone remotely accessing it...disabled.

Wow... you are really just shooting blind here.

Task scheduler...disabled.

As with many others, if it's empty, no resources are used. However, you just screwed programs like Norton A/V, many backup programs, some 3rd party defrag programs, and many others. Great job removing capability for absolutely no reason.

None of these are needed...all use system resources.

No they didn't, and the ones that did, counted together, do not take up more than 5-10 MB of memory and a fraction of a percent of CPU cycles in almost every case.

Ladies and gentlement, a perfect example of ignorance and conjecture dictating practices instead of knowledge and research.

 

[SJConsultant]

I've got lots of services disabled, and had no problems with installing SP2. Windows Messenger is a service that's on by default, and it's baloney. Kill it. Also, the Corporate Pro version installs with the Remote Registry Modification enabled...I can't speak for you, but I don't want anybody remotely modifying my registry. Secondary logon service...I don't want anybody else logging on to my machine...disabled. Error reporting...disabled. Wireless Zero Configuration...disabled. Themes...disabled. Portable Media Serial Number service...disabled. QOS RSVP...disabled. Removable storage...aint got none...disabled. Routing and Remote acces...this machine doesn't do any routing, and I don't want anyone remotely accessing it...disabled. Task scheduler...disabled. None of these are needed...all use system resources.

Again, as GreNME points out most people are disabling services without even knowing what the service does in the first place. Your lack of knowledge on at least two services shows that you have no clue as to what and how those services work:

Remote Registry - First off it require administrative level permissions to access, so if you've got a good password on your system then your safe. This service allows admins to remotely modify the registry.

Secondary Logon - This service allows you to start a program using alternate credentials. For example if you were running under a regular user account and needed to run a program as admin you could do so without having to logoff the system. Secondary logon does not have anything to do with someone else logging into your system.

 

[GreNME]

Remote Registry - First off it require administrative level permissions to access, so if you've got a good password on your system then your safe. This service allows admins to remotely modify the registry.

And on top of this, one can still gain access to your registry with this turned off. Just not through the administrative console.

And that secondary logon—think su in Linux.

 

[O[H]-Zone]

Yadda-yadda-yadda...blah-blah-blah.

Lets start here: everything this person has stated is opinion.

Windows 98, on any equipment that falls within system specs for XP (and arguably lower), does not perform better than Windows 2K/XP - wrong. Win 98 has much lower system requirement than XP. Less resources used, more left to do other things. End of story

there exists no proof that disabling services (a la Quack Viper) or removing the page file improves performance - wrong. Disabling services frees up resources that can be used elsewhere. End of story

The windows 9x series, for example, was verified having some serious page file issues, so there may be no problem believing this would have worked. However, with 2k/xp, this is no longer the case.- wrong. It depends on what you're using your machine for...many people have reported gains from disabling the page file. End of story

Traditionally speaking, no operating system is inherently more secure than any other; it all comes down to administration - wrong. There have been update after update to fix holes in MS products..even media player had a hole. There have been a handful for Linux. End of story

GNOME and KDE, the two most popular graphic environments, require pretty much as much in terms of system requirements as WindowsXP - so wrong it makes you wonder...the overhead for a Linux system even with a GUI are much less than for windows. End of story.

Remote Registry - First off it require administrative level permissions to access, so if you've got a good password on your system then your safe. This service allows admins to remotely modify the registry - and if the service is turned off, there is less opportunity to do so. End of story.

Secondary Logon - This service allows you to start a program using alternate credentials. For example if you were running under a regular user account and needed to run a program as admin you could do so without having to logoff the system. Secondary logon does not have anything to do with someone else logging into your system. - And since I only ever use my one account, it is nothing but a security hole. End of story.

Since that's not how it works, you're showing your ignorance about the service. - wrong. That is how it works. Please stop calling me names.

Concurrent logons are not possible in XP - wrong. Sure are.

Even though when there are no wireless devices, this isn't taking up any cycles or RAM (and negligible ones when running). So you accomplished nothing by disabling it. Congratulations. - wrong. Any service running takes resources. End of story.

When choosing classic accomplishes the same thing without risking a conflict. Congratulations again. - wrong. When I iinstall, I always switch to classic. The themes are atill running. Then I kill themes. End of story.

Hope you don't bother syncing different portable media to that one machine. Expect problems if you do. PCMCIA conflicts can originate for people who disable this on laptops. - aint got none.

As with many others, if it's empty, no resources are used. However, you just screwed programs like Norton A/V, many backup programs, some 3rd party defrag programs, and many others. Great job removing capability for absolutely no reason. - wrong. If it's a service that's running, it takes resources. And I have Norton AV, it works fine.

Then it doesn't run or take up resources anyway. The only time it actually runs is when you plug something in. Good job accomplishing nothing there, and screwing yourself if you buy a pen drive for transferring files later. - wrong. If it's a service that's running, it takes resources. End of story.

Now, lets address the flaming, shall we?

For incredibly stupid reasons—don't believe the BS that is spread about QOS.
For ridiculous reasons, I'm sure...
Since that's not how it works, you're showing your ignorance about the service.
Ladies and gentlement, a perfect example of ignorance and conjecture dictating practices instead of knowledge and research.
Since that's not how it works, you're showing your ignorance about the service

So, to wrap up:
Every single thing I've ever seen you say here has been utterly, completely, and totally wrong. And all you do is flame and argue. It doesn't make you right, and I'm PM'ing a Mod about the flamage...I'm sick of it. If we can flame here, then I have some things to say to you...it's my understanding that we can't. I've had enough from you; if you can't make your point without calling me names, then I have no use for you.

For the love of God, people...don't listen to this person.

 

[Moto Guzzi]

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

 

[SJConsultant]

Remote Registry - First off it require administrative level permissions to access, so if you've got a good password on your system then your safe. This service allows admins to remotely modify the registry - and if the service is turned off, there is less opportunity to do so. End of story.

If a person can remotely or locally access your system using administrative credentials, your owned period, remote registry enabled or not.

Secondary Logon - This service allows you to start a program using alternate credentials. For example if you were running under a regular user account and needed to run a program as admin you could do so without having to logoff the system. Secondary logon does not have anything to do with someone else logging into your system. - And since I only ever use my one account, it is nothing but a security hole. End of story..

Security hole? Secondary logon is as secure as the administrative accounts passwords and can only be accessed *locally* on the machine.

Oh, thats right you run as admin all the time and do not consider that as a security hole? Please tell me how Secondary logon is a security hole on your system. I would be interested in hearing your "expertise" on it.

Since that's not how it works, you're showing your ignorance about the service. - wrong. That is how it works. Please stop calling me names.

You haven't provided any information backing up your claims about those services, you made false claims about security problems with Secondary Login and Remote Registry without providing any proof.

Your the one who obviously does not know how things work.

Every single thing I've ever seen you say here has been utterly, completely, and totally wrong. And all you do is flame and argue. It doesn't make you right, and I'm PM'ing a Mod about the flamage...I'm sick of it. If we can flame here, then I have some things to say to you...it's my understanding that we can't. I've had enough from you; if you can't make your point without calling me names, then I have no use for you.

For the love of God, people...don't listen to this person.

Your gasping for air here since your post does not even differentiate or properly quote either GreNME's posts or mine in any real attempt to debate the topics at hand. No one has called you names and if your taking offense because you have not been able to come up with anything that disproves either one of us then don't bother to even post a reply.

At least some of us here actually post linkage, quotes, or other factual information to prove our points. You on the other hand, cannot seem to take the pressure and go crying to a mod.

 

[GreNME]

Let's see:

• I called what you did ignorant
• I called your reasoning conjecture
• I called the lies about things like QOS stupid
• I made many other similar comments about arguments and reasoning

I'm not attacking people here. I'm attacking ideas, which is the whole point of dispelling these awful myths to begin with. You are entitled to your "opinion" on things, but I am dealing with that area where fact supercedes myth and common "I read it on the internet" myths that are oh-so-common, even here on the [H].

Stop turning this into a personal battle, and perhaps you won't feel so personally slighted. I don't know you well enough to dislike you, I only know that what you are claiming is false and specious reasoning, at the very best.

 

[GreNME]

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

It's just a re-hash and paraphrasing of the QuackViper stuff (which was just cut-n-pasted from other uncredited sources). In other words, it's third-generation inaccuracies.

Ever play that game where everyone lines up, the first person whispers in the next one's ear, and they pass along the message down the line? The message is never the same as it started.

Also, before the "services guide," the EG cover their asses quite well:

Frankly, I don't recommend you change any of the services from the default installation of XP. Yes, you may pick up a tiny performance gain by fiddling with the settings, but it won't be anything substantial. It's just my opinion, but if you are in a situation where these gains are necessary to achieve an increased level of system performance, it would be wiser to upgrade the physical system to one that is adequate to benefit from the XP operating system.

Of course, he's only speculating about the performance, because there is no measurable gain.

 

[O[H]-Zone]

Remote Registry:

Direct quote - "Enables remote users to modify registry settings on this computer. If this service is stopped, the registry can be modified only by users on this computer."
Hmmm...again, I don't want "remote users" modifying my registry, thank you...

Secondary Logon:

Direct quote - "I find this feature very useful but it does compromise security so be aware of what it can allow." Since I run as admin, I don't need "run as". If someone SHOULD gain access to my box through some other account, they could then begin an attack on my admin password. Thank you, no.

 

[GreNME]

Did you miss where I pointed out—in the post above yours—that the EG is just rehashing the same bullshit QuackViper has?

It has already been pointed out that you are not getting the full idea of what that is.

And believe me, if a person has credentials sufficient to mess with your registry, this service is not going to be the first on their list. Learn to read some C and check out some different exploits that have been publically released. You're fixing a 'problem' that doesn't exist by disabling that service.

I swear, the reasoning is utterly stupid.

If someone SHOULD gain access to my box through some other account, they could then begin an attack on my admin password. Thank you, no.

Once again, a combination of misinformation, conjecture, and paranoia. No, someone couldn't elevate privilages on your machine if you're the only account, because there are no other accounts that can be used. The guest account is disabled by default. That is, unless you enabled it, in which case you just threw your previously assumed 'security' out the window, since a null session, anonymous, or 'guest' account can run an attack on your password anyway. As someone who has been learning techniques for cracking into NT/2k/XP machines for a while now, I can assure you that you get no safety with your admin account by turning that service off.

It seems all someone has to do is place it under the dubious auspices of 'security' for it to make people assume it is something used to break into the machine.

Try again. Not only can attacks on both of those items be circumvented, but (disabling) those services do zilch for securing your machine.

Guys, security is not going to be had by disabling your operating system. If that were the case, then security through obscurity would be the proper model to work from, and in reality, security through obscurity simply isn't going to work in the long run.

I also notice you've decided to avoid trying to claim performance increases now that it has been brought to light how little resources are actually used. Urban legend sucks when you spend years believing it as true, huh?

 

[Met-AL]

Remote Registry:

Direct quote - "Enables remote users to modify registry settings on this computer. If this service is stopped, the registry can be modified only by users on this computer."
Hmmm...again, I don't want "remote users" modifying my registry, thank you...

Secondary Logon:

Direct quote - "I find this feature very useful but it does compromise security so be aware of what it can allow." Since I run as admin, I don't need "run as". If someone SHOULD gain access to my box through some other account, they could then begin an attack on my admin password. Thank you, no.

Yawn.

 

[SJConsultant]

Remote Registry:

Direct quote - "Enables remote users to modify registry settings on this computer. If this service is stopped, the registry can be modified only by users on this computer."
Hmmm...again, I don't want "remote users" modifying my registry, thank you...

How about posting something that actually explains the level of permissions needed?

Quote:
"On a Windows XP Professional-based computer, by default only members of the Administrators Group and Backup Operators Group have access to the registry over the network. Administrators have Full Control access, and Backup Operators have Read access.

On a Windows XP Home Edition-based computer, by default only members of the Administrators Group can gain access to the registry over the network. Administrators have Full Control access. "

a remote user needs *ADMINISTRATIVE* privileges, if the remote user already has admin permissions your box is owned regardless if you've got remote registry enabled or disabled.

Secondary Logon:

Direct quote - "I find this feature very useful but it does compromise security so be aware of what it can allow." Since I run as admin, I don't need "run as". If someone SHOULD gain access to my box through some other account, they could then begin an attack on my admin password. Thank you, no.

It does not explain *HOW* it compromises security, not to mention it requires knowing a *valid* set of user credentials on the system. It requires an account to be logged on, and either thru command line or GUI someone has to enter the appropriate steps to attempt a "RunAs" command. If someone already has that kind of access, then they've already owned your box.

While I will agree it might not provide any benefit in your particular configuration (since your already running as admin), there is no need to spread misinformation that the service being a security threat when there is no proof of it.

If there is proof, other than a website or person just saying it is, then please post a link so that we may all benefit from that knowledge.

 

[BobSutan]

It seems you're both hitting the same nail on the head, but from different angles. Gren, yes disabling the services in question provides very negligable gains, but if O[H]-Zone wants to disable them then that's his right. He's also got a point in that if its not needed, then why let it run? Defacto security mantra tells you to disable anything not absolutely neccessary for a particular computing environment, which is essentially what it appears he's shooting for.


Now, all things said the pissing match ends now. Its bringing the thread downhill, and if continued this thread will be locked.

 

[kleptophobiac]

You might want to mention that Linux can be used with lighter GUIs like XFCE and the *box window managers. They can be good alternatives for old machine that you want a GUI for.

I'll vouch for that. I have a 486 DX4/75 with 24MB of RAM that runs fluxbox on X 3.3.6 on slackware 9.1 - and it flies. Pair that with a lightweight browser like Dillo, and your old hardware really can be spectacularly fast for what it is.

 

[GreNME]

Gren, yes disabling the services in question provides very negligable gains, but if O[H]-Zone wants to disable them then that's his right.

I'm not disputing that right. Anyone who owns their system has a right to do what they please. My contention is with trying to pass it off as a performance/security/whatever tweak.

He's also got a point in that if its not needed, then why let it run? Defacto security mantra tells you to disable anything not absolutely neccessary for a particular computing environment, which is essentially what it appears he's shooting for.

The thing is—and it's something that I've already pointed out and is being ignored—is that when the service isn't being directly accessed/used, it isn't running. Being started in the list in services.msc does not mean it's going to be there when you run a task list check. In fact, more often than not, you'll find that at least half the things listed as "started" in services.msc are not actually running, they are in a "ready" state to be run (or are waiting to be initialized by an authenticated user with privs).

Hence the myth about them. If it's not running, and it's not accessible, and it's not actually securing anything, what possible good is it doing? The answer is "none." The person may never use them, but they are not safer for having disabled them, and are not getting a performance gain for having disabled them. In many cases, disabling them will hamper the performance of other programs or services which may depend on them.

It is bad form to spread misinformation about these things, and that is exactly what QuackViper and all of the other sites that have taken their cues from him are doing.

I'll vouch for that. I have a 486 DX4/75 with 24MB of RAM that runs fluxbox on X 3.3.6 on slackware 9.1 - and it flies. Pair that with a lightweight browser like Dillo, and your old hardware really can be spectacularly fast for what it is.

No argument here. When I run a live CD of Linux on my old 233 lappy with fluxbox, it kicks ass. However, with those lighter GUIs, you also lose a lot of the integrated features of the likes of GNOME and KDE. As much as I like fluxbox (on Linux), it's no KDE. It makes a better graphical toolbox than it does graphical environment.

[edit] Whoops, and I forgot to add—how many people new to Linux are going to know how to get fluxbox installed and configured right out-of-box? That's where the problem lies in the claim, that people are told they can acheive more than is realistically possible at the time of introduction. Given time, it can happen, but keeping people interested enough to stick with it is gonna be tough without being more straight with them from the start.

 

[Spleeze]

Time for my 2 cents about this whole services thing. I think some of them can be disabled without losing anything necessary. I mean SP2 disables messenger... something i've been doing for a long time... was I wrong to do it myself? Or should I wait for Microsoft to do it for me... Ditto for alerter.. both disbled by sp2... and they were 2 of the 3 i used to turn off... Themes really isnt necessary if you use classic, and if you use the classic logon (like I do) you still see that horrible blue bubbly stuff when you login.. If you disble themes you get a nice classic looking logon... its easy and if i never touch a theme, why should it even be on the list of things to run?

But I totally agree that you shouldn't go and disable as many services that O[H]-Zone did. I mean, you're really ripping a lot of the functionality out of the os, and who's to say that later you might need one of those services, forget you disabled it, and go nuts trying to get something to work because its disabled...

Just my 2 cents about that...

Also I've noticed some people talking about how Linux with a gui has a lower overhead than windows because you can use "fluxbox" or some other WM... I have a laptop, and older laptop, pII366 128mb ram thinkpad 570, I have windows XP and slackware, They both use about 50-70megs of ram at any given time and the processor hovers around 2-3 in both. I use flux on slack and i use bblean for windows... If you can use a minimal WM for linux you can use a minimal shell for windows... And bblean is actually much easier for a newb to work with...

God that was a rant.

And thats my thoughts...

 

[GreNME]

Themes really isnt necessary if you use classic, and if you use the classic logon (like I do) you still see that horrible blue bubbly stuff when you login.. If you disble themes you get a nice classic looking logon... its easy and if i never touch a theme, why should it even be on the list of things to run?

You can turn off fast user switching and get the same result with less potential for problems later (if you ever change your mind and forget about the disabled service).

Are we seeing a trend here? Lots of those things that get disabled can either be turned off or left alone with the same amount of security and performance and a better chance of later stability. Sure, people have the right to disable whatever they want, but when the issue is security or performance, disabling services hasn't a leg to stand on.

Which is why it's a myth.

Spleeze, Litestep isn't so bad, either. Still, you have a good point: Linux doesn't have the corner market on lightweight window managers.

 

[kleptophobiac]

50-70MB of RAM? wow! That would choke my 486 laptop. It's running 24MB of physical RAM, and when I load dillo it still has 10MB free.

 

[GreNME]

50-70MB of RAM? wow! That would choke my 486 laptop. It's running 24MB of physical RAM, and when I load dillo it still has 10MB free.

Just curious: what all can you accomplish with it? Since you mentioned a recent kernel (slack 9.1) and all, you must have a crapload of stuff not installed and intentionally removed to be using a grand total of 14 MB. I take it the machine is a web surfer?

Honestly. I mean, for the thin clients I'm working on with ThinStation (also Linux), 32MB is pretty much requisite. And that's a thin client.

 

[kleptophobiac]

Yeah, it is a seriously stripped down box.

Think the bare minimum for a functioning linux setup, plus:

- Basic net tools from 9.1 (nmap, ethereal (runs OK in GUI mode, large captures kill though), etc.)
- xfree86 3.3.6 with svga server from 8.1
- custom compiled fluxbox
- custom compiled dillo (memory footprint of about 300KB IIRC, very lightweight browser)

...and that's it.

Having a custom kernel (monolithic) with nothing you don't actually need helps a lot. Parallel port? Don't need it. Not going to use wired NIC? No 10/100 network card support. There really is a lot of stuff built into the kernel, you just have to know exactly what you really REALLY need.

Anyway, this is a uselessly thin client. I use it when wardriving as an expendable machine. I can cruise the web decently with it, but a lot of sites just don't work perfectly with dillo. 48MB is enough to run a better browser and actually enjoy it.

 

[GeForceX]

GreNME, what's your source for all the 'true' information on services?

And well, I didn't want to refer to QuackViper but I have to for verification-- he states services that 'idle' would take up space. I would assume that means when something calls for a particular service (a.k.a. manual becomes run) it takes up space. I would agree with that.

Now, if it is already ran and there is no more need for it, does it stop itself or not? And sometimes a service can be run for no reason and a user may not want it to be on no matter what. Disabling helps prevents that (providing it doesn't cause problems for the user or for the sake of stability).

Repeat-- Well, does it revert to 'stop' after it is not used anymore?

Oh and Litestep-- how much memory does it take up? Considering it's a nice optimized graphical GUI...

So I would assume today's guides to tweaking XP is already out of date. Is disabling indexing service still a fine thing? Does it contribute to performance? Eh.

GreNME and SJConsultant -- I would love to see an 'official' revised Windows XP SP2 performance tweaking guide from you guys. As to what to enable/disable (or none at all).

And you know, there are computer-savvy gamers like myself out there. We know about drivers and windows updates and etc. But we want performance. How about a guide for the gamers only? A guide to strip down Windows (but not hindering stability and/or security) is nice as well.

-J.

P.S. Installed SP2 -- looks good so far.

 

[oldpablo]

My two cents. For the people that are refuting the explanation posted about the human factor, think of it as a slider. It slides back and forth between security and useability. But it can never be both. "Network Security" is an oxymoron. Networks are designed to share, security is designed to prevent sharing. Where that slider is in a given OS whether its the default after a clean install or its been "slid" to a certain place, depends on the human factor most definitely. A company(human factor) wanting its OS to work with everything out of the box will have lax security (early MS) or a company wanting it to be locked down after a clean install (later MS), leaving it up to the admin to "open it up."

As for the system services, you have to remember one important thing. MS designed the OS, and when you go against their design you are tempting fate. They have to make assumptions when they release hotfixes, service packs, etc, and the safest one to make is that people have left stuff the way it was made to be run. Did you know disabling such a useless thing as the Background Intelligent Transfer service will make your machine not ask for critical updates automatically? Who knew eh? Doesn't sound like it would break that functionality. If you think you are getting enough of a performance boost to make tempting the reliability Gods worth it, then think again. Its like saying if I take the seats out of my car it will run faster because it'll have less weight. It's splitting hairs and its just not worth it.

One more thing. Don't forget one of the most important factors here. Time. Time changes all. Security, performance boosts, etc. I can turn off my paging file and sure maybe get a nice boost (myth), but what happens when that new software is released that utilizes something the developers assume you didn't mess with, and now the program runs like a$$ because it can't stretch its legs. Good luck troubleshooting that one. Bottom line, tweaking is fine but don't go berserk. Listen to others that know (guys listed in first post) and realize that stuff is going to change.

P.S. GeForceX, disabling the index service would be fine I think since MS actually gives you the option in the search window advanced options. If MS gives you a way to tweak without digging, then its generally safe. And FYI, anyone with a rant like this can keep his computer advice to his damn self http://www.blackviper.com/TheRant/jackinthebox.htm.

P.S.S. GrenME, something I feel is a myth is people saying Win2k in some scenarios is generally better to have installed then XP. I can dig up some grub on it if you like. If you agree, maybe add it as an addendum to the 98 part and maybe evolve it into "is there really any valid reason to not use XP."

 

[GreNME]

OP, maybe the 98 one can be turned into a sundry Windows one and have the XP stuff added? I think so. I don't see a reason why not.

Oh, and QuackViper is full o f crap, but only a longer-term study of his habits begins to show why. He has had to change and revise is site numerous times, because a lot of what he claimed about his information contradicted the very measly sources he claims to begin with. Where did he get his info? Well, mostly from hearsay and second-hand account—it's difficult to figure out all of his sources, since he lies and claims the 'research' as his own. However, plenty of places in there are word-for-word copies of (vague) descriptions that are found both right in the description in the OS and in a couple places on the web. So, he's a weird mix of plagiarism and misinformed opinion.

Me, I get it from various sources: Microsoft documentation, pages on the MSDN site, more than one person from MS (I've been nagging local reps), and constant testing. The difference, you see, is that when I finally get my whole guide to services together, it is going to be looking at how the services actually work with the OS (both together and individually), and that a lot of the work put into research is not just my own, but the work of professionals and valid, repeatable testing that anyone can do. I'm not on a hunt for credit, I'm on a hunt for fact and truth. The more I learn, the more I see how the credit-hungry out there are using specious information to get people to "take their word for it."

As for a 'revised' tweak guide—that would be difficult, since not all hardware is going to be the same. The trick is in knowing what it is you're running and the limitations between software (like, say, newest drivers) and hardware (i.e. - running a Radeon 9800 on an NForce board with 512MB RAM). There would be too many conditional statements, and to be perfectly honest, Windows gives you the option to increase and decrease many performance settings right from easy-to-reach controls. Maybe one of us can put together a list of very basic and general tweaks that work in XP SP2, but it probably won't sway much from the tried-n-true lists of many reputable sites out there (mind you, I disagree with the EG description of services, but they're a good site). It's not like I (or any other contributor here) has some holy grail of info to draw from, and certainly not enough to supercede a lot of other guys who have been doing the web thing for a while (we'd probably agree with a lot). It just needs to be kept in mind that different configs are going to mean different needs, and different uses are going to require different tweaks. There's no real panacea.

 

[Spleeze]

GreNME: I have tried to get the same "no frills" logon effect by turning off fast user switching... It gives you the classic logon, but its still skinned... I suppose I could use tweakUI and copy my theme settings to the logon and get rid of it, but i've just been disabling it for so long and have never had a problem in doing so, its a lot like a habit now. Could you tell me a possible problem that may arise by disabling themes? Remember I never actually use any other themes or theming utilities... If there is something horrible that may occur, I may re-enable it.

kleptophobiac: I never said that I had a completely optimized box... I was just pointing out that my windows install and my slack install on the same box uses roughly the same amount of ram... I use pretty much exactly the same programs on both... gaim, gimp, firefox, thunderbird... I mean, not to knock your 486, cause I really think that its awesome that you were able to breath life back into that thing, and I'd like to know how you did it so I could actually DO something with these crappers I have lying around, but my machine can do quite a bit more than yours can... they're not really the same thing... I wouldn't want such a stripped down kernel on my lappy cause i like to mess around with different stuff a lot. I use it for more than just Dillo.