Discussion on:
View:
Show:
You can also disable Super Fetch. Super Fetch monitors your most used programes and applications and cache it for faster execution. If the few extra seconds doesn't worry you.
Sounds more like you're afraid to touch it because you don't understand it. Don't take this as an insult.. it's a perfectly valid approach if you're not sure how to handle the consequences of such an action. But, I would not go so far as to consider this black-hat hacking.
I'm fairly certain these services provide zero benefit to a workplace environment. If this were Linux, they would not have been installed based on the profile chosen during installation. But Windows is one-size-fits-all, so the equivalent approach is to at least prevent them from running.
I'm fairly certain these services provide zero benefit to a workplace environment. If this were Linux, they would not have been installed based on the profile chosen during installation. But Windows is one-size-fits-all, so the equivalent approach is to at least prevent them from running.
I personally like to set things to manual - just to see if anything does start up a service.
BTW, fastest way to change the service status [in an elevated prompt] is:
sc config SERVICE start= demand
where SERVICE is the shortname for a service
Note that there is a space after the equal but not before
For example echo to set manual to Offline File service
sc config cscservice start= demand
Note that many of the services above are geared towards either a domain or a workgroup. For example the first one could be needed if you have a homegroup as homegroups use IPv6. Same for the listener and provider. The third & forth are already set to manual.
BTW, fastest way to change the service status [in an elevated prompt] is:
sc config SERVICE start= demand
where SERVICE is the shortname for a service
Note that there is a space after the equal but not before
For example echo to set manual to Offline File service
sc config cscservice start= demand
Note that many of the services above are geared towards either a domain or a workgroup. For example the first one could be needed if you have a homegroup as homegroups use IPv6. Same for the listener and provider. The third & forth are already set to manual.
I would never disable a service unless I was sure that it would never be used and like mckinnej stated setting to manual allows the service to be started if needed.
Very few services can be disabled that would really prevent you from using the computer in a normal way. In most cases, if you turn off a service that's needed by something, it will throw an error next time you try to use it. Something akin to "hey dummy, I can't do this because you turned off the xxxx service."
Re-enable it, start it, good to go. No harm done.
Re-enable it, start it, good to go. No harm done.
I see no improvement that disabling them has.
Can someone tell me how this improves your system?
Can someone tell me how this improves your system?
If you disable a service, you may not be able to patch it. An example of this is SQL Server. If set to Manual, patching works correctly - if set to Disabled, it fails.
... I know would disable SQL permanently. That's just silly. If you didn't need SQL you'd uninstall it. I agree with nwallette. and BTW, we're talking about native OS services here... SQL is not native.
Don't suggest this thing. IPv6 is already deployed and used in lots of online services now. Exactly because the support for it is widely deployed by default.
Any attempt to suggest disabling it means that people will have *reduced* Internet connectivity, with difficulties to find why some services are not working.
The IP Helper is not taking lots of resources on the PC, this is a very small service, that does not impact the performance or does not increase significantly the Windows boot time.
Any attempt to suggest to disable it, will generate later support demands, because people tend to forget that one service running by default has been disabled by them.
Many services today already have no other choice than being accessible ONLY by IPv6 (the connectivity by IPv4 may work, but with reduced functionality and reduced performance, if the compatibility requires some temporary tunneling via IPv4, due to server-side performance constraints to honor the bandwidth and requests forwarded by the proxy).
Everything that can help the transition to IPv6 should be kept. Never assume that IPv6 is not needed today (only because IPv6 connectivity is much less used today than IPv4, it does not mean that it is not necessary). Never assume what users will need. And don't suggest to people to diable things that will later **needlessly** generate additional support demands.
Everything avout IPv6 (or helpting the transition from IPv4 to IPv6) should be left enabled now. This is a worldwide need for whch we have no choice (except being really too late on effectively allowing the transition).
The IPv6 traffic is already exploding worldwide. For excellent reasons that solutions based on IPv4 tunnels cannot support the bandwidth and demand to scale up (so IPv4-only solutions tend now to become mushc slower, and this slow down is accelerating, as tunnels are largely overused and in fact would not even be needed with a full IPv6 connectivity).
Really SUPPRESS your Number 1 item. This is the WORST suggestion in them.
Any attempt to suggest disabling it means that people will have *reduced* Internet connectivity, with difficulties to find why some services are not working.
The IP Helper is not taking lots of resources on the PC, this is a very small service, that does not impact the performance or does not increase significantly the Windows boot time.
Any attempt to suggest to disable it, will generate later support demands, because people tend to forget that one service running by default has been disabled by them.
Many services today already have no other choice than being accessible ONLY by IPv6 (the connectivity by IPv4 may work, but with reduced functionality and reduced performance, if the compatibility requires some temporary tunneling via IPv4, due to server-side performance constraints to honor the bandwidth and requests forwarded by the proxy).
Everything that can help the transition to IPv6 should be kept. Never assume that IPv6 is not needed today (only because IPv6 connectivity is much less used today than IPv4, it does not mean that it is not necessary). Never assume what users will need. And don't suggest to people to diable things that will later **needlessly** generate additional support demands.
Everything avout IPv6 (or helpting the transition from IPv4 to IPv6) should be left enabled now. This is a worldwide need for whch we have no choice (except being really too late on effectively allowing the transition).
The IPv6 traffic is already exploding worldwide. For excellent reasons that solutions based on IPv4 tunnels cannot support the bandwidth and demand to scale up (so IPv4-only solutions tend now to become mushc slower, and this slow down is accelerating, as tunnels are largely overused and in fact would not even be needed with a full IPv6 connectivity).
Really SUPPRESS your Number 1 item. This is the WORST suggestion in them.
You go on and on and on. 1) if there are 'on-line' services that need IPv6 then this isn't affected by the LAN you're on, hence, the service on your PC. that's on the other side of your router or firewall. Second, if your the admin of these PC's and it's LAN, I'm pretty sure you'd know to enable IPv6 if it was later deployed. You waste so much typing for nothing.
We really need to get off our collective donkeys and start ushering in IPv6. The fact that it hasn't been strictly necessary up until now means most people (guilty!) haven't bothered to implement it even internally.
This is really going to come back and bite us when, all of a sudden, we have no choice. No one wants to implement IPv6 over night. You can't say we haven't been warned it was coming.
Ignoring IPv6 now is just lazy and stupid. (Wagging the finger at myself here.)
This is really going to come back and bite us when, all of a sudden, we have no choice. No one wants to implement IPv6 over night. You can't say we haven't been warned it was coming.
Ignoring IPv6 now is just lazy and stupid. (Wagging the finger at myself here.)
This is IT networking's dirty little secret. I'm on the guilty list too. It's a hard sell to management too! Try and explain how the investment in new routers/switches is going to pay off. No ROI that they would get.
Serious question: Do you actually (still) have networking gear that doesn't support IPv6? I would've figured any appliance limited to 32-bit addresses would be long since out of warranty by now.
That's at least one nice thing about procrastination. By now, when we're ready to turn it on, it should be ubiquitous.
That's at least one nice thing about procrastination. By now, when we're ready to turn it on, it should be ubiquitous.
IPv6 is needed only if you are communicating directly with devices that are themselves using IPv6. If your ISP - and your router - do not/are not handling v6 protocols, having them running on your PC, internally behind a firewall that does not route it, is not helpful.
On the other hand, if you are connected dfirectly to your broadband - wideband - wireless provider without any sort of router or personal firewall, well then, you might want to leave it running. That will at least have the benefit of making it easier for external sources to "reach" your computer.
On the other hand, if you are connected dfirectly to your broadband - wideband - wireless provider without any sort of router or personal firewall, well then, you might want to leave it running. That will at least have the benefit of making it easier for external sources to "reach" your computer.
90% or more of networks don't need IPv6, and may never need it, actually. On the flip side, it's a heck of a lot harder securing IPv6. The expense and the security risk are not worth it for any of my users.
I found a few of these to be useful - I disabled on my own computer - though several were already set to manual, meaning they didn't use resources anyway. This is directed toward those who manage networks of computers and that is great. I wonder is anyone knows of a source like this one for the rest of us - who simply have home networks and would like to disable never used or seldom used processes. Any Thoughts?
Geez.. Someone had space to fill. (slow day?)
Most of these services are set to "Manual" by default and never run. (where's the real performance gain in that?)
Will setting them to "Disabled" enhance security? (not likely)
Most of these services are set to "Manual" by default and never run. (where's the real performance gain in that?)
Will setting them to "Disabled" enhance security? (not likely)
Looks like nearly ALL of these services are already set to Manual by default. So this was pretty much a pointless exercise in checking for services that aren't even running.
If a service is set to "manual," it doesn't necessarily require user action to start it. Sometimes another process/application/what have you will call for the service.
Of course in this scenario you may want or even need that process running. The real issue is the underlying security of the system. Calling processes silently in the background is a good vector for malware.
Of course in this scenario you may want or even need that process running. The real issue is the underlying security of the system. Calling processes silently in the background is a good vector for malware.
My x64 Windows 7 Work PC all of sudden started using huge amounts of virtual memory (or I hadn't noticed the increased use until yesterday when windows complained about running out of memory). Process explorer didn't show any service or program that was the cause of 20+GB of virtual memory being consumed. So I started looking for services to disable when I ran into this article. I killed "Offline files" and boom! My virtual memory consumption went from 25GB to 3! Not sure what caused the increased usage but now I can sleep better knowing that the problem is gone now that i've disabled the service (and that it wasn't some kind of malware causing this.) It's pretty sad that MS services can use up resources that don't show up in any of the standard tools (the system cache almost behaves like that too).
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
