Removing unnecessary processes

[Guest]

My computer is running slowly. I'm on DSL but there are 66 processes
running. I think this is way too many. Upon looking at the list of
processes, I see the ones put there by the system and the ones with my name
on them. Am I safe in removing all with my name on them, cuz I can't tell
from the name what they are anyhow? wouldn't that be the same as when I got
the computer new if I did that? Is there a list someplace of the ones that
MUST remain to allow the system to run?

 

[Jim]

My computer is running slowly. I'm on DSL but there are 66 processes
running. I think this is way too many. Upon looking at the list of
processes, I see the ones put there by the system and the ones with my
name
on them. Am I safe in removing all with my name on them, cuz I can't tell
from the name what they are anyhow? wouldn't that be the same as when I
got
the computer new if I did that? Is there a list someplace of the ones
that
MUST remain to allow the system to run?

Quit worrying about a subject that doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
Jim

 

[Alec S.]

My computer is running slowly. I'm on DSL but there are 66 processes
running. I think this is way too many.

I agree. I've got a ton of things running and still have less than 60.

What's probably happening to you is that you are running some of God-awful programs which spawn half a dozen processes. I would
recommend getting rid of as many of those as possible. It is poor and sloppy programming when a program requires numerous processes
to run. There are some legitamate programs that use more than one but even then, it's not a very popular practice (for example
McAfee AV runs about 5, that's not good; Apache uses two for security but doesn't seem to have an option to not do so even though
it's not actually necessary; and ATI's driver runs two and we fought a bitter battle about that.)

Upon looking at the list of processes, I see the ones put there by the system and the ones with my name
on them. Am I safe in removing all with my name on them, cuz I can't tell from the name what they are anyhow?

Not quite. The username column indicates which user ran the process true, but that doesn't mean that you can just kill off the ones
that your account ran. For example, if you killed off the explorer.exe process (which is under your username of course since the
system doesn't run that), then you would lose the whole Windows shell. There are important ones that need to be run even if your
account initiated them.

wouldn't that be the same as when I got the computer new if I did that?

Can't say, but I can probmise you that there were several processes run from your account when you got the system.

Is there a list someplace of the ones that MUST remain to allow the system to run?

Yes there are, but a lot of these lists tend to be made by people who are trying to run their system as reduced as possible as a
challenge. In other words, they are trying to see what they can cut out and still have Windows technically run, not what is
necessary for normal functioning. Be careful which ones you look at. Furthermore, most of the lists tend to focus on things like
services instead of processes, because no list of processes can ever be complete since they vary from computer to computer. The
best you can find is a list of Windows-only processes, which isn't too helpful since it wouldn't include other things you need (eg
virus scanner, etc.)

You can lookup the process names to see what they are and whether you need them or not, but a quicker and easier option is to get a
copy of Sysinternal's Autoruns and look through the list of things that are automatically being run on your system. That way you
can find out which processes are running and what directory they are in (the directory names will tell you what company/program they
belong to). Then you can choose whether or not you want them running.

http://www.sysinternals.com/utilities/autoruns.html


HTH

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

My computer is running slowly. I'm on DSL but there are 66 processes
running. I think this is way too many.

66 is not at all too many. In fact it's within the normal range. I have more
than that running at the moment.

 

[WB]

My computer is running slowly. I'm on DSL but there are 66 processes
running. I think this is way too many. Upon looking at the list of
processes, I see the ones put there by the system and the ones with my
name
on them. Am I safe in removing all with my name on them, cuz I can't tell
from the name what they are anyhow? wouldn't that be the same as when I
got
the computer new if I did that? Is there a list someplace of the ones
that
MUST remain to allow the system to run?

Killing processes running under your name is not the right approach in this
case. They will start again when you reboot.

Scan for viruses and other types of malware and you just might see less
processes running.

Check each installed program for startup options. Some programs will start
with Windows and add their own processes...uncheck option to autostart.
Exclude from this list programs which are essential to your environment.

Do some cleanup...uninstall programs you no longer use if they are set to
autostart.

Some programs don't give you an option to control autostart. You may use
msconfig (Start > Run and enter msconfig > startup tab) to uncheck those you
don't want. If in doubt, leave as is.

Open Disk Cleanup utility and have it check your drive...empty Temp folder,
Temporary Internet Files...etc.

 

[Ted Zieglar]

By itself, the number of running processes doesn't mean much. It's what
those processes are doing that matters.

You can search for each process on the web to find a description for
what it does. Only then can you decide if it shouldn't be there.

Some caveats:

Malware can pose as a legitimate process. If you think something's not
quite right, malware is always a possibility.

Resist the urge to play around with your system processes. Unless you
have a specific need, you gain nothing by tinkering with them and you
risk damaging your system now and in the future.

"Am I safe in removing all with my name on them..."
No, my friend. XP runs on the basis of system and user accounts. The
processes running under your name are the ones running in your account.
These are programs that you most likely installed yourself.

 

[Alec S.]

Quit worrying about a subject that doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

"Doesn't amount to a hill of beans"?! Did you even read the post? He clearly indicates that "My computer is running slowly." He
also points out that he's got 66 processes. That's a lot of processes and is highly likely to be why his system is slower than it
should be. When there's that many processes, I can pretty much guarantee that some of them are sucking cycles which is bad, or at
the very least, the cumulative effect is bad.

 

[Alec S.]

66 is not at all too many. In fact it's within the normal range. I have more
than that running at the moment.

Considering that a fresh, functioning install of Windows without any VAS has less than 20 processes running, I'd say that 66 is a
lot. You may also want to take notice of the part where he says that his computer is running SLOWLY. He's got to many and it's
slowing his system down.

 

[Alec S.]

Resist the urge to play around with your system processes. Unless you
have a specific need, you gain nothing by tinkering with them and you
risk damaging your system now and in the future.

Except speed. He clearly indicates that his system is bogged down. He needs to prune the excess; remember that Windows itself has
less than about 20 processes, the rest are "V"AS.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Considering that a fresh, functioning install of Windows without any
VAS has less than 20 processes running, I'd say that 66 is a lot.
You may also want to take notice of the part where he says that his
computer is running SLOWLY. He's got to many and it's slowing his
system down.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not at all convinced of that.

 

[Alec S.]

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?

What are you talking about? That does not apply to this situation at all. I'm not drawing causation from a correlation, I'm
hypothesizing based on statistics, history, and observation.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not at all convinced of that.

Well then what help are you?

 

[Dr Teeth]

You may also want to take notice of the part where he says that his computer is running SLOWLY.

Shed loads of reasons why a PC can run slowly. It's not just down to
the *number* of processes.

--
Cheers,

Guy

** Stress - the condition brought about by having to
** resist the temptation to beat the living daylights
** out of someone who richly deserves it.

 

[Dr Teeth]

Except speed. He clearly indicates that his system is bogged down.

With all due respect to the OP, if he were knowledgeable enough to
diagnose that, he would not have needed to post here!

--
Cheers,

Guy

** Stress - the condition brought about by having to
** resist the temptation to beat the living daylights
** out of someone who richly deserves it.

 

[Alec S.]

Shed loads of reasons why a PC can run slowly. It's not just down to
the *number* of processes.

No, but each process gets a slice of time, so if you've got a lot running, then they start to add up. Considering that few people
run nothing but exclusively background processes, it's highly likely that many of these processes will be sucking cycles here and
there, which again will add up.

 

[Dr Teeth]

No, but each process gets a slice of time, so if you've got a lot running, then they start to add up. Considering that few people
run nothing but exclusively background processes, it's highly likely that many of these processes will be sucking cycles here and
there, which again will add up.

Not disagreeing with what you say, it does not mean that this will
have a noticeable effect.

FWIW, I have approx 45 processes running, only two using CPU cycles.
They are occupying memory, which would be insignificant on anything
but a marginal PC.

--
Cheers,

Guy

** Stress - the condition brought about by having to
** resist the temptation to beat the living daylights
** out of someone who richly deserves it.

 

[Ted Zieglar]

The raw number of processes, by itself, is meaningless. What matters is
what the processes are doing on the machine. This point has been
discussed and explained in this and other newsgroups so often as to be
utterly boring by now.

In particular, reducing the number of system processes has no effect on
performance. Gamers often setup configurations where processes are
stripped down, but that's because they want to allot as much CPU (and
RAM) as possible to their games. It matters not that they are
eliminating the functionality of their machines - it doesn't matter in
this situation.

 

[JOSE.A.RODRIGUEZ,JR]

My computer is running slowly. I'm on DSL but there are 66 processes
running. I think this is way too many. Upon looking at the list of
processes, I see the ones put there by the system and the ones with my name
on them. Am I safe in removing all with my name on them, cuz I can't tell
from the name what they are anyhow? wouldn't that be the same as when I got
the computer new if I did that? Is there a list someplace of the ones that
MUST remain to allow the system to run?