"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

|
| Like you, I'd just like to stop the unnecessary ones, on principle! Just
| a lot of work.
|

This is the best info sourece I know of:
https://www.blackviper.com/

The trouble is that services keep multiplying like rats.
I have something like 11 running on XP. On 7 I think it's
more like 30. On 10 it gets even more crazy. And it can
be hard to figure out what they do.

| >| >repeatedly run into software that's using wrappers on top of
| >| >wrappers, like Python runtime running things like Qt. It's
| >| >gobs of extra libraries loading to make the code writing
| >| >more simple. The same is true of .Net. There is good software
| | All of those, though, shouldn't tie up the processor(/RAM/HD) when I'm
| not actually _doing_ anything.

They very much tie up the RAM. If you load bloat like
Libre Office... I just loaded Writer. 95 MB just to sit there.
Because all those libraries get loaded into memory. Irfan View?
4.6 MB. New Moon has 200 MB loaded. Though some of that
might be shared with other things. DLLs that multiple processes
are using. When I kill Writer it shows 150 MB gained in task
manager. I have 2750 MB free out of 3400., with IView, OE,
and several New Moon instances loaded. But if I were allowing
say, .Net 4 to pre-load I might be missing another 500 MB. I
don't know offhand, but I know it's bloated.

If you look at processes in Process Explorer you can see
the memory used and also the libraries loaded.

| >webpages. I block script I don't need. Pages load pretty
| >much instantly for me.
| | Unfortunately, a lot of the pages I want need script.

That's the nice thing about NoScript. For example, I visit
Reddit and have to allow their script. But I don't have
to allow the Google script that also tries to load. You can
just load the sources that are actually required. Netflix is
similar. I think I have to allow 3 domains and I block
several others. Hoopla videos (through the library) works
when I block 7 script sources!

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 22:13:32, gfretwell@aol.com wrote (my responses
usually FOLLOW):
>On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 14:43:37 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
>wrote:
[]
>>Part of the problem on RAM, is browsers using more and more
>>RAM as time passes. The browser seems to be defenseless against
>>the Javascript coding it hosts.
>>
>>Even Windows Update leaks memory a bit, like if you try and
>>do 150+ updates using a WSUSOffline stick. It does not entirely
>>"deflate" when a single update finishes. And before you know
>>it, the RAM is shooting over the 3GB mark. You have to reboot,
>>and do the rest of the updates in a second pass.
>>
>> Paul
>
>That actually sounds like what happens with Facebook. It may be
>Firefox or it might be Norton. When I look at processes it is hard to
>tell.

The odd time I've had to look at a FaceBook page, that's exactly the
impression I get: that a FaceBook page never finishes loading. OK, to
some extent the same applies to a Twitter (Twidder, as its new owner and
many of his compatriots call it) and YouTube, but at least with those
the extra loading seems mostly not to happen until you scroll down to
where it's needed. (And I've recently found that for me the "home page"
on YouTube, though big, _does_ have an end.) I get the _impression_ that
opening a FaceBook page starts a loading that does not stop or even
pause. (I may be wrong as I don't go to it much; the _structure_ of
FaceBook pages irritates me.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

> > Won't you come into the garden? I would like my roses to see you. -Richard

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 16:20:26, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 22:23:04 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>>Almost nothing needs to start at boot.
>
>Right. I have things *I* want to have running autostart.
>
>> But lots of things like to.
>
>>>That's become a trick with bloated crap like Libre Office, to make
>>>it look like it's not so slow.
>>
>>I just leave the machine running all the time
>
>So do I. But even those who don't typically boot only once or twice a
>day. Boot time should hardly matter to anyone, whether it's 30 seconds
>or five minutes.

If you have something else to do (dressing, washing, snacking, even just
catching the news headlines), I agree. (Though I did know someone - back
in '98 days, I think - whose system was taking 15 minutes. It was a
failing HDD - but other than being incredibly slow didn't how any
_signs_ of that, due presumably to the self-correcting in the drive. The
PC was fine for anything that didn't access the HD - for example,
looking at internet pages.)
>
>Back when I used to power off at night and boot in the morning, when I
>got up I powered on, then went to get my coffee. When I came back it
>was done booting. I didn't know how long it took and I didn't care.
>
>
>> so am not _too_ bothered
>>about boot time. (Mind you, I'd like to improve shutdown time too!)
>
>I don't care about that either. Back when I powered off at night, I
>clicked Shut Down, and went to bed. Again, I didn't know how long it
>took and I didn't care.
>
Fine of you're just going to bed or similar. Bit tedious if you're
wanting to go somewhere and take the laptop with you.
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

> > Won't you come into the garden? I would like my roses to see you. -Richard

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 23:04:33, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam>
wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
>
>|
>| Like you, I'd just like to stop the unnecessary ones, on principle! Just
>| a lot of work.
>|
>
>This is the best info sourece I know of:
>https://www.blackviper.com/

Yes, I've heard that site mentioned in this context before. Sometimes
accompanied by warnings that it _can_ be a little too enthusiastic about
saying what can be stopped. Plus, there is always the concern -
definitely applies in my case - that when something rarely-used suddenly
doesn't work, it may never occur to me that its because of soe service I
disabled possibly months (maybe even years!) earlier.
>
> The trouble is that services keep multiplying like rats.

Boy do they!

>I have something like 11 running on XP. On 7 I think it's
>more like 30. On 10 it gets even more crazy. And it can

The Services tab in this 7-32 says 90 at the bottom, but a lot of them
are "Stopped". I'm not sure where the 90 comes from, as scrolling up and
down - I have a window height for it that shows 20 at a time - I have 9
such screens, so 180, and sorting by the Status column shows 4 screens,
so 80, "Running". (The to one of which is AdobeARMservice, which I'm
sure I've stopped many times.) Maybe it is time I had a go at
blackviper.

>be hard to figure out what they do.

Indeed!
>
>| >| >repeatedly run into software that's using wrappers on top of
>| >| >wrappers, like Python runtime running things like Qt. It's
>| >| >gobs of extra libraries loading to make the code writing
>| >| >more simple. The same is true of .Net. There is good software
>|
>| All of those, though, shouldn't tie up the processor(/RAM/HD) when I'm
>| not actually _doing_ anything.
>
> They very much tie up the RAM. If you load bloat like

I see.
[]
>manager. I have 2750 MB free out of 3400., with IView, OE,

I have 58 or 59 free out of 2864 at the moment. But though pitiful,
presumably as long as it's consistently above 0, it ought not to be
slowing down?

I just opened a YouTube page; that certainly killed it for 10-20
seconds! (Showing 0 free at times.) Though it has now settled down at
17/18 free. Let me try actually going to that tab (oh, it's got up to
32/33 free - now 39/40 - before I do so ...) - it's staying at -
actually, it's now showing 49, 52, 53 ...

I've closed that tab. Now showing ... 84, 117 - settled there or 116).

This is the sort of thing that bugs me: it was stable at around 58 free.
I then opened one tab, waited for it to settle. I then closed that tab,
and waited for it to settle - which it has at 128. No, 132. It's the
feeling of not knowing what's going on that bugs me!
[]
>| Unfortunately, a lot of the pages I want need script.
>
> That's the nice thing about NoScript. For example, I visit
>Reddit and have to allow their script. But I don't have
>to allow the Google script that also tries to load. You can

I suppose it just comes with experience, knowing which ones to allow and
which to block. I think I'd rather a blacklist than a whitelist - is
that NoScript or YesScript (does the latter still even exist? Haven't
heard mention of it for years); I'd rather, when I go to a new site,
have it work initially, than go through a list enabling things until it
does.

>just load the sources that are actually required. Netflix is

Again, its knowing. I've found that certain things - not necessarily
scripts, but for example some things blocked by HOSTS file - make things
not work, but not in an obvious manner. For example, I've had captchas
and Verified by Visa both just not appear, so I didn't know they were
missing. (I think one of those was due to my blocking IFRAMEs.)

>similar. I think I have to allow 3 domains and I block
>several others. Hoopla videos (through the library) works
>when I block 7 script sources!
>
>
I've just added NoScript - I'll see how I get on with it.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

> > Won't you come into the garden? I would like my roses to see you. -Richard

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 16:20:26, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote
> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
> >On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 22:23:04 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> ><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
[...]

> >> so am not _too_ bothered
> >>about boot time. (Mind you, I'd like to improve shutdown time too!)
> >
> >I don't care about that either. Back when I powered off at night, I
> >clicked Shut Down, and went to bed. Again, I didn't know how long it
> >took and I didn't care.
> >
> Fine of you're just going to bed or similar. Bit tedious if you're
> wanting to go somewhere and take the laptop with you.

If you're in a real hurry, just Sleep it, probably takes only 10 to 20
seconds or so. If a bit less in a hurry, Hibernate it, which is probably
much faster than Shut Down.

I hardly ever do a Shut Down. Only Sleep or Hibernate and Restart when
needed (after Windows Update, etc.).

"Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:t4blun.76g.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net...
> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 16:20:26, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote
>> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>> >On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 22:23:04 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>> ><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> >> so am not _too_ bothered
>> >>about boot time. (Mind you, I'd like to improve shutdown time too!)
>> >
>> >I don't care about that either. Back when I powered off at night, I
>> >clicked Shut Down, and went to bed. Again, I didn't know how long it
>> >took and I didn't care.
>> >
>> Fine of you're just going to bed or similar. Bit tedious if you're
>> wanting to go somewhere and take the laptop with you.
>
> If you're in a real hurry, just Sleep it, probably takes only 10 to 20
> seconds or so. If a bit less in a hurry, Hibernate it, which is probably
> much faster than Shut Down.
>
> I hardly ever do a Shut Down. Only Sleep or Hibernate and Restart when
> needed (after Windows Update, etc.).

I find that sleeping my Win 7 PC speeds up boot times *very* dramatically -
from about 5 minutes (*) for all background apps (eg Skype, Dropbox) to be
fully started, down to a couple of seconds.

However I do find that occasionally when my PC comes out of Sleep, it then
takes about 1 minute before everything is responsive (eg to allow Firefox or
Windows Explorer or Thunderbird to open). There's no reason for it taking
longer: I always close all open apps before putting any PC to
sleep/hibernate, and I always have the same auto-started apps/services. And
it's always for Sleep rather than Hibernate, because for whatever reason
Hibernate isn't offered on my Win7 PC. I wonder if memory contents are
sometimes getting slightly corrupted so sometimes things need to restart
rather than just resuming from their in-memory state.

(*) Until Skype and Dropbox show as "Connected" in the system tray, there is
a horrendous amount of disk activity (on a spinning HDD) which is what seems
to slow the PC down for things such as opening a new window (even something
as simple as Windows Explorer). Until I got a Raspberry Pi for the job, I
used to run weather-station software which logged its data every 10 minutes;
it was occasionally a close-run thing to reboot the PC as soon as it had
logged its data and have it back running by the time of the next logging
point 10 mins later :-)

On 27 Apr 2022 13:03:14 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 16:20:26, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote
>> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>> >On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 22:23:04 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>> ><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>[...]
>
>> >> so am not _too_ bothered
>> >>about boot time. (Mind you, I'd like to improve shutdown time too!)
>> >
>> >I don't care about that either. Back when I powered off at night, I
>> >clicked Shut Down, and went to bed. Again, I didn't know how long it
>> >took and I didn't care.
>> >
>> Fine of you're just going to bed or similar. Bit tedious if you're
>> wanting to go somewhere and take the laptop with you.
>
> If you're in a real hurry, just Sleep it, probably takes only 10 to 20
>seconds or so. If a bit less in a hurry, Hibernate it, which is probably
>much faster than Shut Down.
>
> I hardly ever do a Shut Down. Only Sleep or Hibernate and Restart when
>needed (after Windows Update, etc.).

My MP3 player machines just get the plug pulled. They survive. It is
pretty much a read only machine tho.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 13:14:35 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 16:20:26, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote
>(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>>On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 22:23:04 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Almost nothing needs to start at boot.
>>
>>Right. I have things *I* want to have running autostart.
>>
>>> But lots of things like to.
>>
>>>>That's become a trick with bloated crap like Libre Office, to make
>>>>it look like it's not so slow.
>>>
>>>I just leave the machine running all the time
>>
>>So do I. But even those who don't typically boot only once or twice a
>>day. Boot time should hardly matter to anyone, whether it's 30 seconds
>>or five minutes.
>
>If you have something else to do (dressing, washing, snacking, even just
>catching the news headlines), I agree. (Though I did know someone - back
>in '98 days, I think - whose system was taking 15 minutes. It was a
>failing HDD - but other than being incredibly slow didn't how any
>_signs_ of that, due presumably to the self-correcting in the drive. The
>PC was fine for anything that didn't access the HD - for example,
>looking at internet pages.)
>>
>>Back when I used to power off at night and boot in the morning, when I
>>got up I powered on, then went to get my coffee. When I came back it
>>was done booting. I didn't know how long it took and I didn't care.
>>
>>
>>> so am not _too_ bothered
>>>about boot time. (Mind you, I'd like to improve shutdown time too!)
>>
>>I don't care about that either. Back when I powered off at night, I
>>clicked Shut Down, and went to bed. Again, I didn't know how long it
>>took and I didn't care.
>>
>Fine of you're just going to bed or similar. Bit tedious if you're
>wanting to go somewhere and take the laptop with you.

With many laptops, in the Power settings where it asks "What should the
power button do?" there's a companion setting that asks, "What should
closing the lid do?"

On my laptops, (Dell and HP), I set the latter to Sleep or Hibernate. My
main work laptop is the one that's set to Hibernate because when a
business meeting ends, no one wants to wait around for a proper
shutdown. I simply close the lid, gather my things, and go. For that
laptop, I don't use Sleep as the 'close lid' option because Sleep slowly
drains the battery, while Hibernate doesn't.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 13:14:35 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 16:20:26, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote
>(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>>On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 22:23:04 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Almost nothing needs to start at boot.
>>
>>Right. I have things *I* want to have running autostart.
>>
>>> But lots of things like to.
>>
>>>>That's become a trick with bloated crap like Libre Office, to make
>>>>it look like it's not so slow.
>>>
>>>I just leave the machine running all the time
>>
>>So do I. But even those who don't typically boot only once or twice a
>>day. Boot time should hardly matter to anyone, whether it's 30 seconds
>>or five minutes.
>
>If you have something else to do (dressing, washing, snacking, even just
>catching the news headlines), I agree.

Doesn't everyone have most of those things to do in the morning when
they get up?

> (Though I did know someone - back
>in '98 days, I think - whose system was taking 15 minutes. It was a
>failing HDD - but other than being incredibly slow didn't how any

Being slow *is* a problem. Being slow only when booting is hardly a
problem for anyone.

>_signs_ of that, due presumably to the self-correcting in the drive. The
>PC was fine for anything that didn't access the HD - for example,
>looking at internet pages.)
>>
>>Back when I used to power off at night and boot in the morning, when I
>>got up I powered on, then went to get my coffee. When I came back it
>>was done booting. I didn't know how long it took and I didn't care.
>>
>>
>>> so am not _too_ bothered
>>>about boot time. (Mind you, I'd like to improve shutdown time too!)
>>
>>I don't care about that either. Back when I powered off at night, I
>>clicked Shut Down, and went to bed. Again, I didn't know how long it
>>took and I didn't care.
>>
>Fine of you're just going to bed or similar. Bit tedious if you're
>wanting to go somewhere and take the laptop with you.

Laptop? What's a laptop?

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| >manager. I have 2750 MB free out of 3400.
| | I have 58 or 59 free out of 2864 at the moment. But though pitiful,
| presumably as long as it's consistently above 0, it ought not to be
| slowing down?
| 59 MB RAM free? I haven't checked on Win7. It may
tend to load up the RAM for efficiency. But I would think
that if yu're topped up like that then there's must be
a lot of paging going on, which is much slower because it's
writing to disk.

| which to block. I think I'd rather a blacklist than a whitelist - is
| that NoScript or YesScript (does the latter still even exist? Haven't
| heard mention of it for years)

I think it's still around... for lazy bums who imagine they're
going to crack down on script. :) After all, if you don't
want to deal with NoScript then why would you go through it
at each site to see if anything can be blocked?

| For example, I've had captchas
| and Verified by Visa both just not appear, so I didn't know they were
| missing. (I think one of those was due to my blocking IFRAMEs.)

Blocking iframes can do that. Also, if you block gstatic.com.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 23:04:33 -0400, Mayayana wrote:

> This is the best info sourece I know of:
> https://www.blackviper.com/

<quote from said site>
This information is based upon the Windows 10 April 2018 Update
(version 1803/17134.1) released April 2018.

Please note: this information is no longer updated. Please take that
fact into consideration when reviewing this information.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 at 14:52:26, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 23:04:33 -0400, Mayayana wrote:
>
>> This is the best info sourece I know of:
>> https://www.blackviper.com/
>
><quote from said site>
>This information is based upon the Windows 10 April 2018 Update
>(version 1803/17134.1) released April 2018.
>
>Please note: this information is no longer updated. Please take that
>fact into consideration when reviewing this information.

So it's probably safe (in that respect, anyway) if you're using Windows
7.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

It is complete loose-stool-water, it is arse-gravy of the worst kind
- Stephen Fry on "The Da Vinci Code"

On 4/28/2022 10:04 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 at 14:52:26, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 23:04:33 -0400, Mayayana wrote:
>>
>>> This is the best info sourece I know of:
>>> https://www.blackviper.com/
>>
>> <quote from said site>
>> This information is based upon the Windows 10 April 2018 Update
>> (version 1803/17134.1) released April 2018.
>>
>> Please note: this information is no longer updated. Please take that
>> fact into consideration when reviewing this information.
>
> So it's probably safe (in that respect, anyway) if you're using Windows 7.

I only know of one caveat so far.

Someone in another group, managed to knock out their
sound by following BlackViper.

And this incident highlights something.

The "Dependency" information in the interface, is
statically determined and recorded in the source code,
as a source of the messages. If the OS was written in 2009,
nothing says a bug-fixer has to update the source in
that area, in the year 2015.

The OS does not do a runtime analysis and say to itself
"oh, I see this week, that Sound depends on FluffyRSSService".

And that's how the sound got knocked out. Nowhere
in the Sound-related services ("AudioEndPoint" and friends)
did it mention an additional service that sound depended on.
The BlackViper person trusted the information as presented
by Microsoft... and Microsoft was wrong.

So the information on BlackViper, is only as good as
the panel presentation of the info, plus any bug reports
someone might send to BlackViper. There is no runtime
generation of the information.

Summary: If following BlackViper, make a list of *everything*
you switch off. Then later, if something funny happens,
you have a list to work with.

Some things are protected. For example, just about everything
on the computer manages to depend on RPC (Remote Procedure Call),
because RPCs tend to resolve LocalHost procedure calls too, which
is "everything". Windows will not allow you to disable RPC,
which saves us having to worry about a cowboy disabling that one.
There are also a couple security related things, that if disabled,
the OS shuts down in 60 seconds after you do it. I don't know
if "comedy ensues" or what happens after that. Imagine if
your bootup takes more than 60 seconds, how you would fix that.

It could be a learning experience.

Paul

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| >This information is based upon the Windows 10 April 2018 Update
| >(version 1803/17134.1) released April 2018.
| >
| >Please note: this information is no longer updated. Please take that
| >fact into consideration when reviewing this information.
| | So it's probably safe (in that respect, anyway) if you're using Windows
| 7.

As Paul said, some things are critical. If you disable
RPC you won't be able to boot again. But being out of date
is not a big deal. It just means that there could be one
or more new services that are not listed. For example,
there's a newish Windows Update helper that I keep
forgetting the name off, but I've notived that if I don't
disable it, it will utrn on Windows Update and BITS services,
despite me having disabled them. Win10 is an evil piece of
software.

There are other things that are very specific. I always turn off
workstation and server, but some people might need them on
a network. I'm not sure. I never enable networking. You need
DHCP if you don't use a fixed IP address with your router. I
disable it because I don't want to allow anything that needs to
call out. That allows me to disable svchost. Maybe I can make a
list of what I have running on Win7. But it will be individual. I
also run WIA and WMI. Neither of those is actually necessary, but
I use them in scripting. WMI requires DCOM server process
launcher. Otherwise I wouldn't need that. But you might.... And
so on.

For what it's worth, here's my script to check services. Paste it
into Notepad and save as a .vbs file. When it's run it creates a list
of running services. Below is what it generated for me on Win7-64.

Watch for wordwrap. I see th line under For Each... going into 2 lines
when it should be one. You may see it as 3 lines. The next line begins
"AAll(i6)"

'-- begin script

Dim WMI, AAll(), i6, AllServs, oServ, sServ, FSO, TS
Set WMI = GetObject("WinMgmts:")
ReDim AAll(200)
i6 = 0
Set AllServs = WMI.ExecQuery("select * from Win32_Service where Started
= True")
For Each oServ in AllServs
sServ = oServ.Name & vbCrLf & oServ.DisplayName & vbCrLf &
oServ.Description & vbCrLf & oServ.StartMode & vbCrLf & oServ.PathName &
vbCrLf & "______________________" & vbCrLf
AAll(i6) = sServ
i6 = i6 + 1
Next
ReDim Preserve AAll(i6)
sServ = Join(AAll, vbCrLf)
Set AllServs = Nothing
Set FSO = CreateObject("Scripting.FileSystemObject")
Set TS = FSO.CreateTextFile("C:\Services Currently Running.txt", True)
TS.Write sServ
TS.Close
Set TS = Nothing
Set FSO = Nothing

MsgBox "Done. List of running services saved as C:\Services Currently
Running.txt"

'------------------- end script ---------

Here's the report I got:

AudioEndpointBuilder
Windows Audio Endpoint Builder
Manages audio devices for the Windows Audio service. If this service is
stopped, audio devices and effects will not function properly. If this
service is disabled, any services that explicitly depend on it will fail to
start
Auto
C:\Windows\System32\svchost.exe -k LocalSystemNetworkRestricted
__________________________________

AudioSrv
Windows Audio
Manages audio for Windows-based programs. If this service is stopped, audio
devices and effects will not function properly. If this service is
disabled, any services that explicitly depend on it will fail to start
Auto
C:\Windows\System32\svchost.exe -k LocalServiceNetworkRestricted
__________________________________

BFE
Base Filtering Engine
The Base Filtering Engine (BFE) is a service that manages firewall and
Internet Protocol security (IPsec) policies and implements user mode
filtering. Stopping or disabling the BFE service will significantly reduce
the security of the system. It will also result in unpredictable behavior in
IPsec management and firewall applications.
Auto
C:\Windows\system32\svchost.exe -k LocalServiceNoNetwork
__________________________________

btwdins
Bluetooth Service
Handles installation and removal of Bluetooth devices.
Auto
C:\Program Files\ASUS\Bluetooth Software\btwdins.exe
__________________________________

CryptSvc
Cryptographic Services
Provides four management services: Catalog Database Service, which confirms
the signatures of Windows files and allows new programs to be installed;
Protected Root Service, which adds and removes Trusted Root Certification
Authority certificates from this computer; Automatic Root Certificate Update
Service, which retrieves root certificates from Windows Update and enable
scenarios such as SSL; and Key Service, which helps enroll this computer for
certificates. If this service is stopped, these management services will not
function properly. If this service is disabled, any services that explicitly
depend on it will fail to start.
Auto
C:\Windows\system32\svchost.exe -k NetworkService
__________________________________

DcomLaunch
DCOM Server Process Launcher
The DCOMLAUNCH service launches COM and DCOM servers in response to object
activation requests. If this service is stopped or disabled, programs using
COM or DCOM will not function properly. It is strongly recommended that you
have the DCOMLAUNCH service running.
Auto
C:\Windows\system32\svchost.exe -k DcomLaunch
__________________________________

Dhcp
DHCP Client
Registers and updates IP addresses and DNS records for this computer. If
this service is stopped, this computer will not receive dynamic IP addresses
and DNS updates. If this service is disabled, any services that explicitly
depend on it will fail to start.
Auto
C:\Windows\system32\svchost.exe -k LocalServiceNetworkRestricted
__________________________________

DiagTrack
Diagnostics Tracking Service
The Diagnostics Tracking Service enables data collection about functional
issues in Windows components.
Auto
C:\Windows\System32\svchost.exe -k utcsvc
__________________________________

DPS
Diagnostic Policy Service
The Diagnostic Policy Service enables problem detection, troubleshooting and
resolution for Windows components. If this service is stopped, diagnostics
will no longer function.
Auto
C:\Windows\System32\svchost.exe -k LocalServiceNoNetwork
__________________________________

eventlog
Windows Event Log
This service manages events and event logs. It supports logging events,
querying events, subscribing to events, archiving event logs, and managing
event metadata. It can display events in both XML and plain text format.
Stopping this service may compromise security and reliability of the system.
Auto
C:\Windows\System32\svchost.exe -k LocalServiceNetworkRestricted
__________________________________

EventSystem
COM+ Event System
Supports System Event Notification Service (SENS), which provides automatic
distribution of events to subscribing Component Object Model (COM)
components. If the service is stopped, SENS will close and will not be able
to provide logon and logoff notifications. If this service is disabled, any
services that explicitly depend on it will fail to start.
Auto
C:\Windows\system32\svchost.exe -k LocalService
__________________________________

FontCache
Windows Font Cache Service
Optimizes performance of applications by caching commonly used font data.
Applications will start this service if it is not already running. It can be
disabled, though doing so will degrade application performance.
Auto
C:\Windows\system32\svchost.exe -k LocalServiceAndNoImpersonation
__________________________________

gpsvc
Group Policy Client
The service is responsible for applying settings configured by
administrators for the computer and users through the Group Policy
component. If the service is stopped or disabled, the settings will not be
applied and applications and components will not be manageable through Group
Policy. Any components or applications that depend on the Group Policy
component might not be functional if the service is stopped or disabled.
Auto
C:\Windows\system32\svchost.exe -k netsvcs
__________________________________

hidserv
Human Interface Device Access
Enables generic input access to Human Interface Devices (HID), which
activates and maintains the use of predefined hot buttons on keyboards,
remote controls, and other multimedia devices. If this service is stopped,
hot buttons controlled by this service will no longer function. If this
service is disabled, any services that explicitly depend on it will fail to
start.
Manual
C:\Windows\system32\svchost.exe -k LocalSystemNetworkRestricted
__________________________________

IKEEXT
IKE and AuthIP IPsec Keying Modules
The IKEEXT service hosts the Internet Key Exchange (IKE) and Authenticated
Internet Protocol (AuthIP) keying modules. These keying modules are used for
authentication and key exchange in Internet Protocol security (IPsec).
Stopping or disabling the IKEEXT service will disable IKE and AuthIP key
exchange with peer computers. IPsec is typically configured to use IKE or
AuthIP; therefore, stopping or disabling the IKEEXT service might result in
an IPsec failure and might compromise the security of the system. It is
strongly recommended that you have the IKEEXT service running.
Auto
C:\Windows\system32\svchost.exe -k netsvcs
__________________________________

iphlpsvc
IP Helper
Provides tunnel connectivity using IPv6 transition technologies (6to4,
ISATAP, Port Proxy, and Teredo), and IP-HTTPS. If this service is stopped,
the computer will not have the enhanced connectivity benefits that these
technologies offer.
Auto
C:\Windows\System32\svchost.exe -k NetSvcs
__________________________________

MMCSS
Multimedia Class Scheduler
Enables relative prioritization of work based on system-wide task
priorities. This is intended mainly for multimedia applications. If this
service is stopped, individual tasks resort to their default priority.
Auto
C:\Windows\system32\svchost.exe -k netsvcs
__________________________________

MpsSvc
Windows Firewall
Windows Firewall helps protect your computer by preventing unauthorized
users from gaining access to your computer through the Internet or a
network.
Auto
C:\Windows\system32\svchost.exe -k LocalServiceNoNetwork
__________________________________

Netman
Network Connections
Manages objects in the Network and Dial-Up Connections folder, in which you
can view both local area network and remote connections.
Manual
C:\Windows\System32\svchost.exe -k LocalSystemNetworkRestricted
__________________________________

> The odd time I've had to look at a FaceBook page, that's
> exactly the impression I get: that a FaceBook page never
> finishes loading.

But it does stop loading. If it didn't, the vertical scroll bar 'handle' would continually
become smaller and smaller and be moving up al the time.

However, once [whatever] part is loaded, it's loaded.....and you can scroll back up to see
all the cached content.

With a browser, like Chrome secifically, "every tab (whether it is a tab in the same
window or a tab in a separate window) is a separate and sandboxed process by
default�in fact, every instance of a website you visit is a separate process."

I'm sure that this is a lot of the reason it seems 'bloated' and sometimes are buggy.

"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote in news:t46hl7$hk8$1@dont-
email.me:

> "Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote in
>
>|
>| https://i.postimg.cc/W3QsHQ51/Pauls-Current-Computers.gif
>|
>
> I'm surprised the new CPUs don't seem to be faster.
> I'm running an AMD FX-8300. 8 cores. 3600 MHz. Bus
> speed 200. $65. Last time I looked it seemed the design
> was more efficient and the prices were *way* up.
>
> You have a 7 nm and a 22 nm. Mine is 32 nm. But
> yours doesn't seem to translate to higher speeds. Why
> aren't they more like 15 GHz?

...."There was once a time when CPU clock speed increased dramatically from year to
year. In the 90s and early 2000s processors increased at incredible speeds, shooting
from 60 MHz Pentium chips to gigahertz-level processors within a decade.

Now, it seems that even high-end processors have stopped increasing their clock
speeds. Dedicated overclockers can force the best silicon to around 9 GHz with liquid
nitrogen cooling systems, but for most users, 5 GHz is a limit that hasn�t yet been
passed."...

https://www.maketecheasier.com/why-cpu-clock-speed-isnt-increasing/#:
~:text=Why%20CPU%20Clock%20Speed%20Isn%27t%20Increasing%3A%
20Transistor%20Troubles&text=While%20transistors%20are%20reliably%
20getting,to%20current)%20have%20thinned%20out.

Now, the box I'm writing this on, with an 8-core AMD Ryzen 2700x CPU...significantly
faster than the FX-8300 (according to user benchmarks anyway).

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X-vs-AMD-FX-
8300/3958vsm7163

>
>| If you're wondering why I don't promote them, it's
>| because I'm conflicted on the issue. If it was a
>| clear cut case of deceit, I'd fire both barrels
>| at them.
>
> I can see that. I took a dislike to Intel because they were
> exploiting a monopoly. If it hadn't been for AMD, CPUs
> would cost in the thousands and we'd still be getting
> incremental improvements every 6 months.
>
> But I was also curious whether AMD hardware, in
> general, gets better drivers than Intel, given that much
> of it is on the motherboard these days. At least it is
> for me. I don't game or listen to music, so I have
> no need of expansion cards in general.
>
>
>
>

"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote

| Now, the box I'm writing this on, with an 8-core AMD Ryzen 2700x
CPU...significantly
| faster than the FX-8300 (according to user benchmarks anyway).
| | https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X-vs-AMD-FX-
| 8300/3958vsm7163
|

Interesting. And expected, though counter-intuitive.
I'm guessing that's due to the more compact size. I
can't think of any other reason, unless it's some kind
of clever new instructions. But then those factors would
also differ by OS. If I could even use a Ryzen on XP I
expect it wouldn't be optimized on XP. So the method of
benchmarking also matters, as well as real world usage.

As you said, in the late 90s things changed a lot. Replacing
a 300 MHz with 350 was a noticeable improvement. These
days Microsoft can hardly produce bloat fast enough to
outdate processor speeds. :)

"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote in
news:t4rfi3$a2h$1@dont-email.me:

> "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote
>
>| Now, the box I'm writing this on, with an 8-core AMD Ryzen
>| 2700x
> CPU...significantly
>| faster than the FX-8300 (according to user benchmarks
>| anyway).
>|
>| https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X-vs-
>| AMD-FX- 8300/3958vsm7163
>|
>
> Interesting. And expected, though counter-intuitive.
> I'm guessing that's due to the more compact size.

A lot from size alone. But that's not counterintuitive. If the electrical signal has to
"travel" half the distance within the die, that time is cut in half.

Also, CPU core's used to run at 5V, but now run at lower voltage levels. That too has a
effect on speed, because no matter what, electricity is ALWAYS sloped. When
transitioning from 0 to 5 volts doesn't happen instantaneosly. Sure, it happens in nano-
second, but when you're running at GHz of speed, it will be faster. So now you have to
consider the difference in slope between 0-5V logic, and 0-1.5V logic. A logic high level
will take less time to reach when the low-to-high going threshold is reduced from 3.x V
to 1v. That means in order to hit a logic high' it takes one thiord the time to go from 0 to
1v than it does form 0 to 3v.

Same thing in the other direction. It's a lot faster to drop 1.5V to .5V, than 5v to 2v.
You're only dumping 1v instead of 2v...especiall due to inherent parasitic capacitance.

So there's that, and then the CPU architecture themselves...ot takes time to learn how
physics work, and while the raw speed might not increase a lot, the architecture can,
as the chip designers learn how to do things differently, and in a better way, and even
sometimes, in a different way that is also better.

Hardware refactoring IS a thing, just like s/w...

On 5/3/2022 10:51 AM, Mayayana wrote:
> "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote
>
> | Now, the box I'm writing this on, with an 8-core AMD Ryzen 2700x
> CPU...significantly
> | faster than the FX-8300 (according to user benchmarks anyway).
> |
> | https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X-vs-AMD-FX-
> | 8300/3958vsm7163
> |
>
> Interesting. And expected, though counter-intuitive.
> I'm guessing that's due to the more compact size. I
> can't think of any other reason, unless it's some kind
> of clever new instructions. But then those factors would
> also differ by OS. If I could even use a Ryzen on XP I
> expect it wouldn't be optimized on XP. So the method of
> benchmarking also matters, as well as real world usage.
>
> As you said, in the late 90s things changed a lot. Replacing
> a 300 MHz with 350 was a noticeable improvement. These
> days Microsoft can hardly produce bloat fast enough to
> outdate processor speeds. :)
>

The numbers between single threaded and multithreaded,
betray some info about cores. I'm looking at the
ratio between benchmark numbers here, for inspiration.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html # multithreaded bench
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/mid_range_cpus.html

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html # singlethread bench

2700x AMD Ryzen 7 2700X 17,578 $212.98 # 8C 16T
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X 2,436 $212.98

fx-8300 AMD FX-8300 Eight-Core 5,222 $76.85 # 8 or is it 4C 8T
AMD FX-8300 Eight-Core 1,484 $76.85 # Device sensitive to compiler?
# Waiting to harvest goodness ?

Steamroller - Piledriver - Bulldozer
You can see the basic approach of that generation
Module, with some degree of internal plumbing-sharing.

http://meseec.ce.rit.edu/551-projects/spring2013/3-2.pdf

Whereas Zen is more traditional, and says
"transistors be damned, we're using TSMC not GloFo"

https://www.anandtech.com/show/16214/amd-zen-3-ryzen-deep-dive-review-5950x-5900x-5800x-and-5700x-tested/2

But in the general scheme of things, it's
"one cupholder or two cupholders". It's incrementalism.
Just like in a car. This is one reason that people with
2600K are still using them. Or even Q6600 for that matter.

People realize the cupholder they've got, is good enough.

The new cupholder, is made of lighter weight plastic.
Sometimes.

Paul

On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:51:56, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
[]
> As you said, in the late 90s things changed a lot. Replacing
>a 300 MHz with 350 was a noticeable improvement. These
>days Microsoft can hardly produce bloat fast enough to
>outdate processor speeds. :)
>
Yes, it's a tough job. But they manage it (-:
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The early worm gets the bird.

On Tue, 03 May 2022 11:55:35 -0500, DanS
<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:

>"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote in
>news:t4rfi3$a2h$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote
>>
>>| Now, the box I'm writing this on, with an 8-core AMD Ryzen
>>| 2700x
>> CPU...significantly
>>| faster than the FX-8300 (according to user benchmarks
>>| anyway).
>>|
>>| https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X-vs-
>>| AMD-FX- 8300/3958vsm7163
>>|
>>
>> Interesting. And expected, though counter-intuitive.
>> I'm guessing that's due to the more compact size.
>
>A lot from size alone. But that's not counterintuitive. If the electrical signal has to
>"travel" half the distance within the die, that time is cut in half.
>
>Also, CPU core's used to run at 5V, but now run at lower voltage levels. That too has a
>effect on speed, because no matter what, electricity is ALWAYS sloped. When
>transitioning from 0 to 5 volts doesn't happen instantaneosly. Sure, it happens in nano-
>second, but when you're running at GHz of speed, it will be faster. So now you have to
>consider the difference in slope between 0-5V logic, and 0-1.5V logic. A logic high level
>will take less time to reach when the low-to-high going threshold is reduced from 3.x V
>to 1v. That means in order to hit a logic high' it takes one thiord the time to go from 0 to
>1v than it does form 0 to 3v.
>
>Same thing in the other direction. It's a lot faster to drop 1.5V to .5V, than 5v to 2v.
>You're only dumping 1v instead of 2v...especiall due to inherent parasitic capacitance.
>
>So there's that, and then the CPU architecture themselves...ot takes time to learn how
>physics work, and while the raw speed might not increase a lot, the architecture can,
>as the chip designers learn how to do things differently, and in a better way, and even
>sometimes, in a different way that is also better.
>
>Hardware refactoring IS a thing, just like s/w...

IBM was running mainframe processors at 0.8v-1,8v in the late 70s,
just for that reason.

Update on my quest is I decided this is a software problem on one
particular bloated application (Facebook) and I am going to live with
it. Everything else I do works OK.

On Wed, 4 May 2022 01:11:18 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:51:56, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote
>(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>[]
>> As you said, in the late 90s things changed a lot. Replacing
>>a 300 MHz with 350 was a noticeable improvement. These
>>days Microsoft can hardly produce bloat fast enough to
>>outdate processor speeds. :)
>>
>Yes, it's a tough job. But they manage it (-:
>>

Bill Gates and Andy Grove declared a couple decades ago that as much
as Andy could make CPUs faster, Bill could keep them busy.