Removing unnecessary processes

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.

---
Ted Zieglar
"Backup is a computer user's best friend."

Dr Teeth wrote:
I was just thinking how wonderful life was, when "Alec S." @ opened
his gob and said:

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.

"Rich D" wrote:

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?
--
Rich D
Armstrong Custom Homes
Redmond