Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why does Microsoft insist on features we don't need or want?

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
April 5, 2007 5:19:21 PM

As Microsoft slowly but surely slide down the slope of bloat, bugs, security problem one has to ask:

Why do I need all these services?

1. File Indexing Services to report frequency of use of files -- only Microsoft care and maybe <2% known applications (this is a major HD resource hog)

2. Fast User Switching Compatibility (auto) -- single user here, don't need it

3. Help and Support (auto) -- yeah, like this was ever useful

4. IPSEC (auto) -- nobody uses this for secure communications because it is easy to hack (SSL or something else)

5. Distributed Link Tracking Client (auto) - I'm not part of a domain why is this loading

6. Messenger (auto) -- yeah I don't need to send/receive alert messages

7. MS Software Shadow Copy Provider (manual) -- still never will need this just filling up an already massive registry with it's entry

8. Net Logon (manual) -- again not part of a domain thankfully it isn't Auto

9. Net Metting Remote Desktop Sharing -- again wasted registry space

10. Network Provisioning Services - again, not part of a domain

11. Secondary Logon (auto) - permits alternate starting process under different credentials (aka you have an app that needs full Admin rights) - oh joy what a nice security hole.

12. Smart Card (manual) - again, don't have a smart card reader

13. System Restore (auto) - turn off, just don't need or care, I backup critcal data myself, this is a MAJOR resource hog

14. Task Scheduler (auto) - I have no tasks scheduled why is this running?

15. TCP/IP NetBIOS Helper (auto) - oh please, NetBIOS what is this circa 1988?

16. Volume Shadow Copy -- what is this Take 2 from #7??

And these are just the services, haven't touched what is loaded in the Startup.

Task Manager reports 54 processes and 705 threads running after my boot up -- just sitting at the desktop with an empty systray with 780 MB committed out of 2GB physical.

Bloat, no wonder it takes Windows so long to load. Mac OSX boots is a fraction of the time < 20 seconds from the time I hit the power button to a working desktop. WinXP boot time > 2 minutes.
April 5, 2007 6:26:03 PM

Some good points, and from your avatar I'm assuming your an Apple user and it seems you know a lot for a Apple user which you must agree most are complete morons. However don't get into Windows being unsecure especially since Symantec reported Windows XP as being the most secure Operating system for the last half of 2006, with Apple's Current Version of OSX coming in 3rd.
April 5, 2007 7:02:54 PM

I write software for Windows platforms cause that is the market share. But to get things done without having to get "involved" in the OS, I use my MacPro.

Regardless, this isn't a Mac vs. PC thread -- it's a simple list of the services and features that Microsoft force on you so that you too can waste CPU time on these services that most people don't need and don't want. A more efficient solution to Microslops OS is to "register" only services that are needed for that user's configuration -- every time Windows loads it has to go thru the Services list no matter what the setting is (Auto, Disable, manual) and check to see if the registered service ( executable/component) is actually where it claims to be on your system.

As far as security, you're kidding right? Microsoft's biggest weakness, you can tell the OS NOT prompt me whenever any component installs on the OS. OSX, you don't have that option, something trys to install you know about it and have to enter you admin password to permit it to do so -- NO turning this off. And this is exactly how most spyware/viruses make it on a WinXP platform -- giving the user the choice to be flexible on security is a BIG mistake -- but on I guess they can just say "well the user let it happen" - still doesn't change the facts.

I find it Odd that Symantec would suggest Windows is the most secure OS -- wouldn't this be like saying "you don't need our anti-virus software" -- not really in their best interest is it?

Do you really wanna compare security vulnerabilities on WinXP vs. OSX? Those daily WinXP security patches just don't happen on OSX. Sure OSX has some security patches but no where near the frequency of any Microslop OS.

Anyway, back to services -- why install so many, why no intelligent registration, why handicap the majority user base for a minority of users that might use one or two of the services. This is the Microsoft way, and reflects in Vista, build services and feature with no real value to the end user -- just slows down the end user experience.

Rob.
Related resources
April 5, 2007 7:28:41 PM

I agree I hate to get the thread going in another direction but it looks like apple is making up everything about them being so secure, and don't get me wrong microsoft isn't my favorite company either especially with making me get windows vista to utilize DirectX 10, but if I were Microsoft I would sue for slander and defamation. Again though I hate to go in a different direction but there are alot of features that seem quite unnessecary.
April 5, 2007 7:47:00 PM

Yeah, start a separate OS security thread. This one is really about Windows OS bloat and excessive services and features that very few want or need.

Rob.
April 6, 2007 12:41:47 PM

When I say that you don't need most of those features because you are not on a domain, do you realize that there are a lot of people who are?

True there is a lot of bloat but take any modern software package and you'll see that there is a lot of stuff that most users do not use. They are there for the few who use them.
April 6, 2007 3:31:00 PM

Yes I know most companies (large and small) will have a domain and PC's logging into that domain. But, the business world has long since become the minority in terms of market share as compared to the home/power user. It is pretty rare for the largest market share (home user) to setup a domain.

But this is typical of Microsoft's philosophy, build features that handicap the majority to satisfy the minority. But rather than provide intelligent defaults/options so that you can make everyone happy, they don't -- Microsoft do just enough and take the easy road to revenue.

How many people that use a PC even know where to go to find all these services and/or items in their startup? Maybe some folks here, but the typical user has no clue -- they can't figure out why most of their RAM is consumed and why their PC is slow.

And Vista has only made this situation worse, not better. So you can see the direction Microsoft progress (or digress) and will continue to do so until PC users finally say Ok, I've had enough.

If you look at the actual processing power of even a low end CPU today, it has more than enough capability, even the low end video cards -- yet these components will appear to be dog slow on Vista. Why is that, code bloat, poorly designed OS, layer upon layer of compatibility code, services that aren't need but loaded, etc. etc.

But the typical consumer will blindly accept, "oh you want Vista, you need to upgrade your hardware" -- hey wait a minute, isn't that exactly what Apple was doing 25+ years ago that everyone revolted against and what ultimately reduce Apple's market share?

Vista doesn't really "do more for you", there really isn't anything in it that should need major hardware upgrades for it to run smooth. Yet it does. Why is that you ask? Bloat bloat bloat, lazy, bloat, release it, revenue, bloat, more bloat, lazy, more bloat, leverage, bloat...

Microsoft's OS's just keeps getting fatter and fatter and slower and slower and people believe "that's just the way it is" -- no no no, it's not the way it should be. If I wrote code as poorly as Microsoft do, I'd be out of a job. If I designed my software as poorly as Microsoft do I'd be out of a job and/or my product would not sell.

Rob.
April 7, 2007 10:47:22 AM

I should have realized from your icon that you are out for blood. True MS has a lot of bloat but they cater to a larger market. It is easier not only for them when they have one OS.

Remember when they had 2 different kernels for the business and home markets (9x vs NT). Things are much easier now. True OSX is a much better and leaner OS than windows but you have to admit that apple have an easier chore when it comes to hardware support and target market.
April 7, 2007 3:11:38 PM

Microsoft actually have 8 Vista OS flavors 4 32bit and 4 64bit.

Not out for blood, just pointing out the fat in the OS and how well they've convinced and herded their market share into thinking it's "normal" to expect hardware upgrade with a new OS. It is this very same philosophy that killed off Apple's market share back in the 80's.

Apple's move to Intel CPUs and Intel chipsets/motherboards is unbelievably significant for them. It has opened up a word of flexibility in their MacPro line. Leopard will most likely be the icing on the cake as current consumer ponder going to Vista -- Leopard = no hardware upgrades required, runs faster, does more. Vista = hardware upgrades required, runs slower, not much more to offer.

I'd just wish Microsoft would open their eyes for once and stop dishing out junk and mediocrity. Who knows, their next OS Vienna is supposed to be from ground up with no backward compatibility -- maybe this is the real Microsoft OS -- Vista is just another Windows ME.

Rob.
April 8, 2007 1:52:38 AM

Quote:
As Microsoft slowly but surely slide down the slope of bloat, bugs, security problem one has to ask:

Why do I need all these services?

1. File Indexing Services to report frequency of use of files -- only Microsoft care and maybe <2% known applications (this is a major HD resource hog)

2. Fast User Switching Compatibility (auto) -- single user here, don't need it

3. Help and Support (auto) -- yeah, like this was ever useful

4. IPSEC (auto) -- nobody uses this for secure communications because it is easy to hack (SSL or something else)

5. Distributed Link Tracking Client (auto) - I'm not part of a domain why is this loading

6. Messenger (auto) -- yeah I don't need to send/receive alert messages

7. MS Software Shadow Copy Provider (manual) -- still never will need this just filling up an already massive registry with it's entry

8. Net Logon (manual) -- again not part of a domain thankfully it isn't Auto

9. Net Metting Remote Desktop Sharing -- again wasted registry space

10. Network Provisioning Services - again, not part of a domain

11. Secondary Logon (auto) - permits alternate starting process under different credentials (aka you have an app that needs full Admin rights) - oh joy what a nice security hole.

12. Smart Card (manual) - again, don't have a smart card reader

13. System Restore (auto) - turn off, just don't need or care, I backup critcal data myself, this is a MAJOR resource hog

14. Task Scheduler (auto) - I have no tasks scheduled why is this running?

15. TCP/IP NetBIOS Helper (auto) - oh please, NetBIOS what is this circa 1988?

16. Volume Shadow Copy -- what is this Take 2 from #7??

And these are just the services, haven't touched what is loaded in the Startup.

Task Manager reports 54 processes and 705 threads running after my boot up -- just sitting at the desktop with an empty systray with 780 MB committed out of 2GB physical.

Bloat, no wonder it takes Windows so long to load. Mac OSX boots is a fraction of the time < 20 seconds from the time I hit the power button to a working desktop. WinXP boot time > 2 minutes.


Would you recommend me disabling all of the above services?
April 8, 2007 4:21:56 PM

Quote:
Microsoft actually have 8 Vista OS flavors 4 32bit and 4 64bit.


Yes but the base kernel is the same (actually 2 versions for 32 bit and 64) makes developing drivers much easier. Surely you can see beyond the marketing "8 flavour" talk. Specially since you develop software for windows.

Quote:

Apple's move to Intel CPUs and Intel chipsets/motherboards is unbelievably significant for them. It has opened up a word of flexibility in their MacPro line. Leopard will most likely be the icing on the cake as current consumer ponder going to Vista -- Leopard = no hardware upgrades required, runs faster, does more. Vista = hardware upgrades required, runs slower, not much more to offer.


You sir are out for blood. If you really are a software developer you should realize how much easier it is to program when you have a concrete idea of the hardware your programs are going to be run on other than for a generic system. Note I am not putting down leopard. If I wasn't into games so much Apple would be a viable choice. Of course the better choice would be to install linux and recompile the kernel but I guess not everybody is capable of that.

Quote:

I'd just wish Microsoft would open their eyes for once and stop dishing out junk and mediocrity. Who knows, their next OS Vienna is supposed to be from ground up with no backward compatibility -- maybe this is the real Microsoft OS -- Vista is just another Windows ME.


Nothing is as bad as windows ME (except maybe for Steve Job's turtle tops) :p  . From where did you get this news. If they do that they would be loosing their biggest advantage i.e. supported applications. I hope that they do not do it.
April 9, 2007 5:20:12 AM

You obviously don't program professionally as this statement:
Quote:
realize how much easier it is to program when you have a concrete idea of the hardware your programs are going to be run on other than for a generic system
doesn't really make any sense.

1. A programmer does not encompass all that is software -- just too much to know for any single programmer, even more so with any Windows based development efforts.

2. Programmers come in many disciplines just as doctors do.

3. 8 versions, I need to know the difference in ALL of them because they affect some of the decisions I make with what I can and can't rely on in my software.

4. Hardware is only relevant for anyone who wants to produce device drivers, beyond that application/game programmers call the device drivers and use it accordingly.

Lets stick to Windows inefficiency -- really don't want to do the Apple vs. PC debate again.

Actually, if someone would bring all the Linux components together into a single package (or target packages) that is end user friendly, they would have a winner. Red Hat and other's just have NOT done a good job at that.

Scarslilpyro,

No, you'll need to know what other games/apps need. If you're not in a networked environment then you can disable 2,5,6,8,10,15. If you're not worried about slow Add/Remove load times then you can disable 1. 4,9,13,14 is probably safe to remove for home users. 13 - you have no restore points so if you need to restore from a bad install, you can't do it easily. Regardless what service you disable, just remember what you have now (take a screen shot) and you can also re-enable later if you find you need it.

Rob.
April 9, 2007 2:50:00 PM

You're not part of a domain... But I'm willing to bet you're using XP Pro, which is designed for a Domain.

Home doesn't offer a lot of those services.

So basically, STFU on the domain portion when you're using software that is designed to run on a domain.

Of all those services you listed, there are maybe 4 that I don't use at work on a domain.
April 9, 2007 2:53:46 PM

Quote:
Yes I know most companies (large and small) will have a domain and PC's logging into that domain. But, the business world has long since become the minority in terms of market share as compared to the home/power user. It is pretty rare for the largest market share (home user) to setup a domain.


Um, the largest market share is still the Corporations. I don't have a clue where you're getting your information from.

Lots of home users have Windows.. but they're not all running up to date version of Windows, say 2000 or higher. That cuts your "market share" down.

Now lets move to who is using XP and up. Your market share was just cut down even more.

Now, more into companies running 2000 and/or XP and that's the vast majority of any medium sized company and run. Small companies would be using maybe ME or 98, but most likely 2000 or higher.

Get your facts down before you go about ranting without backing your claim up.
April 9, 2007 3:10:20 PM

STFU pretty much relegated you to ignore status.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/9E601E8...

But hey go find your own numbers. If you look at the diagram, small, medium, large business still combine to be less than Home. Also, NOT all businesses (especially the smaller ones) use a domain either (we don't and were a small business).
April 9, 2007 4:23:39 PM


Actually, if someone would bring all the Linux components together into a single package (or target packages) that is end user friendly, they would have a winner.


They'll never overcome the market share problem. It doesn't matter how fast, secure, easy to use, cheap, or whatever it is. The installed base of Windows is just far too large, and people are resistant to change.

It doesn't matter how good any other operating system is until one comes along that runs current software written for Windows natively and flawlessly. When that happens it'll be worth noticing.

Is your point that XP is bloated? Ok, you win, it is. Is your argument that OSX is functionally a better operation system? Ok, you win, it is.

The salient point is that it doesn't matter.
April 9, 2007 5:04:17 PM

Leopard does exactly that (actually so does Tiger) -- the choice seems to be making headway and it will never happen overnight. Don't use TG as an soul indicator of what consumers want.

The 3 primary uses of a computer are fully covered on both platforms:

1. Surfing/E-Mail
2. Gaming/Entertainment
3. Office software

Market share really boils down to cost -- what we're discussing is really the level of acceptance and the perception of "savings". How we instigate change in a large corporation is with our money. I think Vista's sales flop has certainly got Microsoft's attention regardless of how they're playing the sales numbers game which is very transparent.

Anyway, this thread is Windows. Nobody has won anything, everyone loses when they are leveraged into a position such as Microsoft has accomplished. Believe it or not the consumer does still ultimately have the final word on whether or not they accept the current garbage being forced on us by Redmond.

But feel free to post why you NEED Vista now?

And your comments are exactly the same comments made when IBM PC's dominated the market share (many moons ago) on the hardware front, nobody could go up against IBM...what do IBM sell for hardware now? Nothing, maybe some Laptops that are now made in China.

I've been around this business too long to suggest that install base can never change or be changed. It can, it does, and it will -- the one constant is change.

Rob.
April 9, 2007 5:52:34 PM

OK I was in agreement that this shouldn't be an Apple vs. PC thing, but you are out for blood and you are trying to turn it into that. So now here I go off on Apple and how much they need to die and how if you use them you are just making your self a slave and a complete tool.

1. Apple isn't as secure as windows xp or slightly debatable red hat linux which had more flaws than mac but addressed them in an average time of 58 days instead of Apple's 66 days compared to Microsoft's 21 days.

2. My first item just tells a little bit about my second one, because if you think the Mac and PC ad's are funny then your just an idiot because most of what they say is untrue. I mean seriously I can't believe they made a commercial saying that Mac's are better because they came with a crappy scrap booking program I mean god give me ten minutes and about twenty dollars and I can do better than that, I mean christ why don't they change it from Macintosh to computers for homemakers without a damn job. If you want to organize your photos make fodlers and maybe even change the file names on the photos, I mean seriously if you can't figure that out you couldn't find your ass with two hands and a road map.

3. Since when did a white box with round corners equal fashionable, I mean seriously Steve Jobs has been wearing that same crap since before they fired him back in god damn 1985, probably because he made a commercial for the super bowl that cost 1.5 million saying that PC's were the big brother of computers when infact it is now apple that tells you what you have to do when it comes to their computers and PC's pretty much give you the choice of whatever the hell you want.

4. The Ipod sucks and it's for moron's. If I want a digital music player that prefers a format that no other player can use and has to use a terrible program to sync it without the ability to do a drag and drop add, and if I want a player with the tiniest screen to watch videos, also on top of that I want my hardware to hold my hand through the whole process cause I'm either to stupid or to lazy to spend an hour tops to learn something new, well then lets' get an Ipod.

5. If Macintoshes are so damn great why do as many people use their wonderful OSX and are still using windows 98. Both of which have a market share of 5%. Also that site roughly drafted might as while have a big ad at the top of the page that says not only do we get money from apple but they also give hand jobs on a regular basis.


I have many more but I've more than made my point. Sorry but you asked for it.
April 9, 2007 6:27:01 PM

Quote:
You obviously don't program professionally as this statement:
realize how much easier it is to program when you have a concrete idea of the hardware your programs are going to be run on other than for a generic system
doesn't really make any sense.

1. A programmer does not encompass all that is software -- just too much to know for any single programmer, even more so with any Windows based development efforts.

2. Programmers come in many disciplines just as doctors do.

4. Hardware is only relevant for anyone who wants to produce device drivers, beyond that application/game programmers call the device drivers and use it accordingly.

True I haven't done any large scale application programing. (my programing is limited to php and a bit of Java - one man show type of thing) so I could be wrong here but what I am stating is based on what I read. Drivers translate to hardware and it is easier to optimize an application when you know what the hardware it is going to run on (at least the game developers say so when they develop for the consoles ) Apple has this advantage when compared to windows. IMHO that the main reason why they are not shifting their focus and trying to expand beyond being a hardware supplier. Try to make leopard the universal tool that xp is with the same device and multiple tasks support and you will get bloatware. Maybe not as bad as windows but nevertheless not as sleek as it is nowadays.

Quote:

3. 8 versions, I need to know the difference in ALL of them because they affect some of the decisions I make with what I can and can't rely on in my software.


Come on only a Mac user could call it 8 versions. It versions (32 vs 64 bit) of one kernel and any application written for the 32 bit version should run on both (drivers are an exclusion) The differences are in the additional features which you are complaining about.

Quote:

Lets stick to Windows inefficiency -- really don't want to do the Apple vs. PC debate again.


But you are doing it saying how crappy windows is vs OSX 8O
April 9, 2007 6:30:02 PM

Quote:


The 3 primary uses of a computer are fully covered on both platforms:


2. Gaming


8O 8O 8O 8O Yeah how many? 5-6 games :p  ? Windows greatest advantage is the application support which is nowhere more evident than the games.
April 10, 2007 12:06:47 AM

Ok you Microsoft flag waivers:

http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/11136/53/

And this isn't pro Apple site. Just another survery that seems to contradict Microsoft's numbers.

How many of you that have posted own and use regularly a MacPro AND a PC? How many have of you that have posted played games on both regularly? How many of you that have posted have installed boot camp on a MacPro?

You can play Mac games, Mac Universal games, or Vista games, WinXP games -- any game you want on a MacPro -- just be sure to a good graphics card for the MacPro (yes even the 8800 if you know how to do some hacking).

Rob.
April 10, 2007 2:41:02 AM

Quote:
Ok you Microsoft flag waivers:

http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/11136/53/

And this isn't pro Apple site. Just another survery that seems to contradict Microsoft's numbers.

How many of you that have posted own and use regularly a MacPro AND a PC? How many have of you that have posted played games on both regularly? How many of you that have posted have installed boot camp on a MacPro?

You can play Mac games, Mac Universal games, or Vista games, WinXP games -- any game you want on a MacPro -- just be sure to a good graphics card for the MacPro (yes even the 8800 if you know how to do some hacking).

Rob.


Your kidding you think a company is putting positive spin on it's numbers to make itself look better, I think Microsoft may have spared some of their billions to hire a marketing department.
April 10, 2007 4:52:22 AM


Don't use TG as an soul indicator of what consumers want.


I'm not, I'm using Microsoft's 90% advantage in market share. I don't have a dog in this fight, I could care less. I'm not naive enough to think that somehow the better product succeeds in the market.
April 10, 2007 4:59:01 AM

Well, what I want to know is what OS can run my Windows programs and is still lean and efficient for gaming.

I don't care about DX10, if Microsoft thinks Im going to buy that POS just for DX10 they can just forget about me and get used to it. I just don't like being strong-armed. No way am I going to buy all new nonsense just to put on a new OS. WTF were they thinking???


Hey, Im market share. I want to buy an OS because Im still on Win 2k, because I didnt like XP as it gave me nothing 2k seemed to give. But hardly anyone is supporting 2k anymore, so where's it leave me? If I can't play Warhammer Online on 2k, then 2k has to go =( What out there is better? Server 2003?



You guys can argue all you want, maybe people on a domain want all those memory hogging services, but I don't. Why can't they offer up an OS without those, or make them an option for people on domains rather than pushing them on me here at home. I don't have a companies budget. I have a consumers homeowner budget, and last I heard Vista didn't come with an extra 2gb of ram in the box, and a check for the hundreds of dollars I'll need to make my system compatible.


I just wish someone would write a decent, lean & fast OS that will run windows programs and games without too much fiddling.
April 10, 2007 5:13:39 AM


I just wish someone would write a decent, lean & fast OS that will run windows programs and games without too much fiddling.


Lots of people have with nlite and slipstreaming.

I'm sure if you researched it, you could find directions on how to remove the fat you think you won't use from an XP install.
April 10, 2007 9:04:05 AM

Thanks, Ill look into it.
April 10, 2007 4:31:30 PM

Quote:
But the typical consumer will blindly accept, "oh you want Vista, you need to upgrade your hardware" -- hey wait a minute, isn't that exactly what Apple was doing 25+ years ago that everyone revolted against and what ultimately reduce Apple's market share?


No.

Apple lost market share because it wanted complete control over what went into the computer... software AND hardware. If Apple had let third party vendors develop hardware compatible with their systems, they might have maintained or even gained market share. They got greedy, plain and simple. Part of Windows's success is due to the fact that it doesn't really care on what hardware it's installed.

You can blame MS for Apple's poor market share... but Apple made it's bed and is now laying in it. MS may have to much "bloat" for your taste, but at least you're not tied to buying specific hardware to run it.

As for the average home user, you're correct in assuming that most do not know how to access the list of services available within Windows. However, since home versions of Windows do not contain a good chunk of the services you've listed, it's irrelevant. A user of XP Pro should be knowledgable enough to disable unnecessary services; would you not agree?

You complaint would be more valid if these services could not be disabled at all. It may be a pain in the ass for those that don't need the services... but it would also be a pain in the ass for those that do need them to enable them if they were disabled by default. Either way, you'll have people bitching... so they went with the path that will have the least amount of people bitching; something for which you could hardly fault them. Most people won't even notice the bloat you're referring to... so why fix what isn't broken? If you're happier with the services disabled, then you have the power to do so... if you don't notice any difference... then there's no reason to complain. For what the average user does with their computer; they won't notice a damn thing if you disabled these services. For what you do, it probably does make a difference.
April 10, 2007 5:27:58 PM

From your article you posted to me, and I quote:

Quote:
Since more than half of all PCs are used in business, Apple owns an even larger portion of the consumer market’s installed base, where Apple choses to compete.


More than half of PCs are used in business, which was my argument.

My past employer purchased Dell comptuers with OEM licenses because that's standard. Then we would image our volume licensed software onto it. Thus, you get 2 purchases. 1 OEM, 1 Volume license.

You didn't answer my question.

I guarentee you're using a Pro version, which is designed for Domain use. How do I know this? Because most of the services you didn't feel useful aren't available in the Home edition, which is what you should be using.

Thus, my statement is that you are ignorant of what you require and what the purpose of each operating system should be used for.

PRO should be used in business environments, regardless if a domain is employed at that time, but may well advance into a domain.
Home is for HOME use where a domain is very unlikely.

So, your rant is completely worthless based of your sheer display of ignorance of your own argument.
April 11, 2007 3:47:15 AM


Then we would imagine our volume licensed software onto it.


Man, that would save a lot of time. I wish I could do that.

Spell check is funny.
April 13, 2007 6:34:32 PM

Riser,

I think you mis-interpreted or I mis-read it. PC - personal computers of which Apple is one -- hence ALL PC's. I perhaps interchanged PC with what I should have stated as Windows OS based PCs. The business market share for Windows based OS is smaller than home market share (but they are pretty close).

Not really sure why you focus on the Domain services in the list of many useless and not needed services? But yes, this was an XP Pro system. XP Pro does NOT mean it is intended for business use only. Point being Microsoft defines your options and decide what you should be setup with -- I didn't buy Pro for it's Domain support.

It would be more useful if Microsoft provided a single OS for everyone (just like Apple) and you can elect to install or not install features as you need them -- blanket install of services that may or maynot be useful or needed is stupid. Why would I want a service running 24/7 in the background when that service really only needs to be in memory and active maybe once a day or once a week?

The point of this thread is not business vs. home market share, it's not whether or not Domains are important. Diverting this thread to move away from the original post isn't useful to anyone, unless you just wanna try to debate a small insignificant point.

This thread is about Windows OS code bloat, 8 OS choices that still don't help end users get the system THEY need, services that run and install that shouldn't be, and a host of other bad decisions made at Redmond that now requires consumers to upgrade already good hardware.

Efficiency is NOT part of Microsoft's OS, period.

Any you haven't answered my questions. Why does an OS that provides no really major functionality boost (Vista), suddenly run slower and consume more resources. Believe it or not, an OS can do more and still retain a lean state of operation. Unfortunately, Microsoft's OS can't seem to get a handle on this and just keeps tossing in more lard to slow it down.

As I've pointed out before use Microsoft's own tools just to see how in-efficient their OS really is -- just monitor registry activity alone and you'll see why the Microsoft have a real problem on their hands. Vista is yet another example of the continuation of the problem.

The missing link at Microsoft is lack of good profiling and over separation of tasks. As with any coding effort there are global and relatively static variables -- rather than putting this values in a global memory space for use as needed by other parts of the OS, they just rely on constant registry queries. Every process queries the registry to figure where it stands and what it can and can't do - this happens again and again and again. So what do Microsoft do, they hope their HD caching mechanism helps reduce the problem -- but that doesn't address that it's still a coding issue.

Run procmon.exe (you can download from MS) and just look at the horrible state of the Windows OS.

And this is NOT a Mac vs. PC debate -- it's about telling Microsoft to start making a better more efficient OS and let the consumer decide what they do and don't want or just let them assume an OS theme if they can't decide or don't know.

5% of the population are university educated, does that mean 95% of the population are stupid? No it doesn't, so your Microsoft owning 90% market share means they must be doing it right has nothing to do with Microsoft providing an OS everyone wants nor is it a valid excuse to give the OK to code bloat and inefficiency. Microsoft have used many means to leverage continued purchases and use of their OS, DX10 is just one more such leverage, along with pressure on pre-installed resellers, buy the competition, etc. etc.

Rob.
April 17, 2007 5:35:15 PM

The reason I point out what version you're using is because most of the processes you say you don't need are on the Pro edition and not on the Home edition.

The Pro edition is used for business use. Most businesses that would be using pro most likely are a domain or may eventually move to a domain.

Processes you listed that are beneficial or used by a domain:
1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16

Processes you listed that are beneficial to home users:
2, 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, *14.

*Task scheduler, because other programs use this service to schedule tasks. Disk defragmenter, Windows Update, etc. It runs, just because you have nothing schedule doesn't mean something else is already schedule.

Fast User Switching is because home computers generally are used by more than 1 person.

Now, instead of looking at it from your narrow minded approach, let's look at it from the broad perspective.

Most people who are going to buy a home computer are going to have multiple people using it. The family computer... so let's enable the vast majority of stuff they might need.

Whereas they know a computer person will go through and disable this stuff. It takes us a short time to configure it. Whereas a home user who isn't as tech savvy might struggle to turn on fast user switching, the task scheduler, etc.

Volume Shadow Copy is used to copies volumes of information. MS's shadow copy creates temporary individual copies of open files incase something is ruined.

Yes, you back your information up, so disable them. 98% of the people at home don't back their information up. A lot of companies work off network drives, but if the power fails, someone might lose all their work. Thus, you have a locally cached copy of what you were working on. Again, beneficial to a workplace.

You take on a perspective that the OS should be tweaked to be lean running and that anything you want, you'll install. Now look at the other hand.. where the people aren't tech savvy and don't care what the computer is doing because they want to surf the internet, open Outlook Express, and write up a couple documents.

You're claim doesn't persuade anyone to believe your point of view. You're the minor group of people that MS is focusing on. Its a small inconvenience to you.

Now, had you written up services that the "Home" version uses and it had domain features running, etc. Then I'd agree with you

But I knew you were running the Pro version based on all the processes you had running that you didn't need. Its really our fault.

The most significant and major difference between Pro and Home is that the Pro version has enhanced security designed to function on a domain.

Thus, I state that your whole argument is based on your ignorance of the OS you're using. Not to be offensive, but you just don't understand the difference, you don't understand business and marketing.

If Linux wasn't so complex to install, tweak, and get applications for, it would do really well. It fails in marketing and business strategy. When someone pulls that all together, gets an all comprehensive Distro together and markets it for $99, gets some standard phone support together, written materials out there, hardware vendors on board, games on board, and a massive technical support sections on their specific distro, IT WILL out-sell, out-perform Microsoft.

But that's a major task and that's why we will never see a Linux Distro take more than 10-15% of the overall market share... unless those changes are made.
!