Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Running Windows With No Services

CmdrTaco posted more than 9 years ago | from the stripping-the-fat dept.

Windows 619

mattOzan writes "So how many of the almost 4 dozen default-enabled services does Windows XP really need in order to preserve basic functioning, like web surfing and running applications? Zero, as it turns out. Mark Russinovich at Sysinternals demonstrates that if certain steps are followed, Windows XP will still run with only two active processes: System and Csrss.exe. No Smss.exe, Winlogon.exe, Services.exe, Lsass.exe... And, contrary to the expectations of various lead engineers at Microsoft, even Internet Explorer will still work under such conditions."

cancel ×

619 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No Services on Boot? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13189909)

What are the real limitations of running like this? Some will become obvious during your exploration, but a major one is that you won't be able to logoff (or shutdown)
Well Windows "shutsdown" on its own accord often enough, so that isn't a big problem (well it isn't a NEW problem), but it would be nice to be able to boot-up without these processes instead of having to kill them every time.

Re:No Services on Boot? (5, Insightful)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#13189990)

Well Windows "shutsdown" on its own accord often enough

Really? Does it? Isn't this just an old joke with not much fact to back it up anymore?

Shutdown is for wimps anyway! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190047)

Real men (like me, of course) just use sync from sysinternals and hit the power switch. Fastest Windows shutdown on the planet.

Well (1, Insightful)

DarthVeda (569302) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190082)

If you were to replace the word "windows" with "linux," the parent would be modded "flamebait" or "troll" as opposed to "funny." Assuming of course that the article was about linux.

Re:No Services on Boot? (2, Informative)

Idimmu Xul (204345) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190090)

Really? Does it? Isn't this just an old joke with not much fact to back it up anymore?

You clearly haven't been using a system recently that's been riddled with spyware, I've just had a hell of a time trying to get rid of some stuff on a friends pc that constantly kept rebooting the pc, restarting explorer and crashing winlogon.

Re:No Services on Boot? (1)

wo1verin3 (473094) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190139)

You clearly haven't been using a system recently that's been riddled with spyware

And you clearly work for Dell technical support

Question: My computer is [basic OR advanced computer problem here]
Dell Answer: You clearly haven't been using a system recently that's been riddled with spyware

Re:No Services on Boot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190142)

Too bad they don't sell common sense with the computer that you purchase.. excuse me.. but my system is loaded with spyware because I dont' check it regularly and I open emails about viagra. I'm sorry sir, the email violation voids your common sense warning, and apparently you didn't read your maintenance and upkeep plan portion of your common sense manual. Perhaps you haven't heard, but there are these people called black hat hackers out there, and they like people like you. You are the crickets to their lizards...

Re:No Services on Boot? (1)

E-Rock (84950) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190150)

Ah, so if you don't know what you're doing and get infected with malicious 3rd party applications, then Windows is unstable.

Not the same as windows shutting down often.

Re:No Services on Boot? (1)

saleenS281 (859657) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190174)

No, I haven't. I installed anti-spyware beta on every computer I look after and they haven't had a single spyware problem since. Apparently you're too eager to have a reason to blame microsoft than fix the problem though.

Re:No Services on Boot? (1)

UnrefinedLayman (185512) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190175)

Then that's not Windows shutting itself down for no reason, is it? It's spyware that causes the computer to become unstable.

The cause of that may be security holes in Windows, but Windows itself is a pretty stable operating system. It's the software written for it that performs irresponsibly or poorly from time to time (which isn't to say Windows doesn't suck every now and then purely of its own accord).

Re:No Services on Boot? (4, Interesting)

badasscat (563442) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190189)

You clearly haven't been using a system recently that's been riddled with spyware,

So we're supposed to blame MS for Spyware? Windows doesn't ship with system-crashing spyware, and it's not even like viruses are its primary way in. Most spyware is willingly installed by clueless users.

My Windows machine at work is currently at 221 hours of uptime. I don't even remember why it was rebooted prior to that, but it wasn't because of a crash. The current version of Windows XP is pretty stable if you ask me - not as good of a 24/7 OS as most *nix's, though not for reasons of stability. Its interface is not designed for keeping large numbers of applications open at once, and it doesn't seem to handle memory all that well at this point (this used to be one of its strong suits compared to other OS's). But it doesn't crash unless you do something stupid (like install spyware) to make it crash.

Re:No Services on Boot? (1)

TWX (665546) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190186)

I've had XP with either service pack lock up and die when making standard system changes, working with USB memory devices, and working with cameras. I've not been impressed with the stability.

Re:No Services on Boot? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190218)

Well people joke about it for a reason, because Windows used to be a horribly unstable piece of crap. So now that it is stable people still joke about it, same with security. If for whatever reason tomorrow Windows was fairly secure from then on people would still crack jokes about it being insecure. Microsoft did it to themselves, they can't expect to release a crap product, then fix it years later and expect everyone to love it.

Re:No Services on Boot? (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190225)

Pretty much. Windows gets slow every once in a while, forcing me to reboot it, but I don't think I've ever had this system shut down on its own.

Re:No Services on Boot? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190154)

Open up the run box and type in msconfig.

This handy utility will allow you to disable all the annoying tasks you don't need on boot-up.

And... (3, Funny)

TrippTDF (513419) | more than 9 years ago | (#13189910)

...I bet fewer services will mean less servicing, no?

Re:And... (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 9 years ago | (#13189927)

...I bet fewer services will mean less servicing, no?

Not if it means turning them all off every boot...

Re:And... (1, Funny)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 9 years ago | (#13189958)

Would this not be a breech of my Service Agreement?

less servicing? (2, Funny)

infonography (566403) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190129)

Does that include oil changes?

Aha! (-1, Troll)

ryanov (193048) | more than 9 years ago | (#13189913)

FP?

Incidentally, what happens without Winlogon? No logon box?

Re:Aha! (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 9 years ago | (#13189973)

RTFA, they are killing the processes after boot-up. For winlogon, this means they can't log off properly.

No Thanks (5, Informative)

fembots (753724) | more than 9 years ago | (#13189921)

From the friendly article:

The bottom line is that this stripped-down Windows configuration is not practical, but makes a cool demonstration of just how little of Windows is required for basic functionality.

  • There will be a delay before Explorer redraws the desktop
  • won't be able to logoff
  • Networking is also crippled
I don't think this stripped-down Windows provides even the most basic functionality expected by many users nowadays.

It's like patients are treated as long as their hearts are beating, even though everything else has shut down.

Re:No Thanks (2, Interesting)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 9 years ago | (#13189941)

So, how would Debian stack up with all the init scripts disabled?

Re:No Thanks (1)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 9 years ago | (#13189975)

It's been a while since I've booted a Debian box, so I can't double check, but I'm quite certain that if my RHEL machines didn't run /etc/init.d/network on boot, they wouldn't be particularly useful to me.

Re:No Thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13189985)

it's an equally pointless demonstration of process management?

Re:No Thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190193)

Not well... most of these things look important:
/etc/rcS.d/:
README
S02mountvirtfs
S05bootlogd
  S05initrd-tools.sh
S05keymap.sh
S07hdparm
S10c heckroot.sh
S18hwclockfirst.sh
S18ifupdown-clean
S20module-init-tools
S20modutils
S30checkfs.sh
S30etc-setserial
S30procps.sh
S35mountall.sh
    S36discover
S36lm-sensors
S36mountvirtfs
S39ifu pdown
S40hostname.sh
S40hotplug
S40networking
    S41hotplug-net
S45mountnfs.sh
S46setserial
S48c onsole-screen.sh
S50hwclock.sh
S55bootmisc.sh
S 55urandom
S70nviboot
S70screen-cleanup
S70xfree 86-common
S75sudo
 
/etc/rc2.d:
S10sysklogd
S1 1klogd
S20alsa
S20cupsys
S20dbus-1
S20firestar ter
S20makedev
S20nethack-common
S20rsync
S20s martmontools
S20ssh
S20tleds
S89anacron
S89atd
S89cron
S91apache
S99kdm
S99rmnologin
Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 12.4). Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 12.4). Your comment has too few characters per line (currently Your comment has too few Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 12.4).characters per line (currently 12.4). 12.4). Yaaay, I love the lameness filter.

Re:No Thanks (4, Informative)

gmack (197796) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190220)

You will get a system with no networking or GUI and all your drives will be read only and a single root prompt (provided you told it you wanted one).

Re:No Thanks (2, Informative)

cnettel (836611) | more than 9 years ago | (#13189945)

It should be no surprise that networking can get quite strange without DNS Client and DHCP Client (among others)...

Re:No Thanks (5, Insightful)

ryanov (193048) | more than 9 years ago | (#13189992)

That may be, but that means if you don't need ANY in order to run windows in this imperfect state, you probably only need a couple to run it in a perfectly passable state.

You're a tool. (0, Redundant)

glrotate (300695) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190003)

I don't think this stripped-down Windows provides even the most basic functionality expected by many users nowadays.

This was a proof of concept dork. A hack. Something to be done just because it can be. Mark's not suggesting everyone try this.

For sufficiently small quantities of "run" (2, Interesting)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 9 years ago | (#13189922)

I would have to wonder what DOESN'T work in this state rather than what DOES.

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13189929)

fp brought to you by http://www.dashbillions.com/ [dashbillions.com]

...even Internet Explorer will still work... (5, Funny)

RandoX (828285) | more than 9 years ago | (#13189936)

Hmmm. Define "work"...

Re:...even Internet Explorer will still work... (2, Funny)

cached (801963) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190032)

I think a period was forgotten. It should be Internet Explorer will still. Work...

Re:...even Internet Explorer will still work... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190083)

mmm. Define "work"...

Is that you Bill Clinton?

Re:...even Internet Explorer will still work... (4, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190105)

Define "work"...

An excruciating slog through random and painful events beyond my control.

So, yes. I think 'work' applies to IE.

Re:...even Internet Explorer will still work... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190112)

Hmmm. Define "work"...

The opposite of what my boss thinks I am doing right now.

Would IE display local HTML files? (1)

Beebos (564067) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190196)

In such a state would IE display local HTML files?

Need ma music! (3, Funny)

dxprog (898953) | more than 9 years ago | (#13189942)

I disabled Themes and Windows Audio and now my productivity is near zero. Who could work without visual styles and music?!

Lots of work (5, Interesting)

nickj6282 (896871) | more than 9 years ago | (#13189951)

Seems like an awful lot of work to kill some services. Personally I think starting in runlevel 3 is much easier, maybe Windows should think about going to a CLI-only interface for some of us uber-geeks out there. That'd gain them some respect in my book.

Re:Lots of work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190019)

ok - turn on the telnet service and go!
besure to install some cygwin and sysinternals tools and its almost linux - NOT! well sort of....

Re:Lots of work (1)

nailz420 (899922) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190041)

I second that! I miss DOS... Upon installing Windows users should be presented with a choice of running mode - novice, advanced, expert, etc. novice would be maximum eye candy, maximum tool tips, maximum wizards. Advanced - minimum eye candy, maximum performance. Expert - CLI interface, maximum debugging info on everything!

Re:Lots of work (1)

zx75 (304335) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190086)

Its called DOS... do you really want to work in DOS?? Here, I have some old DOS installer floppies you can use, an entire operating system on 4.5 MBs!

Re:Lots of work (2)

harrkev (623093) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190170)

Or, download for free [freedos.org] .

Re:Lots of work (2, Insightful)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190109)

Especially since that would all but force them to provide a usable CLI. They have some interesting ideas in Monad [wikipedia.org] , why don't they use them?

Re:Lots of work (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190114)

What's the business case for it? Microsoft isn't in this for the respect of a very small part of the population. They're in it for the money (eek: that's reminding me of a scene from a B movie [imdb.com] that had me chuckling hysterically a couple of weeks ago. But I digress). What exactly will they achieve with this? Why would they do it? They already have a cut down version of XP for embedded systems [msdn.com] .

Re:Lots of work (0)

temojen (678985) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190141)

While they're at it, they could code up some handy VMS syntax. The "cacls" is so much harder to remember than "set acl" and "show acl".

Re:Lots of work (1)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190159)

It seems you didn't tried the recovery console [microsoft.com]

As long as... (4, Funny)

xor.pt (882444) | more than 9 years ago | (#13189952)

As long as we can get BSODs, windows basic funtionality is assured.

Re:As long as... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190004)

Oh, nevermind. I thought I was reading Slashdot circa 1998.

Give me BSOD or give me ... (5, Funny)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190045)

As long as we can get BSODs, windows basic funtionality is assured.

In Windows Vista it's a Transparent Ice Blue Screen Of Death, and it's tabbed.

You're still hosed, but it looks nicer.

Remember - Microsoft has vowed the end of the BSOD (1)

GuyverDH (232921) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190099)

They are changing the color of the screen for critical failures and crashes to Red in the next generation windows.

Death to BSODs, long live RSODs...

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (2, Informative)

suitepotato (863945) | more than 9 years ago | (#13189954)

I hope that message wasn't indicative of what happens when you try not to run any Windows services...

Anywho, of course most of the services aren't needed at all times, but if they aren't turned on by default, a lot of extraneous apps that expect them will either not install or not work correctly. Hence, they are turned on. Are not most services blazing along on Linux by default to the glee of OpenBSD booster?

Alright then. Don't want em, kill em. It's easy, but the average user would have to read up and learn to do it. On whatever OS. Probably easier to leave them running by default so as not to fark things later. Or not because of the inherent security holes. Up to you. I'm ambivalent as long as my Windows boxes are behind a sharing router on private IPs without a lot of forwarding and firewall software.

With respect to resources, I'll check it out some time to see if there's really any improvement. Filed under "Review Later"....

Feel "teh diference" (-1, Flamebait)

putko (753330) | more than 9 years ago | (#13189963)

This article points out (inidirectly) what little control users have over their own windows environment.

With BSD, you can strip out drivers (e.g. USB drivers that could cause security problems), change init, change boot, dual boot, blah blah blah blah.

With Windows, you get what's in the box. That's it.

And you can be sure that if this guy's hacking pisses off windows, he'll get cease and desist letters, or a DMCA blah blah blah...

Re:Feel "teh diference" (4, Informative)

Umbral Blot (737704) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190049)

Do you know who Mark Russinovich is? Besides writing key books on windows published by Microsoft themselves he is also a very important member of the windows developer community. There is no way in hell Microsoft would want to make him an unsatisfied customer. If they really didn't like what he is doing I bet that they would try to bribe him with large sums of money to stop instead.

Re:Feel "teh diference" (1)

temojen (678985) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190085)

Same goes for Linux. But with both, you have to know what you're doing, and whatch for what dependencies get installed along with the services you do use. For example I have no idea why one of my boxes suddenly has portmap and famd on it (both listening on the internet nic).

Re:Feel "teh diference" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190104)

Have you idiots ever considered reading the DMCA instead of just yammering about it?

Re:Feel "teh diference" (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190117)

Well I doubt Russonivich has anything to worry about, he's one of the people that wrote the "Windows Internals" book from the Microsoft press.

Now that aside Windows integration is considered a GOOD thing by most normal users. That's one of the frustrating thing about Linux/UNIX form their perspective. There's a million options, and they have no idea what they need or want. What's more, if they make the wrong choice something might not work, since it depends on something else.

That's why Windows, and OS-X ship with so much integrated. They are targeted at users that want to be told how it is. They don't want a choice of 10 window managers, they want to have one that just comes up by default.

Now if you like the BSD way of doing thigns, that's cool, but don't assume that it applies to everyone.

Building from source is another great example. Linux people tend to see this as the best feature of Linux, that you custom compile things, and you don't have to worry about binary compatiblity. Newbies tend to see this is one of the worst features. Compiling is highly intimidating, as they don't understand what's going on. What''s worse, if something happens, they can't fix it, they don't know how to edit make files, or update headers, etc.

The Windows method is more targeted at the masses, have an enriched OS that isn't just defined as it's kernel, but it's APIs, GUI, media layer, and basic apps. Linux is a minimal approach that defines only the kernel, leaving everything else up to the option of the user.

Both are valid, and don't assume yours is the superior way.

I wonder how this well XP will run on qemu (5, Interesting)

I.M.Anonymous (864905) | more than 9 years ago | (#13189966)

I wonder how this well XP will run on qemu with all of those services turned off? There is very little I need from windows and I wonder if this would help with those final annoying things I need from windows at home.

Impractical, but with useful implications (4, Insightful)

Sv-Manowar (772313) | more than 9 years ago | (#13189974)

Obviously the final result, a dubiously functional installation is not really groundbreaking for end-users, but there's much to be said for turning off the many services that ship enabled as default with Windows XP to gain both the performance and security benefits. Knowing whats running, what it's doing, and whether its really neccessary is a good step towards maintaining a system which has a low attack profile and is reasonably secure.

Reminds me of the good old days... (4, Insightful)

jarich (733129) | more than 9 years ago | (#13189977)

In The Olden Days, you could install a Linux disto without 10,000 daemons running... ah, those were the days... Linux was noticably faster than Windows out of the box! ;)

Re:Reminds me of the good old days... (2, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190042)

You still can. Like with Windows XP, it's a matter of 'what can you do without?' Only with Linux, killing all the daemons won't keep you from logging off or shutting down... :)

Let me get this straigt (4, Funny)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 9 years ago | (#13189983)

So wait a minute...

Are they saying that, even without all that crap that normally get started...it still crashes?

Or is that not what they mean when they say Windows works?

Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13189994)

All the cool kids are using MacOS X these days...

So how about Mac OS-10.4? (4, Interesting)

ibn_khaldun (814417) | more than 9 years ago | (#13189996)

Anyone know what a similar exercise looks like for Mac OS-10.4? It is not, shall we say, exactly a speed demon and it would be nice to know what could be safely turned off when one is running CPU-intensive processes. Thanks.

Who gives a fsck about Windows? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13189998)

I run Linux and OS-X.

(Not to be rude, but really though.)

How about most people here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190012)

Taco already admits that most of the visitors are Windows users using MSIE.

You can even close explorer.exe... (5, Funny)

brxndxn (461473) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190001)

For running games, if you really care about it, you can CTRL ALT DEL and close explorer.exe. Then, run the game from the 'run' menu in Task Manager.

You probby won't notice any speed difference.. But your penis will be larger.

MOD PARENT DOWN!! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190044)

UNTRUE! I just tried his suggestion and it didn't work AT ALL!

Not just for games (1)

Plocmstart (718110) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190070)

I've done this when explorer decides to hang on doing something network-related (searching for a network drive that isn't logged on to begin with, just being slow in general, etc.). The bringing up the task manager then allows you to run, change, kill any other tasks without the annoyance of explorer. Of course you also lose your desktop and file explorer. Didn't know you could stop so many other things and maintain some usability though.

Re:You can even close explorer.exe... (1)

Neticulous (900423) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190074)

I was without a PC for a while, and had to use my friends slow laptop to play my games, some of them would only run decent when doing this, so if you dont have much memory, its a good trick to get things running faster!

It works what a great feeling! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190203)

thanks man! I have to put screenshot somewhere it is really bigger!

great point. (1)

LiquidMind (150126) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190006)

"The bottom line is that this stripped-down Windows configuration is not practical, but makes a cool demonstration of just how little of Windows is required for basic functionality."

that's kinda like saying why not drive in cars made from ~50 years ago. not very pratical, but they'll still get you from A to B.
...unfortunately, you can't sell a stripped-down version of Windows for $$$ as a collector's item.

Re:great point. (1)

Fizzog (600837) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190181)

"that's kinda like saying why not drive in cars made from ~50 years ago. not very pratical, but they'll still get you from A to B."

I would have no complaints about being forced to drive from A to B in a '55 T-bird or a '55 Chevy...

I think... (5, Insightful)

JonN (895435) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190008)

the majority of people reading this will not wonder even Internet Explorer will still work under such conditions but if Firefox will still work under such conditions

Not anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190016)

now that this is published, they'll fix that flaw before they fix the flaws that make it necessary to shut those services off in the first place.

Define "work" (0)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190023)

Sure it will operate, sort of. You can run a linux box with no daemons, either, but eventually shit will happen.

More non-news from the technical geniouses at /. "News for Newbies, Stuff everybody with a clue already knows"

Re:Define "work" (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190124)



"Sure it will operate, sort of. You can run a linux box with no daemons, either, but eventually shit will happen."

Well, I've got machines that are devoted to specific applications. One is dedicated to multitrack audio recording. Every little bit of performance or stability I can get out of that host is very valuable to me, and it only has to run one single application ever. Likewise, I have machines that serve a special purpose as musical instruments. This is one of the most CPU-intensive tasks I've ever crossed paths with. Again, even a very small gain in CPU performance or memory bandwidth is very valuable here as well.

In these situations, I am really, truly, not interested in any other applications. Maybe I'd like to have Explorer (not IE) running. And maybe enough of the networking devices to allow proxied web browsing. But that's about it, seriously.

I'll RTFA and try it on music rigs.

Re:Define "work" (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190209)

You will sacrifice stability, no doubt. Imagine a linux box without kflushd in the background. Eventually, unexpected power outage or something of the sort will trash the HDD irretrievably.

Services arent CPU intensive, they sit idle unless in use. No, you don't need the logon service, you can have it always log on as administrator, and never properly log off or shutdown - but again, eventually it'll shit upon itself.

No, like linux, all it needs is a kernel. You don't even need the GUI (Umm, DUHHHH - Recovery Mode anyone?) Thats enough to make your computer do something. The rest of the basic services/daemons do serve a purpose.

Now, out of the box, a lot of (usually) useless services are activated. But significant features of the operating system will not function without them. Want to join a domain? You need the appropriate services. Most commercial Linux distros install a shitload of daemons most people don't need. For instance, I don't need cron or syslog on some of my machines - but they're always there.

The cause of this isn't shitty programmers or conspiracy bullshit, it's because neither Microsoft nor Red Hat have the ability to read your mind and peer into the future to decide what you're going to do with the OS once installed.

This is such non-fucking-news. It's sad how newbie oriented /. has become.

Do I hear psHalo?? (1)

Se7enLC (714730) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190027)

We already had psDoom [sourceforge.net] ...

Do I hear psHalo??

Microsoft GA (4, Informative)

badmammajamma (171260) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190051)

Apparently Microsoft Genuine Advantage is one of the services you can disable.

you will not be a ble to turn them on again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13190059)

I remember before few years I have stoped some services and then I had problems, when I wanted to start it again they reported "no bla bla service started" that was stupid infinite circle!

fdisk solved the problem

Interesting (4, Interesting)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190060)

Interesting...so you can kill almost everything.

I wonder if you can automate that.

And then, I wonder if you can provide the functionality that goes missing by running your own services. Sort of subverting Windows from the inside, and giving you more control over it.

But then, I'm not that interested. I've got my control. Total control. Without having to wrestle it from Windows.

Emptiness (2, Interesting)

scaverdilly (902859) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190062)

A favorite sci-fi book from my youth had (something similar to) this to say ...

"As the scientist dug deeper into the structure of the atom, he found out that underneath the quarks, etc. there was nothing - just emptiness."

Seems to me that this applies in some way ... but it seems to vanish before I can grasp why .....

Optimization (3, Interesting)

Valacosa (863657) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190076)

I'd be more interested in selectively turning off services to make Windows as fast as possible.

I don't like how programmers bloat their programs; how the programs expand to fill the speed and HD capacity of the modern computer. I have half a mind to install DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.1 on my 1.2 GHz box. Fewer unnescessary services, and programs really will open instantly.

Speed is the very reason my default photo-editing client is Paint Shop Pro 4, not Photoshop Elements. Why the hell should I wait minutes for a program to load? What is this, 1980?

Uhhh (2, Insightful)

wbren (682133) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190084)

And, contrary to the expectations of various lead engineers at Microsoft, even Internet Explorer will still work under such conditions.
And that's...a good thing?

Twisted and Obscure (4, Insightful)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190092)

It just goes to show you how twisted and obscure Windows is. Even Microsoft's own people don't know how their operating system works. How can they expect to keep it reliable and virus free if they don't even understand what processes need to be running?

Re:Twisted and Obscure (1)

scaverdilly (902859) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190163)

Don't you mean "Twisted and Evil"?

Benchmarks (2, Interesting)

tacarat (696339) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190120)

Can this squeeze a few more frames per second out of my favorite games? How much RAM does this free up? As the user of an out of date laptop, I'd boot into a CLI if it meant it could significantly drop system requirements for best performance. I'm not enough of a penguin head to do it in Linux yet. (btw, I read the article and realize it's not practial, still a neat idea)

Has anyone tried the following? (1, Interesting)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190134)

On this same topic (sort of), has anyone tried stripping out Microsoft's own implementation of file/print sharing from Windows and running Samba instead under Windows? It seems like that would go a long way towards interoperability.

I used to do this (2, Insightful)

shawn443 (882648) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190137)

AT least when I was using w2k. Of course there was a lot of trial and error to determine what was needed and what was not. Many times those services were the equivalent of the startup folder. I did notice performance boosts at times, but these boosts were offset by the occasional quirks that would require 10 minutes or more to track down the needed service. Ultimately I realized the lack of documentation or at best the sparse KB articles combined with the intermittent problems negated any semi-worthwhile gains. Except for that damned messenger service, which I realized was necessary to disable long before Microsoft ever got around to it.

Eventually I discovered Linux, ps -aux, and all the documentation I could ever want and was happy.
Unequivocal control, now that's what I'm talking about.

Sysinternals > Microsoft (4, Informative)

TopSpin (753) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190151)

Sysinternals is teh r0ks0rz!

No, seriously. If you don't know this, they have a utility called "Process Explorer" for Win32. It's like top on steroids. Actually, its vastly better than top, or any other process monitor I've ever seen. It will show you pretty much everything there is to know about a running Windows process; file handles, TCP connections, you name it. Its small, fast, mercifully lacking a "setup" and free.

They've got a bunch of other stuff for Windows I now consider essential. Check them out.

I can generally get by with 4 (1)

justdrew (706141) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190155)

rpc, dcom, dhcp (not always needed), dns

There is another name for this: (0, Redundant)

Jailbrekr (73837) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190164)

SAFE MODE

Absolute best way to run windows without services (0, Redundant)

Nuttles1 (578165) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190195)

RUN LINUX

Windows services list (2)

MirrororriM (801308) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190198)

In the past, I've found this list [liutilities.com] to be very handy in figuring out which services are simply unnecessary. While I don't agree that you want to shut down *all* services (I wanted my USB key to work...stuff like that), You can shut down a LOT of unnecessary garbage to help speed up the system and boot time...not to mention make things a little more secure.

yeah, but who needs internet explorer? firefox... (1)

HelloKitty (71619) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190205)

yeah, but who needs internet explorer?
we all use firefox now right?

Sure but... (1)

ninja_assault_kitten (883141) | more than 9 years ago | (#13190206)

There's a difference between what will "work" and what will "work properly".

I could drive my car with no air conditioning (I'm in Florida) or seats but I wouldn't want to.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>