"Robert Macy" wrote in message

 

news:6d4ceee9-e780-4d91-99c7-526cf27d8edc@q36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

 

>On Jun 8, 10:06 pm, "glee" wrote:

 

>..snip..

 

>> On what hardware are you trying to run XP? If you try to run any

 

>> newer

 

>> OS on older hardware, you are going to see delays. What processor,

 

>> chipset, amount of RAM, and so forth, are you basing this

 

>> 'evaluation'?

 

>> I've never seen anything you describe using XP on adequate hardware.

 

>>

 

>> I have seen Win95/98 crawl on Win3x/DOS-capable hardware, and XP run

 

>> slow on hardware suitable for Win98 or 2K

 

>>

 

>

 

>True, the hardware is anemic, but look at what it takes to run Windows

 

>7 !!!!

 

>

 

>Just like long boot times are accepted, excessively high grade

 

>hardware is the norm. Just imagine what is possible with a bit of

 

>conscientious effort. Instead of booting in 40 seconds on excessively

 

>powerful hardware, it might be possible to boot in 1 second using

 

>'grotty' hardware.

 

 

 

My XP installation is not on the greatest hardware, yet it boots up as

 

fast as my Win98 system. Only the shutdown takes a little longer.

 

Again, it is your hardware.

 

 

 

The point is, you are going through this thread bemoaning the slowness

 

of XP, but you are running it on hardware not suited for it. It isn't

 

an issue of XP being slower, it's an issue of your deficient hardware.

 

 

 

Did you similarly complain because the bloated Win95 with all that eye

 

candy GUI was so slow to boot on your machine upgraded from Win3.x, with

 

a 200MB hard drive and 1MB RAM? Oh, excuse me, you could not have even

 

installed with 1MB RAM....so did you increase it to 4MB at great cost

 

and still have it crawl because it needed at least 8MB?

 

 

 

Most newer operating systems use more resources, and require hardware

 

upgrades, or even replacement. Is that your complaint? You could

 

always buy a Mac.....then you would have NO control over what hardware

 

you got, and pay a premium price for it too.

 

 

 

--

 

Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

A+

 

http://dts-l.net/

"Robert Macy" wrote in message

 

news:0db68647-af53-4bab-adf0-8aa959fcd98c@s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

 

> snip

 

>And as I said, THIS group has ALWAYS provided more, and more

 

>effective, help than the WinXP group.

 

 

 

LOL! Did you look at where this post is being read, Robert? It's being

 

crossposted to both the 98 general group AND the XP general group. Tim

 

and others are replying from the XP group...they don't hang out in the

 

98 group. You're getting your help from the folks in XP general,

 

despite what you might think.

 

--

 

Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

A+

 

http://dts-l.net/

"Robert Macy" wrote in message

 

news:0db68647-af53-4bab-adf0-8aa959fcd98c@s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

 

> snip

 

>And as I said, THIS group has ALWAYS provided more, and more

 

>effective, help than the WinXP group.

 

 

 

LOL! Did you look at where this post is being read, Robert? It's being

 

crossposted to both the 98 general group AND the XP general group. Tim

 

and others are replying from the XP group...they don't hang out in the

 

98 group. You're getting your help from the folks in XP general,

 

despite what you might think.

 

--

 

Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

A+

 

http://dts-l.net/

On 6/9/2010 1:24 AM, thanatoid wrote:

 

> "dadiOH" wrote in

 

> news:unJoaX0BLHA.5476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>> Note that I'm not a big XP fan - in fact, the only OS I

 

>> ever actually liked was NewDOS 80 - but I don't think it is

 

>> awful. I find it more reliable than the previous MS

 

>> offerings. I too decry the bloat (especially the forced

 

>> multi-user characteristic) but I understand the reason for

 

>> it...it allows even the most inept user the illusion of

 

>> computer literacy. If they actually had to understand

 

>> anything, how many computers do you think would be sold?

 

>> And if computers aren't sold, neither are over priced

 

>> operating systems.

 

 

 

 

 

True. You know the iPad takes this even further!

 

 

>

 

> No argument there... it's all about money... Or they would have

 

> gotten off their asses and written a brand new OS from scratch

 

> years ago... So much easier just to keep on bloating to the

 

> sound of bleating...

 

>

On 6/9/2010 1:24 AM, thanatoid wrote:

 

> "dadiOH" wrote in

 

> news:unJoaX0BLHA.5476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>> Note that I'm not a big XP fan - in fact, the only OS I

 

>> ever actually liked was NewDOS 80 - but I don't think it is

 

>> awful. I find it more reliable than the previous MS

 

>> offerings. I too decry the bloat (especially the forced

 

>> multi-user characteristic) but I understand the reason for

 

>> it...it allows even the most inept user the illusion of

 

>> computer literacy. If they actually had to understand

 

>> anything, how many computers do you think would be sold?

 

>> And if computers aren't sold, neither are over priced

 

>> operating systems.

 

 

 

 

 

True. You know the iPad takes this even further!

 

 

>

 

> No argument there... it's all about money... Or they would have

 

> gotten off their asses and written a brand new OS from scratch

 

> years ago... So much easier just to keep on bloating to the

 

> sound of bleating...

 

>

On Jun 9, 8:55 am, "glee" wrote:

 

> "Robert Macy" wrote in message

 

>

 

> news:0db68647-af53-4bab-adf0-8aa959fcd98c@s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

 

>

 

> > snip

 

> >And as I said, THIS group has ALWAYS provided more, and more

 

> >effective, help than the WinXP group.

 

>

 

> LOL!  Did you look at where this post is being read, Robert?  It's being

 

> crossposted to both the 98 general group AND the XP general group.  Tim

 

> and others are replying from the XP group...they don't hang out in the

 

> 98 group.  You're getting your help from the folks in XP general,

 

> despite what you might think.

 

> --

 

> Glen Ventura, MS MVP  Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

> A+http://dts-l.net/

 

 

 

ARRRGGG!!! just noticed it too! ...with face turned red

 

 

 

Now, where's that sauce to make my words taste better?

On Jun 9, 8:55 am, "glee" wrote:

 

> "Robert Macy" wrote in message

 

>

 

> news:0db68647-af53-4bab-adf0-8aa959fcd98c@s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

 

>

 

> > snip

 

> >And as I said, THIS group has ALWAYS provided more, and more

 

> >effective, help than the WinXP group.

 

>

 

> LOL!  Did you look at where this post is being read, Robert?  It's being

 

> crossposted to both the 98 general group AND the XP general group.  Tim

 

> and others are replying from the XP group...they don't hang out in the

 

> 98 group.  You're getting your help from the folks in XP general,

 

> despite what you might think.

 

> --

 

> Glen Ventura, MS MVP  Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

> A+http://dts-l.net/

 

 

 

ARRRGGG!!! just noticed it too! ...with face turned red

 

 

 

Now, where's that sauce to make my words taste better?

On Jun 9, 12:40 pm, Robert Macy wrote:

 

> On Jun 9, 8:55 am, "glee" wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > "Robert Macy" wrote in message

 

>

 

> >news:0db68647-af53-4bab-adf0-8aa959fcd98c@s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

 

>

 

> > > snip

 

> > >And as I said, THIS group has ALWAYS provided more, and more

 

> > >effective, help than the WinXP group.

 

>

 

> > LOL!  Did you look at where this post is being read, Robert?  It's being

 

> > crossposted to both the 98 general group AND the XP general group.  Tim

 

> > and others are replying from the XP group...they don't hang out in the

 

> > 98 group.  You're getting your help from the folks in XP general,

 

> > despite what you might think.

 

> > --

 

> > Glen Ventura, MS MVP  Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

> > A+http://dts-l.net/

 

>

 

> ARRRGGG!!!  just noticed it too! ...with face turned red

 

>

 

> Now, where's that sauce to make my words taste better?

 

 

 

Still using a CRT Monitor, too, no doubt?

 

All my Win 7 machines boot faster than my XP machine but I use an all

 

wireless network so I probably shouldn't say much about antiques.

 

PC Luddites.

On Jun 9, 12:40 pm, Robert Macy wrote:

 

> On Jun 9, 8:55 am, "glee" wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > "Robert Macy" wrote in message

 

>

 

> >news:0db68647-af53-4bab-adf0-8aa959fcd98c@s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

 

>

 

> > > snip

 

> > >And as I said, THIS group has ALWAYS provided more, and more

 

> > >effective, help than the WinXP group.

 

>

 

> > LOL!  Did you look at where this post is being read, Robert?  It's being

 

> > crossposted to both the 98 general group AND the XP general group.  Tim

 

> > and others are replying from the XP group...they don't hang out in the

 

> > 98 group.  You're getting your help from the folks in XP general,

 

> > despite what you might think.

 

> > --

 

> > Glen Ventura, MS MVP  Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

> > A+http://dts-l.net/

 

>

 

> ARRRGGG!!!  just noticed it too! ...with face turned red

 

>

 

> Now, where's that sauce to make my words taste better?

 

 

 

Still using a CRT Monitor, too, no doubt?

 

All my Win 7 machines boot faster than my XP machine but I use an all

 

wireless network so I probably shouldn't say much about antiques.

 

PC Luddites.

"apistomaster(nospam)" wrote in message

 

news:df0310cc-32fa-409b-9307-136a729e571a@v12g2000prb.googlegroups.com...

 

On Jun 9, 12:40 pm, Robert Macy wrote:

 

> On Jun 9, 8:55 am, "glee" wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > "Robert Macy" wrote in message

 

>

 

> >news:0db68647-af53-4bab-adf0-8aa959fcd98c@s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

 

>

 

> > > snip

 

> > >And as I said, THIS group has ALWAYS provided more, and more

 

> > >effective, help than the WinXP group.

 

>

 

> > LOL! Did you look at where this post is being read, Robert? It's

 

> > being

 

> > crossposted to both the 98 general group AND the XP general group.

 

> > Tim

 

> > and others are replying from the XP group...they don't hang out in

 

> > the

 

> > 98 group. You're getting your help from the folks in XP general,

 

> > despite what you might think.

 

> > --

 

> > Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

> > A+http://dts-l.net/

 

>

 

> ARRRGGG!!! just noticed it too! ...with face turned red

 

>

 

> Now, where's that sauce to make my words taste better?

 

 

 

Still using a CRT Monitor, too, no doubt?

 

All my Win 7 machines boot faster than my XP machine but I use an all

 

wireless network so I probably shouldn't say much about antiques.

 

PC Luddites.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Pity you don't have a newsreader, so you must post via Google Groups,

 

and using Quoted Printable as well, so quoted replies are fubar'd.

 

 

 

XP SP3 is still a supported OS under the MS Lifecycle. You think

 

because someone uses or supports an older OS that they don't also use

 

the newer ones? My Windows 7 system boots faster than XP, but not by a

 

lot....and the XP system is a multiple-boot so there's a delay added

 

from going through the third-party boot manager.

 

 

 

You think using ClearWire all-wireless makes you "progressive"? LOL!

 

It performs poorly in my area, with frequent down time as well.

 

Everyone I know who was using it has switched to cable internet for a

 

more reliable and high speed connection. "Antiques" has nothing to do

 

with it.

 

PC Elitists. -)

 

--

 

Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

A+

 

http://dts-l.net/

"Robert Macy" - It's no shame to have cross-posted to the WinXP group, it

 

was YOUR cleverness to have successfully got your answers by posting to

 

those groups YOU chose.

 

 

 

"glee" - I myself have a "Made for WinXP" XP-compliant PC, with Pentium4

 

and 512Mb RAM

 

 

 

Although it takes no time to boot to the Welcome screen, it does take an

 

age to logon to my profile.

 

 

 

Whereas Win98 had only relatively few Microsoft-originated background

 

applications / processes, nowadays, XP had bundles of them (background

 

processes).

 

 

 

....and seemingly more and more with every "Windows Update" and added

 

"Hotfix"!!

 

 

 

But, once going, as long as I respect what processes are

 

active and competing with the current user-focused application, we get

 

along just fine.

 

 

 

Even Microsoft admit that XP (and previous Win OSs) takes too long to boot,

 

as they addressed this very issue in the currently running advertisements

 

for Windows 7!

 

 

 

Windows will NEVER be as fast as some other computers and their operating

 

systems, but I will always prefer the "usability" of Windows, and the way I

 

can make it do the unorthodox in the way I want.

 

 

 

So, with home computers, it's a case of speed and "slickness" versus the

 

overall "versatility" of Windows (especially XP)!

 

 

 

==

 

 

 

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"glee" wrote in message

 

news:huod92$tok$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>

 

> < clipped >

 

>

 

>

On Jun 9, 6:55 pm, "Tim Meddick" wrote:

 

> "Robert Macy" - It's no shame to have cross-posted to the WinXP group, it

 

> was YOUR cleverness to have successfully got your answers by posting to

 

> those groups YOU chose.

 

>

 

> "glee" - I myself have a "Made for WinXP"  XP-compliant PC, with Pentium4

 

> and 512Mb RAM

 

>

 

> Although it takes no time to boot to the Welcome screen, it does take an

 

> age to logon to my profile.

 

>

 

> Whereas Win98 had only relatively few Microsoft-originated background

 

> applications / processes, nowadays, XP had bundles of them (background

 

> processes).

 

>

 

> ...and seemingly more and more with every "Windows Update" and added

 

> "Hotfix"!!

 

>

 

> But, once going, as long as I respect what processes are

 

> active and competing with the current user-focused application, we get

 

> along just fine.

 

>

 

> Even Microsoft admit that XP (and previous Win OSs) takes too long to boot,

 

> as they addressed this very issue in the currently running advertisements

 

> for Windows 7!

 

>

 

> Windows will NEVER be as fast as some other computers and their operating

 

> systems, but I will always prefer the "usability" of Windows, and the wayI

 

> can make it do the unorthodox in the way I want.

 

>

 

> So, with home computers, it's a case of speed and "slickness" versus the

 

> overall "versatility" of Windows (especially XP)!

 

>

 

> ==

 

>

 

> Cheers,    Tim Meddick,    Peckham, London.    :-)

 

>

 

> "glee" wrote in message

 

>

 

> news:huod92$tok$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > < clipped >

 

 

 

Windows 7 was my idea.

"Jose" wrote in message

 

news:4aae4ddc-95df-478b-9754-74d2a6352f06@c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

 

>

 

> >

 

> < clipped >

 

>

 

> Windows 7 was my idea.

 

 

 

ROTFL!

 

Man, I can't stand those commercials! :)

"Tim Meddick" wrote in message

 

news:O7O9dbCCLHA.3880@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

 

> snip

 

> "glee" - I myself have a "Made for WinXP" XP-compliant PC, with

 

> Pentium4 and 512Mb RAM

 

>

 

> Although it takes no time to boot to the Welcome screen, it does take

 

> an age to logon to my profile.

 

>

 

> Whereas Win98 had only relatively few Microsoft-originated background

 

> applications / processes, nowadays, XP had bundles of them (background

 

> processes).

 

>

 

> ...and seemingly more and more with every "Windows Update" and added

 

> "Hotfix"!!

 

> snip

 

 

 

If it takes an age to log onto your profile, it isn't because it's XP.

 

I work on a lot of XP systems regularly, including my own, with all

 

updates installed, no tweaking of services or anything out of the

 

ordinary, and the log-in is quick. I'm using a 1.58GHz Sempron 2300+

 

with 1GB RAM, but it originally had 512MB RAM with no appreciable

 

difference in log-in time. I think your long log-in time is coming

 

from elsewhere.

 

--

 

Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

A+

 

http://dts-l.net/

You don't think it's because of background processes loaded and you think

 

"think your long log-in time is coming from elsewhere"....

 

 

 

At this moment, all I have open is a CMD Prompt, 1 Internet Explorer window

 

and OE.

 

 

 

Here's a reproduction of the current output of Tasklist.exe on my machine :

 

 

 

 

 

Image Name PID Session Name Session# Mem Usage

 

========================= ====== ================

 

System Idle Process 0 Console 0 16 K

 

System 4 Console 0 44 K

 

smss.exe 612 Console 0 44 K

 

csrss.exe 688 Console 0 1,580 K

 

winlogon.exe 712 Console 0 3,012 K

 

services.exe 756 Console 0 1,580 K

 

lsass.exe 768 Console 0 1,680 K

 

svchost.exe 932 Console 0 1,580 K

 

svchost.exe 1052 Console 0 1,684 K

 

MsMpEng.exe 1120 Console 0 20,952 K

 

RapportMgmtService.exe 1176 Console 0 10,388 K

 

svchost.exe 1220 Console 0 23,756 K

 

svchost.exe 1304 Console 0 4,616 K

 

spoolsv.exe 1576 Console 0 1,324 K

 

svchost.exe 1748 Console 0 628 K

 

avgwdsvc.exe 1792 Console 0 2,556 K

 

svchost.exe 108 Console 0 1,560 K

 

jqs.exe 212 Console 0 1,388 K

 

SMAgent.exe 456 Console 0 48 K

 

svchost.exe 488 Console 0 2,084 K

 

avgrsx.exe 396 Console 0 176 K

 

timeserv.exe 320 Console 0 44 K

 

avgemc.exe 684 Console 0 656 K

 

avgcsrvx.exe 2072 Console 0 52 K

 

alg.exe 2584 Console 0 780 K

 

explorer.exe 3308 Console 0 12,968 K

 

RapportService.exe 3348 Console 0 22,076 K

 

BlueSoleil.exe 164 Console 0 2,776 K

 

avgtray.exe 276 Console 0 4,200 K

 

hkcmd.exe 436 Console 0 224 K

 

TaskSwitch.exe 2484 Console 0 1,680 K

 

MSASCui.exe 3824 Console 0 3,164 K

 

Monitor.exe 2720 Console 0 472 K

 

jusched.exe 2520 Console 0 52 K

 

LUNABAR.EXE 3876 Console 0 1,152 K

 

WZQKPICK.EXE 3568 Console 0 260 K

 

SAVER.EXE 4048 Console 0 496 K

 

ZOOM.EXE 3964 Console 0 280 K

 

PrvDisk.exe 1492 Console 0 388 K

 

tclock.exe 1476 Console 0 976 K

 

Diskmon.exe 2008 Console 0 2,348 K

 

CTFMON.EXE 1128 Console 0 460 K

 

CLOCK.EXE 2644 Console 0 492 K

 

UnlockerAssistant.exe 3244 Console 0 232 K

 

TimsMGR.exe 3452 Console 0 1,864 K

 

cmd.exe 2380 Console 0 1,080 K

 

ntvdm.exe 3792 Console 0 56 K

 

explorer.exe 3572 Console 0 1,732 K

 

msimn.exe 2708 Console 0 14,864 K

 

avgnsx.exe 1652 Console 0 348 K

 

iexplore.exe 3684 Console 0 10,852 K

 

mscorsvw.exe 6064 Console 0 736 K

 

cisvc.exe 3440 Console 0 124 K

 

cidaemon.exe 4532 Console 0 200 K

 

wuauclt.exe 2928 Console 0 2,260 K

 

ServiceLayer.exe 5120 Console 0 2,920 K

 

DATALAY.EXE 3712 Console 0 3,168 K

 

wmiprvse.exe 4996 Console 0 5,932 K

 

tasklist.exe 3272 Console 0 4,904 K

 

 

 

 

 

P.C. Details :

 

 

 

Fujitsu Siemens Computers Model: Scenic T (i845GL)

 

CPU = x86 Family 15 Model 1 Stepping 2 GenuineIntel ~1.7 GHz

 

BIOS = Phoenix Technologies Ltd. 4.06 Rev.1.03.1421 23/07/2002

 

Hardware Abstraction 5.1.2600.5512 (xpsp.080413-2111)

 

Total Physical Memory Available = 512.00 MB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

==

 

 

 

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"glee" wrote in message

 

news:hupbv0$sh2$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>

 

> < clipped >

On Jun 9, 8:53 pm, "Tim Meddick" wrote:

 

> You don't think it's because of background processes loaded and you think

 

> "think your long log-in time is coming from elsewhere"....

 

>

 

> At this moment, all I have open is a CMD Prompt, 1 Internet Explorer window

 

> and OE.

 

>

 

> Here's a reproduction of the current output of Tasklist.exe on my machine :

 

>

 

> Image Name                   PID Session Name     Session#    Mem Usage

 

> ========================= ====== ================

 

> System Idle Process            0 Console                 0         16 K

 

> System                         4 Console                 0         44 K

 

> smss.exe                     612 Console                 0         44 K

 

> csrss.exe                    688 Console                 0      1,580 K

 

> winlogon.exe                 712 Console                 0      3,012 K

 

> services.exe                 756 Console                 0      1,580 K

 

> lsass.exe                    768 Console                 0      1,680 K

 

> svchost.exe                  932 Console                 0      1,580 K

 

> svchost.exe                 1052 Console                 0      1,684 K

 

> MsMpEng.exe                 1120 Console                 0     20,952 K

 

> RapportMgmtService.exe      1176 Console                 0     10,388 K

 

> svchost.exe                 1220 Console                 0     23,756 K

 

> svchost.exe                 1304 Console                 0      4,616 K

 

> spoolsv.exe                 1576 Console                 0      1,324 K

 

> svchost.exe                 1748 Console                 0        628 K

 

> avgwdsvc.exe                1792 Console                 0      2,556 K

 

> svchost.exe                  108 Console                 0      1,560 K

 

> jqs.exe                      212 Console                 0      1,388 K

 

> SMAgent.exe                  456 Console                 0         48 K

 

> svchost.exe                  488 Console                 0      2,084 K

 

> avgrsx.exe                   396 Console                 0        176 K

 

> timeserv.exe                 320 Console                 0         44 K

 

> avgemc.exe                   684 Console                 0        656 K

 

> avgcsrvx.exe                2072 Console                 0         52 K

 

> alg.exe                     2584 Console                 0        780 K

 

> explorer.exe                3308 Console                 0     12,968 K

 

> RapportService.exe          3348 Console                 0     22,076 K

 

> BlueSoleil.exe               164 Console                 0      2,776 K

 

> avgtray.exe                  276 Console                 0      4,200 K

 

> hkcmd.exe                    436 Console                 0        224 K

 

> TaskSwitch.exe              2484 Console                 0      1,680 K

 

> MSASCui.exe                 3824 Console                 0      3,164 K

 

> Monitor.exe                 2720 Console                 0        472 K

 

> jusched.exe                 2520 Console                 0         52 K

 

> LUNABAR.EXE                 3876 Console                 0      1,152 K

 

> WZQKPICK.EXE                3568 Console                 0        260 K

 

> SAVER.EXE                   4048 Console                 0        496 K

 

> ZOOM.EXE                    3964 Console                 0        280 K

 

> PrvDisk.exe                 1492 Console                 0        388 K

 

> tclock.exe                  1476 Console                 0        976 K

 

> Diskmon.exe                 2008 Console                 0      2,348 K

 

> CTFMON.EXE                  1128 Console                 0        460 K

 

> CLOCK.EXE                   2644 Console                 0        492 K

 

> UnlockerAssistant.exe       3244 Console                 0        232 K

 

> TimsMGR.exe                 3452 Console                 0      1,864 K

 

> cmd.exe                     2380 Console                 0      1,080 K

 

> ntvdm.exe                   3792 Console                 0         56 K

 

> explorer.exe                3572 Console                 0      1,732 K

 

> msimn.exe                   2708 Console                 0     14,864 K

 

> avgnsx.exe                  1652 Console                 0        348 K

 

> iexplore.exe                3684 Console                 0     10,852 K

 

> mscorsvw.exe                6064 Console                 0        736 K

 

> cisvc.exe                   3440 Console                 0        124 K

 

> cidaemon.exe                4532 Console                 0        200 K

 

> wuauclt.exe                 2928 Console                 0      2,260 K

 

> ServiceLayer.exe            5120 Console                 0      2,920 K

 

> DATALAY.EXE                 3712 Console                 0      3,168 K

 

> wmiprvse.exe                4996 Console                 0      5,932 K

 

> tasklist.exe                3272 Console                 0      4,904 K

 

>

 

> P.C. Details :

 

>

 

> Fujitsu Siemens Computers   Model: Scenic T (i845GL)

 

> CPU = x86 Family 15 Model 1 Stepping 2 GenuineIntel ~1.7 GHz

 

> BIOS = Phoenix Technologies Ltd. 4.06 Rev.1.03.1421 23/07/2002

 

> Hardware Abstraction 5.1.2600.5512 (xpsp.080413-2111)

 

> Total Physical Memory Available = 512.00 MB

 

>

 

> ==

 

>

 

> Cheers,    Tim Meddick,    Peckham, London.    :-)

 

>

 

> "glee" wrote in message

 

>

 

> news:hupbv0$sh2$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > < clipped >

 

 

 

Here is mine:

 

 

 

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/6530/taskmanagerv.jpg

 

 

 

I will reduce your startup/login time.

 

 

 

My current rate is $1 per second of time decrease measured before and

 

after.

 

 

 

There is no charge for increases.

"Tim Meddick" wrote in message

 

news:esmvVdDCLHA.1072@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

 

>

 

> You don't think it's because of background processes loaded and you

 

> think "think your long log-in time is coming from elsewhere"....

 

>

 

> At this moment, all I have open is a CMD Prompt, 1 Internet Explorer

 

> window and OE.

 

>

 

> Here's a reproduction of the current output of Tasklist.exe on my

 

> machine :

 

>

 

>

 

> Image Name PID Session Name Session# Mem

 

> Usage

 

> ========================= ====== ================

 

> System Idle Process 0 Console 0 16

 

> K

 

> System 4 Console 0 44

 

> K

 

> smss.exe 612 Console 0 44

 

> K

 

> csrss.exe 688 Console 0 1,580

 

> K

 

> winlogon.exe 712 Console 0 3,012

 

> K

 

> services.exe 756 Console 0 1,580

 

> K

 

> lsass.exe 768 Console 0 1,680

 

> K

 

> svchost.exe 932 Console 0 1,580

 

> K

 

> svchost.exe 1052 Console 0 1,684

 

> K

 

> MsMpEng.exe 1120 Console 0 20,952

 

> K

 

> RapportMgmtService.exe 1176 Console 0 10,388

 

> K

 

> svchost.exe 1220 Console 0 23,756

 

> K

 

> svchost.exe 1304 Console 0 4,616

 

> K

 

> spoolsv.exe 1576 Console 0 1,324

 

> K

 

> svchost.exe 1748 Console 0 628

 

> K

 

> avgwdsvc.exe 1792 Console 0 2,556

 

> K

 

> svchost.exe 108 Console 0 1,560

 

> K

 

> jqs.exe 212 Console 0 1,388

 

> K

 

> SMAgent.exe 456 Console 0 48

 

> K

 

> svchost.exe 488 Console 0 2,084

 

> K

 

> avgrsx.exe 396 Console 0 176

 

> K

 

> timeserv.exe 320 Console 0 44

 

> K

 

> avgemc.exe 684 Console 0 656

 

> K

 

> avgcsrvx.exe 2072 Console 0 52

 

> K

 

> alg.exe 2584 Console 0 780

 

> K

 

> explorer.exe 3308 Console 0 12,968

 

> K

 

> RapportService.exe 3348 Console 0 22,076

 

> K

 

> BlueSoleil.exe 164 Console 0 2,776

 

> K

 

> avgtray.exe 276 Console 0 4,200

 

> K

 

> hkcmd.exe 436 Console 0 224

 

> K

 

> TaskSwitch.exe 2484 Console 0 1,680

 

> K

 

> MSASCui.exe 3824 Console 0 3,164

 

> K

 

> Monitor.exe 2720 Console 0 472

 

> K

 

> jusched.exe 2520 Console 0 52

 

> K

 

> LUNABAR.EXE 3876 Console 0 1,152

 

> K

 

> WZQKPICK.EXE 3568 Console 0 260

 

> K

 

> SAVER.EXE 4048 Console 0 496

 

> K

 

> ZOOM.EXE 3964 Console 0 280

 

> K

 

> PrvDisk.exe 1492 Console 0 388

 

> K

 

> tclock.exe 1476 Console 0 976

 

> K

 

> Diskmon.exe 2008 Console 0 2,348

 

> K

 

> CTFMON.EXE 1128 Console 0 460

 

> K

 

> CLOCK.EXE 2644 Console 0 492

 

> K

 

> UnlockerAssistant.exe 3244 Console 0 232

 

> K

 

> TimsMGR.exe 3452 Console 0 1,864

 

> K

 

> cmd.exe 2380 Console 0 1,080

 

> K

 

> ntvdm.exe 3792 Console 0 56

 

> K

 

> explorer.exe 3572 Console 0 1,732

 

> K

 

> msimn.exe 2708 Console 0 14,864

 

> K

 

> avgnsx.exe 1652 Console 0 348

 

> K

 

> iexplore.exe 3684 Console 0 10,852

 

> K

 

> mscorsvw.exe 6064 Console 0 736

 

> K

 

> cisvc.exe 3440 Console 0 124

 

> K

 

> cidaemon.exe 4532 Console 0 200

 

> K

 

> wuauclt.exe 2928 Console 0 2,260

 

> K

 

> ServiceLayer.exe 5120 Console 0 2,920

 

> K

 

> DATALAY.EXE 3712 Console 0 3,168

 

> K

 

> wmiprvse.exe 4996 Console 0 5,932

 

> K

 

> tasklist.exe 3272 Console 0 4,904

 

> K

 

>

 

> snip

 

 

 

LOL! Tim! Are you seriously going to discuss how XP runs all these

 

background processes, and that post a task list full of third-party

 

processes as proof?! Please tell me you are joking!

 

 

 

Every one of the processes I have copied below from your list are

 

third-party processes you have added (some are NT Resource Kit or XP

 

Power Toys processes), not XP processes:

 

 

 

RapportMgmtService.exe

 

timeserv.exe

 

RapportService.exe

 

BlueSoleil.exe

 

TaskSwitch.exe

 

Monitor.exe

 

LUNABAR.EXE

 

WZQKPICK.EXE

 

SAVER.EXE

 

ZOOM.EXE

 

PrvDisk.exe

 

tclock.exe

 

Diskmon.exe

 

CLOCK.EXE

 

UnlockerAssistant.exe

 

TimsMGR.exe

 

ServiceLayer.exe

 

DATALAY.EXE

 

 

 

NO WONDER you take so long to log on!

 

As I stated, it isn't from XP serives and processes.

 

 

 

These are AVG anti-virus processes:

 

avgwdsvc.exe

 

avgrsx.exe

 

avgemc.exe

 

avgcsrvx.exe

 

 

 

The only XP processes there that I would eliminate are cisvc.exe and

 

cidaemon.exe, and that is done by turning off Search Indexing.

 

 

 

Windows XP may run slowly and you may see multiple symptoms in Windows

 

Task Manager

 

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899869

 

 

 

Then you can right-click the C: in My Computer, then click Properties,

 

and uncheck "Allow indexing service to....."

 

 

 

Cheers!

 

--

 

Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

A+

 

http://dts-l.net/

Yes, some of those processes are of my own choosing...

 

 

 

Quick, aren't you!

 

 

 

However, the discussion was started with one of the topics being the

 

differences between XP and the Win98 OSes.

 

 

 

My tasklist for Win98 went something like :

 

 

 

systray.exe

 

explorer.exe

 

 

 

 

 

...and my tasklist for XP WITHOUT anything "custom" goes something like :

 

 

 

smss

 

csrss

 

winlogon

 

services

 

lsass

 

svchost

 

svchost

 

MsMpEng

 

svchost

 

svchost

 

spoolsv

 

svchost

 

avgwdsvc (I have to have some AV installed!)

 

svchost

 

jqs

 

SMAgent

 

svchost

 

avgrsx (more of the AV)

 

avgemc (and more AV)

 

avgcsrvx (yet more AV)

 

alg

 

explorer

 

avgtray (and more AV)

 

hkcmd

 

MSASCui

 

Monitor

 

jusched

 

CTFMON

 

Taskmgr

 

cmd

 

ntvdm

 

explorer

 

avgnsx (last bit of AV)

 

iexplore

 

mscorsvw

 

cisvc

 

cidaemon

 

wuauclt

 

ServiceLayer

 

wuauclt

 

 

 

==

 

 

 

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"glee" wrote in message

 

news:hupg1b$c50$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

> "Tim Meddick" wrote in message

 

> news:esmvVdDCLHA.1072@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

 

>>

 

>> You don't think it's because of background processes loaded and you

 

>> think "think your long log-in time is coming from elsewhere"....

 

>>

 

>> At this moment, all I have open is a CMD Prompt, 1 Internet Explorer

 

>> window and OE.

 

>>

 

>> Here's a reproduction of the current output of Tasklist.exe on my

 

>> machine :

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> Image Name PID Session Name Session# Mem Usage

 

>> ========================= ====== ================

 

>> System Idle Process 0 Console 0 16 K

 

>> System 4 Console 0 44 K

 

>> smss.exe 612 Console 0 44 K

 

>> csrss.exe 688 Console 0 1,580 K

 

>> winlogon.exe 712 Console 0 3,012 K

 

>> services.exe 756 Console 0 1,580 K

 

>> lsass.exe 768 Console 0 1,680 K

 

>> svchost.exe 932 Console 0 1,580 K

 

>> svchost.exe 1052 Console 0 1,684 K

 

>> MsMpEng.exe 1120 Console 0 20,952 K

 

>> RapportMgmtService.exe 1176 Console 0 10,388 K

 

>> svchost.exe 1220 Console 0 23,756 K

 

>> svchost.exe 1304 Console 0 4,616 K

 

>> spoolsv.exe 1576 Console 0 1,324 K

 

>> svchost.exe 1748 Console 0 628 K

 

>> avgwdsvc.exe 1792 Console 0 2,556 K

 

>> svchost.exe 108 Console 0 1,560 K

 

>> jqs.exe 212 Console 0 1,388 K

 

>> SMAgent.exe 456 Console 0 48 K

 

>> svchost.exe 488 Console 0 2,084 K

 

>> avgrsx.exe 396 Console 0 176 K

 

>> timeserv.exe 320 Console 0 44 K

 

>> avgemc.exe 684 Console 0 656 K

 

>> avgcsrvx.exe 2072 Console 0 52 K

 

>> alg.exe 2584 Console 0 780 K

 

>> explorer.exe 3308 Console 0 12,968 K

 

>> RapportService.exe 3348 Console 0 22,076 K

 

>> BlueSoleil.exe 164 Console 0 2,776 K

 

>> avgtray.exe 276 Console 0 4,200 K

 

>> hkcmd.exe 436 Console 0 224 K

 

>> TaskSwitch.exe 2484 Console 0 1,680 K

 

>> MSASCui.exe 3824 Console 0 3,164 K

 

>> Monitor.exe 2720 Console 0 472 K

 

>> jusched.exe 2520 Console 0 52 K

 

>> LUNABAR.EXE 3876 Console 0 1,152 K

 

>> WZQKPICK.EXE 3568 Console 0 260 K

 

>> SAVER.EXE 4048 Console 0 496 K

 

>> ZOOM.EXE 3964 Console 0 280 K

 

>> PrvDisk.exe 1492 Console 0 388 K

 

>> tclock.exe 1476 Console 0 976 K

 

>> Diskmon.exe 2008 Console 0 2,348 K

 

>> CTFMON.EXE 1128 Console 0 460 K

 

>> CLOCK.EXE 2644 Console 0 492 K

 

>> UnlockerAssistant.exe 3244 Console 0 232 K

 

>> TimsMGR.exe 3452 Console 0 1,864 K

 

>> cmd.exe 2380 Console 0 1,080 K

 

>> ntvdm.exe 3792 Console 0 56 K

 

>> explorer.exe 3572 Console 0 1,732 K

 

>> msimn.exe 2708 Console 0 14,864 K

 

>> avgnsx.exe 1652 Console 0 348 K

 

>> iexplore.exe 3684 Console 0 10,852 K

 

>> mscorsvw.exe 6064 Console 0 736 K

 

>> cisvc.exe 3440 Console 0 124 K

 

>> cidaemon.exe 4532 Console 0 200 K

 

>> wuauclt.exe 2928 Console 0 2,260 K

 

>> ServiceLayer.exe 5120 Console 0 2,920 K

 

>> DATALAY.EXE 3712 Console 0 3,168 K

 

>> wmiprvse.exe 4996 Console 0 5,932 K

 

>> tasklist.exe 3272 Console 0 4,904 K

 

>>

 

>> snip

 

>

 

> LOL! Tim! Are you seriously going to discuss how XP runs all these

 

> background processes, and that post a task list full of third-party

 

> processes as proof?! Please tell me you are joking!

 

>

 

> Every one of the processes I have copied below from your list are

 

> third-party processes you have added (some are NT Resource Kit or XP

 

> Power Toys processes), not XP processes:

 

>

 

> RapportMgmtService.exe

 

> timeserv.exe

 

> RapportService.exe

 

> BlueSoleil.exe

 

> TaskSwitch.exe

 

> Monitor.exe

 

> LUNABAR.EXE

 

> WZQKPICK.EXE

 

> SAVER.EXE

 

> ZOOM.EXE

 

> PrvDisk.exe

 

> tclock.exe

 

> Diskmon.exe

 

> CLOCK.EXE

 

> UnlockerAssistant.exe

 

> TimsMGR.exe

 

> ServiceLayer.exe

 

> DATALAY.EXE

 

>

 

> NO WONDER you take so long to log on!

 

> As I stated, it isn't from XP serives and processes.

 

>

 

> These are AVG anti-virus processes:

 

> avgwdsvc.exe

 

> avgrsx.exe

 

> avgemc.exe

 

> avgcsrvx.exe

 

>

 

> The only XP processes there that I would eliminate are cisvc.exe and

 

> cidaemon.exe, and that is done by turning off Search Indexing.

 

>

 

> Windows XP may run slowly and you may see multiple symptoms in Windows

 

> Task Manager

 

> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899869

 

>

 

> Then you can right-click the C: in My Computer, then click Properties,

 

> and uncheck "Allow indexing service to....."

 

>

 

> Cheers!

 

> --

 

> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

> A+

 

> http://dts-l.net/

 

>

OK...we'll top post.

 

 

 

1) You're still listing a few non-XP processes in your new list.

 

2) Win98 would have shown more than what you listed if you ran an

 

anti-virus and some other utilities shown in your XP list.

 

3) The "task list' from Ctrl+Alt+Del in Win98 did NOT show anywhere near

 

all processes that were actually running.

 

 

 

If you still have a Win98 installation (I do), run Process Explorer and

 

you will see the "real" task list, and it will show closer to the same

 

number of processes as a basic XP system...it will likely even show your

 

mscorsvw if you install .NET Framework on Win98.

 

 

 

 

 

Tim Meddick" wrote in message

 

news:ewqfSDECLHA.3880@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

 

> Yes, some of those processes are of my own choosing...

 

>

 

> Quick, aren't you!

 

>

 

> However, the discussion was started with one of the topics being the

 

> differences between XP and the Win98 OSes.

 

>

 

> My tasklist for Win98 went something like :

 

>

 

> systray.exe

 

> explorer.exe

 

>

 

>

 

> ..and my tasklist for XP WITHOUT anything "custom" goes something like

 

> :

 

>

 

> smss

 

> csrss

 

> winlogon

 

> services

 

> lsass

 

> svchost

 

> svchost

 

> MsMpEng

 

> svchost

 

> svchost

 

> spoolsv

 

> svchost

 

> avgwdsvc (I have to have some AV installed!)

 

> svchost

 

> jqs

 

> SMAgent

 

> svchost

 

> avgrsx (more of the AV)

 

> avgemc (and more AV)

 

> avgcsrvx (yet more AV)

 

> alg

 

> explorer

 

> avgtray (and more AV)

 

> hkcmd

 

> MSASCui

 

> Monitor

 

> jusched

 

> CTFMON

 

> Taskmgr

 

> cmd

 

> ntvdm

 

> explorer

 

> avgnsx (last bit of AV)

 

> iexplore

 

> mscorsvw

 

> cisvc

 

> cidaemon

 

> wuauclt

 

> ServiceLayer

 

> wuauclt

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> "glee" wrote in message

 

> news:hupg1b$c50$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>

 

>> LOL! Tim! Are you seriously going to discuss how XP runs all these

 

>> background processes, and that post a task list full of third-party

 

>> processes as proof?! Please tell me you are joking!

 

>>

 

>> Every one of the processes I have copied below from your list are

 

>> third-party processes you have added (some are NT Resource Kit or XP

 

>> Power Toys processes), not XP processes:

 

>>

 

>> RapportMgmtService.exe

 

>> timeserv.exe

 

>> RapportService.exe

 

>> BlueSoleil.exe

 

>> TaskSwitch.exe

 

>> Monitor.exe

 

>> LUNABAR.EXE

 

>> WZQKPICK.EXE

 

>> SAVER.EXE

 

>> ZOOM.EXE

 

>> PrvDisk.exe

 

>> tclock.exe

 

>> Diskmon.exe

 

>> CLOCK.EXE

 

>> UnlockerAssistant.exe

 

>> TimsMGR.exe

 

>> ServiceLayer.exe

 

>> DATALAY.EXE

 

>>

 

>> NO WONDER you take so long to log on!

 

>> As I stated, it isn't from XP serives and processes.

 

>>

 

>> These are AVG anti-virus processes:

 

>> avgwdsvc.exe

 

>> avgrsx.exe

 

>> avgemc.exe

 

>> avgcsrvx.exe

 

>>

 

>> The only XP processes there that I would eliminate are cisvc.exe and

 

>> cidaemon.exe, and that is done by turning off Search Indexing.

 

>>

 

>> Windows XP may run slowly and you may see multiple symptoms in

 

>> Windows Task Manager

 

>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899869

 

>>

 

>> Then you can right-click the C: in My Computer, then click

 

>> Properties, and uncheck "Allow indexing service to....."

 

>>

 

>> Cheers!

 

 

 

--

 

Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

A+

 

http://dts-l.net/

On Jun 9, 7:23 pm, "glee" wrote:

 

> OK...we'll top post.

 

>

 

> 1) You're still listing a few non-XP processes in your new list.

 

> 2) Win98 would have shown more than what you listed if you ran an

 

> anti-virus and some other utilities shown in your XP list.

 

> 3) The "task list' from Ctrl+Alt+Del in Win98 did NOT show anywhere near

 

> all processes that were actually running.

 

>

 

> If you still have a Win98 installation (I do), run Process Explorer and

 

> you will see the "real" task list, and it will show closer to the same

 

> number of processes as a basic XP system...it will likely even show your

 

> mscorsvw if you install .NET Framework on Win98.

 

>

 

> Tim Meddick" wrote in message

 

>

 

> news:ewqfSDECLHA.3880@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Yes, some of those processes are of my own choosing...

 

>

 

> > Quick, aren't you!

 

>

 

> > However, the discussion was started with one of the topics being the

 

> > differences between XP and the Win98 OSes.

 

>

 

> > My tasklist for Win98 went something like :

 

>

 

> > systray.exe

 

> > explorer.exe

 

>

 

> > ..and my tasklist for XP WITHOUT anything "custom" goes something like

 

> > :

 

>

 

> > smss

 

> > csrss

 

> > winlogon

 

> > services

 

> > lsass

 

> > svchost

 

> > svchost

 

> > MsMpEng

 

> > svchost

 

> > svchost

 

> > spoolsv

 

> > svchost

 

> > avgwdsvc (I have to have some AV installed!)

 

> > svchost

 

> > jqs

 

> > SMAgent

 

> > svchost

 

> > avgrsx (more of the AV)

 

> > avgemc (and more AV)

 

> > avgcsrvx (yet more AV)

 

> > alg

 

> > explorer

 

> > avgtray (and more AV)

 

> > hkcmd

 

> > MSASCui

 

> > Monitor

 

> > jusched

 

> > CTFMON

 

> > Taskmgr

 

> > cmd

 

> > ntvdm

 

> > explorer

 

> > avgnsx (last bit of AV)

 

> > iexplore

 

> > mscorsvw

 

> > cisvc

 

> > cidaemon

 

> > wuauclt

 

> > ServiceLayer

 

> > wuauclt

 

>

 

> > "glee" wrote in message

 

> >news:hupg1b$c50$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>

 

> >> LOL!  Tim!  Are you seriously going to discuss how XP runs all these

 

> >> background processes, and that post a task list full of third-party

 

> >> processes as proof?!   Please tell me you are joking!

 

>

 

> >> Every one of the processes I have copied below from your list are

 

> >> third-party processes you have added (some are NT Resource Kit or XP

 

> >> Power Toys processes), not XP processes:

 

>

 

> >> RapportMgmtService.exe

 

> >> timeserv.exe

 

> >> RapportService.exe

 

> >> BlueSoleil.exe

 

> >> TaskSwitch.exe

 

> >> Monitor.exe

 

> >> LUNABAR.EXE

 

> >> WZQKPICK.EXE

 

> >> SAVER.EXE

 

> >> ZOOM.EXE

 

> >> PrvDisk.exe

 

> >> tclock.exe

 

> >> Diskmon.exe

 

> >> CLOCK.EXE

 

> >> UnlockerAssistant.exe

 

> >> TimsMGR.exe

 

> >> ServiceLayer.exe

 

> >> DATALAY.EXE

 

>

 

> >> NO WONDER you take so long to log on!

 

> >> As I stated, it isn't from XP serives and processes.

 

>

 

> >> These are AVG anti-virus processes:

 

> >> avgwdsvc.exe

 

> >> avgrsx.exe

 

> >> avgemc.exe

 

> >> avgcsrvx.exe

 

>

 

> >> The only XP processes there that I would eliminate are cisvc.exe and

 

> >> cidaemon.exe, and that is done by turning off Search Indexing.

 

>

 

> >> Windows XP may run slowly and you may see multiple symptoms in

 

> >> Windows Task Manager

 

> >>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899869

 

>

 

> >> Then you can right-click the C: in My Computer, then click

 

> >> Properties, and uncheck "Allow indexing service to....."

 

>

 

> >> Cheers!

 

>

 

> --

 

> Glen Ventura, MS MVP  Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

> A+http://dts-l.net/

 

 

 

I found 4 different versions of Process Explorer previously downloaded

 

on this machine [Win98] one is labeled specifically for the WinXP

 

none of them appeared to do anything, so...

 

 

 

Process Explorer 11.3 software download - Windows - VersionTracker

 

Feb 16, 2006 ... Find Process Explorer downloads, reviews, and updates

 

for ... Windows XP Windows 2003 Windows 2000 Windows NT Windows

 

98 Windows 95 ...

 

http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/win/32005 -

 

 

 

downled that version, ran it, again, nothing what's it supposed to

 

do?

 

I did find an entry in the ctrl-alt-del listing showing procexplorer,

 

or such, was running, but other than that, nothing going on.

 

 

 

What is it supposed to do?

Robert Macy wrote:

 

> On Jun 9, 7:23 pm, "glee" wrote:

 

>

 

>>OK...we'll top post.

 

>>

 

>>1) You're still listing a few non-XP processes in your new list.

 

>>2) Win98 would have shown more than what you listed if you ran an

 

>>anti-virus and some other utilities shown in your XP list.

 

>>3) The "task list' from Ctrl+Alt+Del in Win98 did NOT show anywhere near

 

>>all processes that were actually running.

 

>>

 

>>If you still have a Win98 installation (I do), run Process Explorer and

 

>>you will see the "real" task list, and it will show closer to the same

 

>>number of processes as a basic XP system...it will likely even show your

 

>>mscorsvw if you install .NET Framework on Win98.

 

>>

 

>>Tim Meddick" wrote in message

 

>>

 

>>news:ewqfSDECLHA.3880@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

 

>>

 

>>

 

>>

 

>>

 

>>

 

>>

 

>>>Yes, some of those processes are of my own choosing...

 

>>

 

>>>Quick, aren't you!

 

>>

 

>>>However, the discussion was started with one of the topics being the

 

>>>differences between XP and the Win98 OSes.

 

>>

 

>>>My tasklist for Win98 went something like :

 

>>

 

>>>systray.exe

 

>>>explorer.exe

 

>>

 

>>>..and my tasklist for XP WITHOUT anything "custom" goes something like

 

>>>:

 

>>

 

>>>smss

 

>>>csrss

 

>>>winlogon

 

>>>services

 

>>>lsass

 

>>>svchost

 

>>>svchost

 

>>>MsMpEng

 

>>>svchost

 

>>>svchost

 

>>>spoolsv

 

>>>svchost

 

>>>avgwdsvc (I have to have some AV installed!)

 

>>>svchost

 

>>>jqs

 

>>>SMAgent

 

>>>svchost

 

>>>avgrsx (more of the AV)

 

>>>avgemc (and more AV)

 

>>>avgcsrvx (yet more AV)

 

>>>alg

 

>>>explorer

 

>>>avgtray (and more AV)

 

>>>hkcmd

 

>>>MSASCui

 

>>>Monitor

 

>>>jusched

 

>>>CTFMON

 

>>>Taskmgr

 

>>>cmd

 

>>>ntvdm

 

>>>explorer

 

>>>avgnsx (last bit of AV)

 

>>>iexplore

 

>>>mscorsvw

 

>>>cisvc

 

>>>cidaemon

 

>>>wuauclt

 

>>>ServiceLayer

 

>>>wuauclt

 

>>

 

>>>"glee" wrote in message

 

>>>news:hupg1b$c50$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>

 

>>>>LOL! Tim! Are you seriously going to discuss how XP runs all these

 

>>>>background processes, and that post a task list full of third-party

 

>>>>processes as proof?! Please tell me you are joking!

 

>>

 

>>>>Every one of the processes I have copied below from your list are

 

>>>>third-party processes you have added (some are NT Resource Kit or XP

 

>>>>Power Toys processes), not XP processes:

 

>>

 

>>>>RapportMgmtService.exe

 

>>>>timeserv.exe

 

>>>>RapportService.exe

 

>>>>BlueSoleil.exe

 

>>>>TaskSwitch.exe

 

>>>>Monitor.exe

 

>>>>LUNABAR.EXE

 

>>>>WZQKPICK.EXE

 

>>>>SAVER.EXE

 

>>>>ZOOM.EXE

 

>>>>PrvDisk.exe

 

>>>>tclock.exe

 

>>>>Diskmon.exe

 

>>>>CLOCK.EXE

 

>>>>UnlockerAssistant.exe

 

>>>>TimsMGR.exe

 

>>>>ServiceLayer.exe

 

>>>>DATALAY.EXE

 

>>

 

>>>>NO WONDER you take so long to log on!

 

>>>>As I stated, it isn't from XP serives and processes.

 

>>

 

>>>>These are AVG anti-virus processes:

 

>>>>avgwdsvc.exe

 

>>>>avgrsx.exe

 

>>>>avgemc.exe

 

>>>>avgcsrvx.exe

 

>>

 

>>>>The only XP processes there that I would eliminate are cisvc.exe and

 

>>>>cidaemon.exe, and that is done by turning off Search Indexing.

 

>>

 

>>>>Windows XP may run slowly and you may see multiple symptoms in

 

>>>>Windows Task Manager

 

>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899869

 

>>

 

>>>>Then you can right-click the C: in My Computer, then click

 

>>>>Properties, and uncheck "Allow indexing service to....."

 

>>

 

>>>>Cheers!

 

>>

 

>>--

 

>>Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

>>A+http://dts-l.net/

 

>

 

>

 

> I found 4 different versions of Process Explorer previously downloaded

 

> on this machine [Win98] one is labeled specifically for the WinXP

 

> none of them appeared to do anything, so...

 

>

 

> Process Explorer 11.3 software download - Windows - VersionTracker

 

> Feb 16, 2006 ... Find Process Explorer downloads, reviews, and updates

 

> for ... Windows XP Windows 2003 Windows 2000 Windows NT Windows

 

> 98 Windows 95 ...

 

> http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/win/32005 -

 

>

 

> downled that version, ran it, again, nothing what's it supposed to

 

> do?

 

> I did find an entry in the ctrl-alt-del listing showing procexplorer,

 

> or such, was running, but other than that, nothing going on.

 

>

 

> What is it supposed to do?

 

 

 

See here

 

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx

On Jun 9, 3:39 pm, "glee" wrote:

 

> "apistomaster(nospam)" wrote in message

 

>

 

> news:df0310cc-32fa-409b-9307-136a729e571a@v12g2000prb.googlegroups.com...

 

> On Jun 9, 12:40 pm, Robert Macy wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > On Jun 9, 8:55 am, "glee" wrote:

 

>

 

> > > "Robert Macy" wrote in message

 

>

 

> > >news:0db68647-af53-4bab-adf0-8aa959fcd98c@s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com....

 

>

 

> > > > snip

 

> > > >And as I said, THIS group has ALWAYS provided more, and more

 

> > > >effective, help than the WinXP group.

 

>

 

> > > LOL! Did you look at where this post is being read, Robert? It's

 

> > > being

 

> > > crossposted to both the 98 general group AND the XP general group.

 

> > > Tim

 

> > > and others are replying from the XP group...they don't hang out in

 

> > > the

 

> > > 98 group. You're getting your help from the folks in XP general,

 

> > > despite what you might think.

 

> > > --

 

> > > Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

> > > A+http://dts-l.net/

 

>

 

> > ARRRGGG!!! just noticed it too! ...with face turned red

 

>

 

> > Now, where's that sauce to make my words taste better?

 

>

 

> Still using a CRT Monitor, too, no doubt?

 

> All my Win 7 machines boot faster than my XP machine but I use an all

 

> wireless network so I probably shouldn't say much about antiques.

 

> PC Luddites.

 

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

>

 

> Pity you don't have a newsreader, so you must post via Google Groups,

 

> and using Quoted Printable as well, so quoted replies are fubar'd.

 

>

 

> XP SP3 is still a supported OS under the MS Lifecycle.  You think

 

> because someone uses or supports an older OS that they don't also use

 

> the newer ones?  My Windows 7 system boots faster than XP, but not by a

 

> lot....and the XP system is a multiple-boot so there's a delay added

 

> from going through the third-party boot manager.

 

>

 

> You think using ClearWire all-wireless makes you "progressive"?  LOL!

 

> It performs poorly in my area, with frequent down time as well.

 

> Everyone I know who was using it has switched to cable internet for a

 

> more reliable and high speed connection.  "Antiques" has nothing to do

 

> with it.

 

> PC Elitists.  -)

 

> --

 

> Glen Ventura, MS MVP  Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

> A+http://dts-l.net/

 

 

 

Dear Glen,

 

Over about 6 years I have posted less than 10 times so I never

 

bothered to set up the newsreader. Where I live, there are only 3

 

choices for ISP's.

 

1. clearwire.net not to be confused with clear.com, the erratic, short

 

range high speed wireless service which is not available here.

 

I was not clear. I run all 3 PC's on a home wireless network using

 

a dual channel("G" and "N") wireless router which keeps up with the

 

input and doesn't

 

drop the internet connection. I get clearwire's highest speed

 

package at their lowest speed price and I have never had any problem

 

with them.

 

Service is much it cheaper by far than Qwest and Cableone.

 

2. Qwest Only marginally faster speeds are available here but at a

 

much higher price than my present deal with clearwire.

 

3. Cableone By far the fastest available speeds in the area. But it is

 

the cable company, I do not like the way they do business and they

 

charge much more for

 

the same speed I am getting from clearwire. Ever try to negotiate

 

with a cable company? They can double my speed for almost 4 times the

 

price. As long as

 

.video streams I can afford to wait for clearwire to increase it's

 

local speeds.

 

 

 

In any case, I always enjoyed this newsgroup. It never fails to

 

entertain and I have learned a lot about XP from subscribing to this

 

group. I expected the curiously sarcastic style many use in their

 

answers so I don't think I was far from the norm by basically saying

 

better results are to be had by upgrading one's hard and software as

 

things evolve. I imagine it must be cool to be writing an extra $60 a

 

month to the cable company for truly fast internet speeds but what I

 

have beats dial up about 10 times over. I will miss this group if for

 

some reason it doesn't survive the changes because my ISP doesn't

 

somehow stay connected to one of the alternative providers. At least

 

I've never cross posted or top posted things that seem to bring out

 

the little biters.

You reckon I'll find a comparable number of running processes in Win98

 

installation, do you?

 

 

 

Well, I'll give that a try, I have a W98 installation running as in M$

 

Virtual PC.

 

 

 

But, as it's getting late, I will try that on the morrow.

 

 

 

BTW - I read the post by "Robert Macy" - will my copy of Process Explorer

 

run under Win98?

 

 

 

Or do I need another version - was a bit hazy about what he wrote, but

 

seemed to be having some problems...

 

 

 

==

 

 

 

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"glee" wrote in message

 

news:hupibm$k7p$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

> OK...we'll top post.

 

>

 

> 1) You're still listing a few non-XP processes in your new list.

 

> 2) Win98 would have shown more than what you listed if you ran an

 

> anti-virus and some other utilities shown in your XP list.

 

> 3) The "task list' from Ctrl+Alt+Del in Win98 did NOT show anywhere near

 

> all processes that were actually running.

 

>

 

> If you still have a Win98 installation (I do), run Process Explorer and

 

> you will see the "real" task list, and it will show closer to the same

 

> number of processes as a basic XP system...it will likely even show your

 

> mscorsvw if you install .NET Framework on Win98.

 

>

 

>

 

> Tim Meddick" wrote in message

 

> news:ewqfSDECLHA.3880@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

 

>> Yes, some of those processes are of my own choosing...

 

>>

 

>> Quick, aren't you!

 

>>

 

>> However, the discussion was started with one of the topics being the

 

>> differences between XP and the Win98 OSes.

 

>>

 

>> My tasklist for Win98 went something like :

 

>>

 

>> systray.exe

 

>> explorer.exe

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> ..and my tasklist for XP WITHOUT anything "custom" goes something like :

 

>>

 

>> smss

 

>> csrss

 

>> winlogon

 

>> services

 

>> lsass

 

>> svchost

 

>> svchost

 

>> MsMpEng

 

>> svchost

 

>> svchost

 

>> spoolsv

 

>> svchost

 

>> avgwdsvc (I have to have some AV installed!)

 

>> svchost

 

>> jqs

 

>> SMAgent

 

>> svchost

 

>> avgrsx (more of the AV)

 

>> avgemc (and more AV)

 

>> avgcsrvx (yet more AV)

 

>> alg

 

>> explorer

 

>> avgtray (and more AV)

 

>> hkcmd

 

>> MSASCui

 

>> Monitor

 

>> jusched

 

>> CTFMON

 

>> Taskmgr

 

>> cmd

 

>> ntvdm

 

>> explorer

 

>> avgnsx (last bit of AV)

 

>> iexplore

 

>> mscorsvw

 

>> cisvc

 

>> cidaemon

 

>> wuauclt

 

>> ServiceLayer

 

>> wuauclt

 

>>

 

>>

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> "glee" wrote in message

 

>> news:hupg1b$c50$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>

 

>>> LOL! Tim! Are you seriously going to discuss how XP runs all these

 

>>> background processes, and that post a task list full of third-party

 

>>> processes as proof?! Please tell me you are joking!

 

>>>

 

>>> Every one of the processes I have copied below from your list are

 

>>> third-party processes you have added (some are NT Resource Kit or XP

 

>>> Power Toys processes), not XP processes:

 

>>>

 

>>> RapportMgmtService.exe

 

>>> timeserv.exe

 

>>> RapportService.exe

 

>>> BlueSoleil.exe

 

>>> TaskSwitch.exe

 

>>> Monitor.exe

 

>>> LUNABAR.EXE

 

>>> WZQKPICK.EXE

 

>>> SAVER.EXE

 

>>> ZOOM.EXE

 

>>> PrvDisk.exe

 

>>> tclock.exe

 

>>> Diskmon.exe

 

>>> CLOCK.EXE

 

>>> UnlockerAssistant.exe

 

>>> TimsMGR.exe

 

>>> ServiceLayer.exe

 

>>> DATALAY.EXE

 

>>>

 

>>> NO WONDER you take so long to log on!

 

>>> As I stated, it isn't from XP serives and processes.

 

>>>

 

>>> These are AVG anti-virus processes:

 

>>> avgwdsvc.exe

 

>>> avgrsx.exe

 

>>> avgemc.exe

 

>>> avgcsrvx.exe

 

>>>

 

>>> The only XP processes there that I would eliminate are cisvc.exe and

 

>>> cidaemon.exe, and that is done by turning off Search Indexing.

 

>>>

 

>>> Windows XP may run slowly and you may see multiple symptoms in Windows

 

>>> Task Manager

 

>>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899869

 

>>>

 

>>> Then you can right-click the C: in My Computer, then click Properties,

 

>>> and uncheck "Allow indexing service to....."

 

>>>

 

>>> Cheers!

 

>

 

> --

 

> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

> A+

 

> http://dts-l.net/

 

>

On Jun 10, 11:59 am, Bob I wrote:

 

> Robert Macy wrote:

 

> > On Jun 9, 7:23 pm, "glee" wrote:

 

>

 

> >>OK...we'll top post.

 

>

 

> >>1) You're still listing a few non-XP processes in your new list.

 

> >>2) Win98 would have shown more than what you listed if you ran an

 

> >>anti-virus and some other utilities shown in your XP list.

 

> >>3) The "task list' from Ctrl+Alt+Del in Win98 did NOT show anywhere near

 

> >>all processes that were actually running.

 

>

 

> >>If you still have a Win98 installation (I do), run Process Explorer and

 

> >>you will see the "real" task list, and it will show closer to the same

 

> >>number of processes as a basic XP system...it will likely even show your

 

> >>mscorsvw if you install .NET Framework on Win98.

 

>

 

> >>Tim Meddick" wrote in message

 

>

 

> >>news:ewqfSDECLHA.3880@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

 

>

 

> >>>Yes, some of those processes are of my own choosing...

 

>

 

> >>>Quick, aren't you!

 

>

 

> >>>However, the discussion was started with one of the topics being the

 

> >>>differences between XP and the Win98 OSes.

 

>

 

> >>>My tasklist for Win98 went something like :

 

>

 

> >>>systray.exe

 

> >>>explorer.exe

 

>

 

> >>>..and my tasklist for XP WITHOUT anything "custom" goes something like

 

> >>>:

 

>

 

> >>>smss

 

> >>>csrss

 

> >>>winlogon

 

> >>>services

 

> >>>lsass

 

> >>>svchost

 

> >>>svchost

 

> >>>MsMpEng

 

> >>>svchost

 

> >>>svchost

 

> >>>spoolsv

 

> >>>svchost

 

> >>>avgwdsvc (I have to have some AV installed!)

 

> >>>svchost

 

> >>>jqs

 

> >>>SMAgent

 

> >>>svchost

 

> >>>avgrsx (more of the AV)

 

> >>>avgemc (and more AV)

 

> >>>avgcsrvx (yet more AV)

 

> >>>alg

 

> >>>explorer

 

> >>>avgtray (and more AV)

 

> >>>hkcmd

 

> >>>MSASCui

 

> >>>Monitor

 

> >>>jusched

 

> >>>CTFMON

 

> >>>Taskmgr

 

> >>>cmd

 

> >>>ntvdm

 

> >>>explorer

 

> >>>avgnsx (last bit of AV)

 

> >>>iexplore

 

> >>>mscorsvw

 

> >>>cisvc

 

> >>>cidaemon

 

> >>>wuauclt

 

> >>>ServiceLayer

 

> >>>wuauclt

 

>

 

> >>>"glee" wrote in message

 

> >>>news:hupg1b$c50$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>

 

> >>>>LOL!  Tim!  Are you seriously going to discuss how XP runs all these

 

> >>>>background processes, and that post a task list full of third-party

 

> >>>>processes as proof?!   Please tell me you are joking!

 

>

 

> >>>>Every one of the processes I have copied below from your list are

 

> >>>>third-party processes you have added (some are NT Resource Kit or XP

 

> >>>>Power Toys processes), not XP processes:

 

>

 

> >>>>RapportMgmtService.exe

 

> >>>>timeserv.exe

 

> >>>>RapportService.exe

 

> >>>>BlueSoleil.exe

 

> >>>>TaskSwitch.exe

 

> >>>>Monitor.exe

 

> >>>>LUNABAR.EXE

 

> >>>>WZQKPICK.EXE

 

> >>>>SAVER.EXE

 

> >>>>ZOOM.EXE

 

> >>>>PrvDisk.exe

 

> >>>>tclock.exe

 

> >>>>Diskmon.exe

 

> >>>>CLOCK.EXE

 

> >>>>UnlockerAssistant.exe

 

> >>>>TimsMGR.exe

 

> >>>>ServiceLayer.exe

 

> >>>>DATALAY.EXE

 

>

 

> >>>>NO WONDER you take so long to log on!

 

> >>>>As I stated, it isn't from XP serives and processes.

 

>

 

> >>>>These are AVG anti-virus processes:

 

> >>>>avgwdsvc.exe

 

> >>>>avgrsx.exe

 

> >>>>avgemc.exe

 

> >>>>avgcsrvx.exe

 

>

 

> >>>>The only XP processes there that I would eliminate are cisvc.exe and

 

> >>>>cidaemon.exe, and that is done by turning off Search Indexing.

 

>

 

> >>>>Windows XP may run slowly and you may see multiple symptoms in

 

> >>>>Windows Task Manager

 

> >>>>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899869

 

>

 

> >>>>Then you can right-click the C: in My Computer, then click

 

> >>>>Properties, and uncheck "Allow indexing service to....."

 

>

 

> >>>>Cheers!

 

>

 

> >>--

 

> >>Glen Ventura, MS MVP  Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

> >>A+http://dts-l.net/

 

>

 

> > I found 4 different versions of Process Explorer previously downloaded

 

> > on this machine [Win98] one is labeled specifically for the WinXP

 

> > none of them appeared to do anything, so...

 

>

 

> > Process Explorer 11.3 software download - Windows - VersionTracker

 

> > Feb 16, 2006 ... Find Process Explorer downloads, reviews, and updates

 

> > for ... Windows XP Windows 2003 Windows 2000 Windows NT Windows

 

> > 98 Windows 95 ...

 

> >http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/win/32005-

 

>

 

> > downled that version, ran it, again, nothing  what's it supposed to

 

> > do?

 

> > I did find an entry in the ctrl-alt-del listing showing procexplorer,

 

> > or such, was running, but other than that, nothing going on.

 

>

 

> > What is it supposed to do?

 

>

 

> See herehttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx

 

 

 

nice pictures, but that version runs on WinXP and higher, doesn't run

 

on Win98

Tim,

 

 

 

If the email addy you are using here is legit, I can email you a .zip

 

file with an older version of Process Explorer that works with Win98.

 

 

 

--

 

Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

A+

 

http://dts-l.net/

 

 

 

 

 

"Tim Meddick" wrote in message

 

news:OT%23J7xOCLHA.5808@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

 

>

 

> You reckon I'll find a comparable number of running processes in Win98

 

> installation, do you?

 

>

 

> Well, I'll give that a try, I have a W98 installation running as in M$

 

> Virtual PC.

 

>

 

> But, as it's getting late, I will try that on the morrow.

 

>

 

> BTW - I read the post by "Robert Macy" - will my copy of Process

 

> Explorer run under Win98?

 

>

 

> Or do I need another version - was a bit hazy about what he wrote, but

 

> seemed to be having some problems...

 

>

 

> ==

 

>

 

> Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> "glee" wrote in message

 

> news:hupibm$k7p$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>> OK...we'll top post.

 

>>

 

>> 1) You're still listing a few non-XP processes in your new list.

 

>> 2) Win98 would have shown more than what you listed if you ran an

 

>> anti-virus and some other utilities shown in your XP list.

 

>> 3) The "task list' from Ctrl+Alt+Del in Win98 did NOT show anywhere

 

>> near all processes that were actually running.

 

>>

 

>> If you still have a Win98 installation (I do), run Process Explorer

 

>> and you will see the "real" task list, and it will show closer to the

 

>> same number of processes as a basic XP system...it will likely even

 

>> show your mscorsvw if you install .NET Framework on Win98.

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> Tim Meddick" wrote in message

 

>> news:ewqfSDECLHA.3880@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

 

>>> Yes, some of those processes are of my own choosing...

 

>>>

 

>>> Quick, aren't you!

 

>>>

 

>>> However, the discussion was started with one of the topics being the

 

>>> differences between XP and the Win98 OSes.

 

>>>

 

>>> My tasklist for Win98 went something like :

 

>>>

 

>>> systray.exe

 

>>> explorer.exe

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> ..and my tasklist for XP WITHOUT anything "custom" goes something

 

>>> like :

 

>>>

 

>>> smss

 

>>> csrss

 

>>> winlogon

 

>>> services

 

>>> lsass

 

>>> svchost

 

>>> svchost

 

>>> MsMpEng

 

>>> svchost

 

>>> svchost

 

>>> spoolsv

 

>>> svchost

 

>>> avgwdsvc (I have to have some AV installed!)

 

>>> svchost

 

>>> jqs

 

>>> SMAgent

 

>>> svchost

 

>>> avgrsx (more of the AV)

 

>>> avgemc (and more AV)

 

>>> avgcsrvx (yet more AV)

 

>>> alg

 

>>> explorer

 

>>> avgtray (and more AV)

 

>>> hkcmd

 

>>> MSASCui

 

>>> Monitor

 

>>> jusched

 

>>> CTFMON

 

>>> Taskmgr

 

>>> cmd

 

>>> ntvdm

 

>>> explorer

 

>>> avgnsx (last bit of AV)

 

>>> iexplore

 

>>> mscorsvw

 

>>> cisvc

 

>>> cidaemon

 

>>> wuauclt

 

>>> ServiceLayer

 

>>> wuauclt

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> "glee" wrote in message

 

>>> news:hupg1b$c50$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>

 

>>>> LOL! Tim! Are you seriously going to discuss how XP runs all

 

>>>> these background processes, and that post a task list full of

 

>>>> third-party processes as proof?! Please tell me you are joking!

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Every one of the processes I have copied below from your list are

 

>>>> third-party processes you have added (some are NT Resource Kit or

 

>>>> XP Power Toys processes), not XP processes:

 

>>>>

 

>>>> RapportMgmtService.exe

 

>>>> timeserv.exe

 

>>>> RapportService.exe

 

>>>> BlueSoleil.exe

 

>>>> TaskSwitch.exe

 

>>>> Monitor.exe

 

>>>> LUNABAR.EXE

 

>>>> WZQKPICK.EXE

 

>>>> SAVER.EXE

 

>>>> ZOOM.EXE

 

>>>> PrvDisk.exe

 

>>>> tclock.exe

 

>>>> Diskmon.exe

 

>>>> CLOCK.EXE

 

>>>> UnlockerAssistant.exe

 

>>>> TimsMGR.exe

 

>>>> ServiceLayer.exe

 

>>>> DATALAY.EXE

 

>>>>

 

>>>> NO WONDER you take so long to log on!

 

>>>> As I stated, it isn't from XP serives and processes.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> These are AVG anti-virus processes:

 

>>>> avgwdsvc.exe

 

>>>> avgrsx.exe

 

>>>> avgemc.exe

 

>>>> avgcsrvx.exe

 

>>>>

 

>>>> The only XP processes there that I would eliminate are cisvc.exe

 

>>>> and cidaemon.exe, and that is done by turning off Search Indexing.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Windows XP may run slowly and you may see multiple symptoms in

 

>>>> Windows Task Manager

 

>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899869

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Then you can right-click the C: in My Computer, then click

 

>>>> Properties, and uncheck "Allow indexing service to....."

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Cheers!

 

>>

 

>> --

 

>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

>> A+

 

>> http://dts-l.net/

 

>>

 

>