So many processes running at once...are they all necessary?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by WF, Apr 12, 2006.

  1. WF

    WF Guest

    I'm a newb to computers, for the most part, and was wondering why my
    machine needs so many processes running. I have 30 running now and I
    find it hard to believe that the machine needs them all. I had assumed
    that I had a fairly simple setup. I have lost a lot of speed,
    especially when saving anything to disc. A friend, in passing,
    mentioned that I should keep my system tray fairly empty and to check
    the number of processes running at one time. Is there somewhere I can
    find out what these processes actually do? Only a few seem to tell you
    what they are for in their truncated name. Any help will be greatly
    WF, Apr 12, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. WF

    daykin Guest

    i got mine down to 28...........but 30 seems to be good if u can get away
    with it
    daykin, Apr 12, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. WF

    Ingeborg Guest

    30 processes is not extremely much. Process Explorer <>
    can give you more information about what these processes are.
    Ingeborg, Apr 12, 2006
  4. WF

    Whiskers Guest

    I don't think this will help you much, but it pleases me:-

    | top - 11:25:07 up 3:14, 1 user, load average: 0.13, 0.06, 0.04
    | Tasks: 106 total, 1 running, 105 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
    | Cpu0 : 1.0% us, 1.3% sy, 0.0% ni, 97.7% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
    | Cpu1 : 1.0% us, 1.3% sy, 0.0% ni, 97.7% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
    | Mem: 514688k total, 460360k used, 54328k free, 44908k buffers
    | Swap: 2281148k total, 2704k used, 2278444k free, 142432k cached
    | 6264 root 15 0 166m 18m 5624 S 0.8 3.7 2:38.99 X
    | 7338 mark 19 0 27868 20m 7884 S 0.3 4.0 1:04.44 net_applet
    | 7297 mark 15 0 18948 10m 7348 S 0.2 2.0 0:09.63 xfce4-panel
    | 7303 mark 16 0 25948 9.8m 7184 S 0.2 1.9 0:23.51 gkrellm
    | [...]
    Whiskers, Apr 12, 2006
  5. WF

    Whiskers Guest

    In case that isn't obvious, it means that my system had 106 'processes' on
    the go at that moment and was barely even ticking over.

    It takes lots of "things" working together to get an operating system to
    work and provide a usable user interface, even before you actually start
    to do anything with it. Of course, Windows is horribly inefficient but
    that's the price you pay for being able to run all those lovely viruses
    and spyware ;))
    Whiskers, Apr 12, 2006
  6. WF

    ellis_jay Guest

    (just thought I'd throw that in)

    Black Viper here: Services.htm


    Let the unseen day be. Today is more than enough.

    ___Sador the carpenter to Turin
    Tolkien, The Unfinished Tales

    ellis_jay, Apr 12, 2006
  7. WF

    elaich Guest

    elaich, Apr 12, 2006
  8. WF

    Mitch Guest

    Don't judge the OS just by having those running; in a way, it's just
    being informative about all the many things an OS and GUI does for you.
    (And then MS took much of it away by giving them the same description?)

    Look at it this way; it's like a lot of the parts of a car engine are
    being named in separate listings, even though they are working
    together. It isn't just one listing for 'engine,' but listings for
    'alternator,' 'carburetor,' 'fuel regulator,' and so on.

    Some of them are optional processes. And it still helps if you learn
    which ones are normal system processes, so you can recognize when one
    is unwelcome.

    Apps, too, might have more than one process to make them run. Some
    tools might even add something that runs from startup. And that is one
    reason why users should learn that the processes running affect you
    efficiency. It is easy to get the system bogged down in extra, junk
    Mitch, Apr 12, 2006
  9. WF

    strumpling Guest

    Isn't it annoying when so much energy is put into a thread and then the
    original poster never returns?
    strumpling, Apr 12, 2006
  10. WF

    Ponder Guest

    Hiya strumpling.

    I'd call that a successful troll. Wouldn't you? ;)

    I've seen more trolls in this group that any other in the 11 years I've
    been on Usenet ;)
    Ponder, Apr 12, 2006
  11. WF

    WF Guest

    I'm the original poster and I have returned.. I was simply checking
    out the many websites I was directed to. I am not a troll. I do not
    waste the time of those kind enough to respond to my pleas for help. I
    do not piss away advice. I treat it with the respect and admiration
    that anyone should give to those intent on help.. I thank those of you
    who took the time to respond.
    WF, Apr 13, 2006
  12. WF

    strumpling Guest

    sweet so everything's good?
    strumpling, Apr 14, 2006
  13. WF

    JW Guest

    Perfect, thanks. Thought all those processes must be slowing
    downloading, turns out it was a Firefix bug. Got it fixed.
    JW, Apr 15, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.