Who has the leanest Vista configuration?

An OS more liked (by me, anyway) the faster it is, faster to boot, to
run apps in and to shut down. While this is a gross simplification,
there must be a best fighting weight for Vista when all the unneeded
MS apps are trimmed out, the registry has only what it really needs,
only the best drivers are in use, all the sillier Windows-dressing has
been unticked or whatever and the user's experience is of a fleet and
responsive environment.

F'rinstance, my Ultimate's
C:\Windows is 9 GB big,
Start up time (until logon screen) is 20 sec,
Start up time (until busy icon stops) is... hard to tell as it stops
and starts,
Shutdown time is 2 m 20 sec (!)
Time to open WMC (say) - directly after start up has been achieved -
is 5 secs.
Any suggestions of a longer-starting app, and some other useful
measures of Windows spriteliness, folks?

Any anecdotes of your OS's unexpected dramatic performance
improvements after working on it?

For all the talk of Vista's sluggishness, I find that, given a hottish
box, it's faster to boot and logon than Win 2000 or XP are in the same
machine.

F'rinstance, my Ultimate's
C:\Windows is 9 GB big,
Start up time (until logon screen) is 20 sec,
Start up time (until busy icon stops) is... hard to tell as it stops
and starts,
Shutdown time is 2 m 20 sec (!)
Time to open WMC (say) - directly after start up has been achieved -
is 5 secs.
Any suggestions of a longer-starting app, someone?

Any other useful measures of Windows spriteliness, folks?

Any anecdotes of your OS's unexpected dramatic performance
improvements after working on it?

Hil

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:31:05 -0700, Hilarious <>
wrote:

>An OS more liked (by me, anyway) the faster it is, faster to boot, to
>run apps in and to shut down. While this is a gross simplification,
>there must be a best fighting weight for Vista when all the unneeded
>MS apps are trimmed out, the registry has only what it really needs,
>only the best drivers are in use, all the sillier Windows-dressing has
>been unticked or whatever and the user's experience is of a fleet and
>responsive environment.
>
>F'rinstance, my Ultimate's
>C:\Windows is 9 GB big,
>Start up time (until logon screen) is 20 sec,
>Start up time (until busy icon stops) is... hard to tell as it stops
>and starts,
>Shutdown time is 2 m 20 sec (!)
>Time to open WMC (say) - directly after start up has been achieved -
>is 5 secs.
>Any suggestions of a longer-starting app, and some other useful
>measures of Windows spriteliness, folks?
>
>Any anecdotes of your OS's unexpected dramatic performance
>improvements after working on it?
>
>For all the talk of Vista's sluggishness, I find that, given a hottish
>box, it's faster to boot and logon than Win 2000 or XP are in the same
>machine.
>
>F'rinstance, my Ultimate's
>C:\Windows is 9 GB big,
>Start up time (until logon screen) is 20 sec,
>Start up time (until busy icon stops) is... hard to tell as it stops
>and starts,
>Shutdown time is 2 m 20 sec (!)
>Time to open WMC (say) - directly after start up has been achieved -
>is 5 secs.
>Any suggestions of a longer-starting app, someone?
>
>Any other useful measures of Windows spriteliness, folks?
>
>Any anecdotes of your OS's unexpected dramatic performance
>improvements after working on it?
>
>Hil
Search for Windows Lite, it was win 98 then 2k and then xp based but
should give you osme ideas on where to start. I am sure they are
working on a vista version too.
http://www.litepc.com/

>
> Any anecdotes of your OS's unexpected dramatic performance
> improvements after working on it?
>
>
>
>
> Any anecdotes of your OS's unexpected dramatic performance
> improvements after working on it?
>
> Hil
>
>
"anecdotes"...now there's a word not often bandied about here. You
must really like that word--you used it twice.


Dave

My Vista is so lean it thinks it's Ubuntu !


"Hilarious" <> wrote in message
news: ps.com...
> An OS more liked (by me, anyway) the faster it is, faster to boot, to
> run apps in and to shut down. While this is a gross simplification,
> there must be a best fighting weight for Vista when all the unneeded
> MS apps are trimmed out, the registry has only what it really needs,
> only the best drivers are in use, all the sillier Windows-dressing has
> been unticked or whatever and the user's experience is of a fleet and
> responsive environment.
>
> F'rinstance, my Ultimate's
> C:\Windows is 9 GB big,
> Start up time (until logon screen) is 20 sec,
> Start up time (until busy icon stops) is... hard to tell as it stops
> and starts,
> Shutdown time is 2 m 20 sec (!)
> Time to open WMC (say) - directly after start up has been achieved -
> is 5 secs.
> Any suggestions of a longer-starting app, and some other useful
> measures of Windows spriteliness, folks?
>
> Any anecdotes of your OS's unexpected dramatic performance
> improvements after working on it?
>
> For all the talk of Vista's sluggishness, I find that, given a hottish
> box, it's faster to boot and logon than Win 2000 or XP are in the same
> machine.
>
> F'rinstance, my Ultimate's
> C:\Windows is 9 GB big,
> Start up time (until logon screen) is 20 sec,
> Start up time (until busy icon stops) is... hard to tell as it stops
> and starts,
> Shutdown time is 2 m 20 sec (!)
> Time to open WMC (say) - directly after start up has been achieved -
> is 5 secs.
> Any suggestions of a longer-starting app, someone?
>
> Any other useful measures of Windows spriteliness, folks?
>
> Any anecdotes of your OS's unexpected dramatic performance
> improvements after working on it?
>
> Hil
>

I'm glad to hear your liposuction went so well.
When they take off 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 lines of code, you MAY
have an adverse reaction.
Just FYI!

--
A Professional Amateur...If anyone knew it all, none of would be here!

Change Alpha to Numeric to reply

"Mama Putzke" <> wrote in message
news:OTyMyy%...
> My Vista is so lean it thinks it's Ubuntu !

On Sep 15, 11:43 pm, David <da...@invalid.com> wrote:

>
> "anecdotes"...now there's a word not often bandied about here. You
> must really like that word--you used it twice.
>
> Dave

....did I ever tell you the one about my cut 'n paste
....did I ever tell you the one about my cut 'n paste error? error?

....did I ever tell you the one about my cut 'n paste error?

Cheers

Hil

Seriously, folks, this thread could be a big help to folks like myself who
ended up with Vista by happenstance and not by choice (came preloaded on the
new family PC and laptop.)

I went into "Control Panel > Programs > Turn Windows features on or off" and
unchecked everything I absolutely didn't need. Will post back and let you
folks know how this worked.

Any other "average user" level tips for paring down Vista bloat would be
greatly appreciated.

"Hilarious" wrote:

> An OS more liked (by me, anyway) the faster it is, faster to boot, to
> run apps in and to shut down. While this is a gross simplification,
> there must be a best fighting weight for Vista when all the unneeded
> MS apps are trimmed out, the registry has only what it really needs,
> only the best drivers are in use, all the sillier Windows-dressing has
> been unticked or whatever and the user's experience is of a fleet and
> responsive environment.
>
> F'rinstance, my Ultimate's
> C:\Windows is 9 GB big,
> Start up time (until logon screen) is 20 sec,
> Start up time (until busy icon stops) is... hard to tell as it stops
> and starts,
> Shutdown time is 2 m 20 sec (!)
> Time to open WMC (say) - directly after start up has been achieved -
> is 5 secs.
> Any suggestions of a longer-starting app, and some other useful
> measures of Windows spriteliness, folks?
>
> Any anecdotes of your OS's unexpected dramatic performance
> improvements after working on it?
>
> For all the talk of Vista's sluggishness, I find that, given a hottish
> box, it's faster to boot and logon than Win 2000 or XP are in the same
> machine.
>
> F'rinstance, my Ultimate's
> C:\Windows is 9 GB big,
> Start up time (until logon screen) is 20 sec,
> Start up time (until busy icon stops) is... hard to tell as it stops
> and starts,
> Shutdown time is 2 m 20 sec (!)
> Time to open WMC (say) - directly after start up has been achieved -
> is 5 secs.
> Any suggestions of a longer-starting app, someone?
>
> Any other useful measures of Windows spriteliness, folks?
>
> Any anecdotes of your OS's unexpected dramatic performance
> improvements after working on it?
>
> Hil
>
>

After much looking and reading, I cut the 'Security Policy' entries
WaitToKillServiceTimeout to 5000
WaitToKillAppTimeout to 10000 and
HungAppTimeout to 10000
...and had no noticeable reduction in my shutdown time.

It would be great to be able to log the shutdown way past the time the
Event viewer logs die. See Eventvwr.msc App. and Service logs/MS/
Windows/Diagnostics-Performance for some indications of what would be
SO nice.

This might not help many, but it did cut my 140 sec shut down to 20
seconds! I did it with Regedit, disabling
HKLM\system\Curr.Control Set\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management
ClearPagefileatShutdown by changing it from '1 to '0 .

Hurrah!

"Hilarious" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...

>
> This might not help many, but it did cut my 140 sec shut down to 20
> seconds! I did it with Regedit, disabling
> HKLM\system\Curr.Control Set\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management
> ClearPagefileatShutdown by changing it from '1 to '0 .
>

That is OK if you can accept the security risk.
Not doing the wipe can leave sensitive data on the disk that is unencrypted.
Not really a concern if you don't encrypt stuff anyway.