Jump to content

[ASK] Turning-off Background Programs, Services and Drivers - Win8


GECK.O

Recommended Posts

Posted

Does anyone know a program to turn off background programs, services and drivers for Windows 8?

 

I used Game Booster 3, but it doesn't improve much... Standard WinXP can run faster than Win8 + Game Booster.

 

 

I want a similar tool, but much much more aggressive, like making Win8 completely almost zero, but still able to play game.

 

To make a similar performance, or even better than WinXP.

 

 

I heard before about a problem, able to restart your Windows and start it with almost blank, just to run a game.

 

 

It's kinda a very advanced question... Does anyone know or have suggestion about it?

Posted

You can manually configure Windows services. Unfortunately, there isn't a "tweaked" (aka. bare minimum) version of services setup for Win 8.x, which would have been closer to what you wish to achieve. You may still use the "safe" setup though.

 

http://www.blackviper.com/service-configurations/black-vipers-windows-8-service-configurations/

http://www.blackviper.com/service-configurations/black-vipers-windows-8-1-service-configurations/

 

While you're at it, go to Task Scheduler and disable every task that may potentially disrupt your game play. Keep in mind that even if you've disabled a service, Task Scheduler may wake it up at a later time (i.e. change its config and run it). You wouldn't want some background process take over most your processing power right in the middle of your game.

 

Also, as a rule of thumb, never allow auto-updates or updated version checks for *any* program (including your antivirus) if you want to play your game without any disruption.

 

BTW, if you have Windows XP and you can run your game on it, then just use XP, don't even bother with 8. You can run XP with a total of 10 to 15 processes. That kind of thing is impossible with 7 or 8.

Posted

First of all: You can't really compare XP with 8(.1), as they have 14 years in difference. Of course XP is faster in some ways, because it needed to run on the hardware of its time.

 

Now the actual topic.

Disabling programs at startup can be done via the Task Manager under the startup tab.

To prevent services from starting go to the services tab and click "Open "Services". Right click a service, click "Properties" and select your wished startup type. When disabling them, you should set most of them to manual. Disabling prevents a service from being launched entirely. With manual it can be started when it's needed.

But as always: Be careful when playing around with systems components.

 

To keep my hard drives fast I use is a program called Defraggler, which I run from time to time.

For registry cleaning and tweaks I use Wise Registry Cleaner.

 

I guess your hardware is very limited. Might I ask on which your computer is running? :-)

 

I hope this will help you. ^^

Posted

First of all: You can't really compare XP with 8(.1), as they have 14 years in difference. Of course XP is faster in some ways, because it needed to run on the hardware of its time.

XP doesn't run faster, it uses less resources as it has less features than 7 or 8, and that's not hardware dependent.

Posted

I'm running Windows 8 on 5 years old cheap laptop. It can barely run many games.

 

I perhaps will consider to install Windows xp.

 

What do you guys think about installing it on USB flash disk? I heard someone say it run awfully slow. Is that true?

 

Better to install it on hdd. But I need to create a new partition and I already installed Windows 8. It will replace the boot and must reinstall Windows 8. Kinda too bothersome.

Posted

 

What do you guys think about installing it on USB flash disk? I heard someone say it run awfully slow. Is that true?

I tried it once. It is painfully slow and the installation process took way longer than on a normal HDD.

Posted

 

First of all: You can't really compare XP with 8(.1), as they have 14 years in difference. Of course XP is faster in some ways, because it needed to run on the hardware of its time.

XP doesn't run faster, it uses less resources as it has less features than 7 or 8, and that's not hardware dependent.

 

 

But the hardware XP was made to run on was inferior to what we have now

 

If you got winXP and a CPU that was made available for sale at the same time verse win 7 and a CPU made today i think the results would be different.

 

Posted

 

 

First of all: You can't really compare XP with 8(.1), as they have 14 years in difference. Of course XP is faster in some ways, because it needed to run on the hardware of its time.

XP doesn't run faster, it uses less resources as it has less features than 7 or 8, and that's not hardware dependent.

 

 

But the hardware XP was made to run on was inferior to what we have now

 

If you got winXP and a CPU that was made available for sale at the same time verse win 7 and a CPU made today i think the results would be different.

 

I'm afraid I don't understand your logic. XP wasn't considered a "lightweight" OS when it came out. Most of us had to upgrade or turn off Themes etc. to run it at a decent speed back then. However, since it needs much less resources to run when compared to a contemporary operating system, it can now be considered as a "lightweight" OS. That's the reason why XP "feels" faster.

 

Also, keep in mind that most people have used the 32-bit version of XP, which does not support more than 4GB of memory. I wouldn't recommend using XP for new games though, but it's a perfect OS to run on virtual machines or for playing games from the XP era, or before.

Posted

 

 

 

First of all: You can't really compare XP with 8(.1), as they have 14 years in difference. Of course XP is faster in some ways, because it needed to run on the hardware of its time.

XP doesn't run faster, it uses less resources as it has less features than 7 or 8, and that's not hardware dependent.

 

 

But the hardware XP was made to run on was inferior to what we have now

 

If you got winXP and a CPU that was made available for sale at the same time verse win 7 and a CPU made today i think the results would be different.

 

I'm afraid I don't understand your logic. XP wasn't considered a "lightweight" OS when it came out. Most of us had to upgrade or turn off Themes etc. to run it at a decent speed back then. However, since it needs much less resources to run when compared to a contemporary operating system, it can now be considered as a "lightweight" OS. That's the reason why XP "feels" faster.

 

Also, keep in mind that most people have used the 32-bit version of XP, which does not support more than 4GB of memory. I wouldn't recommend using XP for new games though, but it's a perfect OS to run on virtual machines or for playing games from the XP era, or before.

 

 

To my knowledge no MS operating system is light weight if its made for PC's (not a fan of tablets so no knowledge of them)

 

Admittedly i smoke dope so my memory is hazy but i seem to recall win XP came out before CPU's had got above the 1 GHZ mark (the requirements it states is a Pentium 233-megahertz) yet as vista was not well recieved and win7 was only taken due to a lack of choice (in the UK atleast you basically brought a PC with win 7 or didn't buy a PC with an O/S) the hardware continued to improve due to the one ups manship between intel and AMD

 

So towards the middle/end of win XP's life (which is when i think all the rose tinted memories are coming from) people would have been well over the minimum requirements just by buying a PC off the shelf yet at the start of win XP's life even having 4 GB of RAM wasn't imagined for personal use let alone needing to exceed it

 

So comparing the two that way isn't very fair, if you went and got a minimum spec PC and put winXP (so a P 233mhz with 64mb of ram) on and then another minimum spec PC for win7 ( 1 ghz cpu 1 GB ram) and then compared using the two i think it would be a much fairer test

Posted

 

 

What do you guys think about installing it on USB flash disk? I heard someone say it run awfully slow. Is that true?

I tried it once. It is painfully slow and the installation process took way longer than on a normal HDD.

 

 

You mean, running WinXP and installation process, both of them are painfully slow?

Posted

You can probably get a decent performance if you use a "fast" USB 3.0 memory. Not all USB 3.0 memories are fast though. I'd also be interested in doing a similar installation if the performance is decent when compared to a mechanical drive.

Posted

 

 

 

What do you guys think about installing it on USB flash disk? I heard someone say it run awfully slow. Is that true?

I tried it once. It is painfully slow and the installation process took way longer than on a normal HDD.

 

 

You mean, running WinXP and installation process, both of them are painfully slow?

 

 

Yeah. XP then didn't even run for me.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...