Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 18:22:17 +0000
From: "Matthew Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [LIB] Startup Faster 2004 2.4.1
Hey Rick,
Okay... it takes a bit of hunting down in the services settings to find the
running Symantec processes litsed in Task Manager, but they all seem to be
there. And I guess setting them to 'Disabled' stops them starting at boot.
So now I'm wondering whether or not disabling all of those Symantec
processes will free up enough system resources to be noticed at all when
doing resource hungry work like processing multimedia files. Something I'll
be testing.
Looking down the list of services there makes me wonder how many of them
could be safely disabled... and whether or not doing so would give the
system significantly more power when working with resource hungry apps.
In Win98's 'System Properties > Performance', I used to check the figure for
'System Resources' right after the system finished booting to the desktop in
order to determine how much power I could get out of the system. I'd shut
everything down to make that figure hit somewhere in the mid 90s in
percentage. I'm not quite sure what in WinXP's 'Windows Task Manager >
Performance' corresponds to that.
Have any suggestions there Rick?
From: Rick Mansfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I neglected to mention that you can disable services, too. In Win2k it's
under control panel/administrative tools/services. I don't know about XP.
Should be no problem just looking through there and disabling the Symantec
ones.
On 10/29/05, Matthew Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 07:29:03 +0000
> From: "Matthew Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [LIB] Startup Faster 2004 2.4.1
>
> From: matthew patton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >go thru your registry adn look for the "Run", "RunOnce" keys and edit
> >them with mangled paths and reboot.
>
> From: Rick Mansfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >Make sure you remove it from:
> >HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run
> >HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Runonce
> >HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run
> >HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Runonce
> >in the registry. Use regedit.exe.
>
> Well, it doesn't seem to be that simple. The only things listed in those
> keys are the 3 items already listed in MSCONFIG that I've already tried
> disabling there. That still leaves a number of processes started for
> Norton
> and Symantec in Task Manager
>
> And two of the 3 items listed there and in MSCONFIG don't show up in
> either
> Task Manager or TaskInfo as running when they're enabled. There are 8
> Norton and Symantec related processes still being shown as running in
Task
> Manager with or without the 3 programs listed in MSCONFIG enabled or
> disabled.
>
> They are these, and seem to be started in XP's services where I found
them
> in Registry:
>
> CCEVTMGR.EXE 2.8MB RAM C:\Program Files\Common Files\Symantec Shared\
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Services\ccEvtMgr
>
> CCPROXY.EXE 2.5MB RAM C:\Program Files\Common Files\Symantec Shared\
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Services\ccProxy
>
> CCSETMGR.EXE 4.1MB RAM C:\Program Files\Common Files\Symantec Shared\
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Services\ccSetMgr
>
> ISSVC.EXE 7.4MB RAM C:\Program Files\Norton Internet Security
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Services\ISSVC
>
> NAVAPSVC.EXE 1.5MB RAM C:\Program Files\Norton Internet Security\Norton
> AntiVirus
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Services\navapsvc
>
> SNDSrvc.exe 1.7MB RAM C:\Program Files\Common Files\Symantec
Shared\SPBBC
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Services\SNDSrvc
>
> SPBBCSvc.exe 1.1MB RAM C:\Program Files\Common Files\Symantec
Shared\SPBBC
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Services\SPBBCSvc
>
> SYMLCSVC.EXE 156K ram C:\Program Files\Common Files\Symantec
> Shared\CCPD-LC
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Services\Symantec Core LC
>
> Bleeping Symantec... why did they set things up so you can't unload the
> whole stupid Internet Security somehow? It's so secure that the SysOp
has
> to tweak things all over XPs configuration menus to unload the darned
> thing.
>
> Matt
>
> > On 10/27/05, Matthew Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 02:15:19 +0000
> > > From: "Matthew Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Subject: Startup Faster 2004 2.4.1
> > >
> > > Dan just had to kick the list server back into operation. I guess my
> >post
> > > today was lost, so here it is again:
> > >
> > > --------------------------
> > > Has anyone ever tried something like this little utility to make a
> >windows
> > > OS boot and run faster by disabling programs that have been set to
> load
> >at
> > > boot?:
> > >
> > > Startup Faster 2004 2.4.1
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.download.com/Startup-Faster-2004/3000-2094_4-10449673.html?tag=lst-4-10
> > >
> > > I just reloaded and old XP image on my desktop, and am now able to
> play
> > > and
> > > do work with multimedia programs that the old 800MHz system was
having
> > > problems with. XP had become extremely slow and problematic, and the
> > > difference before and after restoring the image is like day and
night..
> >But
> > > capturing high resolution video is still a problem.
> > >
> > > I used to be able to CTRL-ALT-DEL, and stop all apps running in the
> > > background to free up enough system resources to get audio, video
and
> > > graphics programs to run faster.
> > >
> > > But I installed a copy of Norton Internet Security after loading the
> XP
> > > image, and now can't get all of its components to unload. I disabled
3
> > > items related to it in MSCONFIG and rebooted. But after reboot,
> >TaskManger
> > > still shows a number of related Symantec programs running that
refuse
> to
> > > be
> > > shut down.
> > >
> > > I don't suppose anyone knows if it's at all possible to disable all
of
> >the
> > > Norton Internet Security functions at boot. Support for Norton apps
> has
> > > gotten terrible since Symantec bought them out. Maybe I ought to
post
> >over
> > > in the Compuserve forums too.
>
--
-Rick
