3 ms·

You can visualize performance using Windows' built-in Performance Monitor. It's not a comparison app, but you can check different resources in detail both befo

You can visualize performance using Windows' built-in Performance Monitor. It's not a comparison app, but you can check different resources in detail both before and after disabling un-needed features. Disk activity is one of the things reported in real time, as well as memory usage, but the Gb of bloat on the OS drive is not a consideration. Inhibiting things which are useless to you from occupying memory, may be less than 1 Gb but may still be worth it, but that is different than disk drive bloat which can really get massively out-of-hand. Drive Gb is expected to grow with each additional program you install, but further drive bloat has often dwarfed that as preinstalled apps have proliferated, written by those who do not have experience using limited resources to a serious degree of efficiency. And then after non-security updates became mandatory, each year this lack of professional experience has an accelerating impact across-the board, and by now you are expected to accomodate a dozen or more gigabytes than last year. And both Windows 10 and Windows 11 were more functional in some ways than a year ago too. Cut back on memory waste by keeping things from loading until an event when you yourself really need it. Cut back on drive bloat by uninstalling things you know you are never going to need.

eviks 10mo ago
Not really, you can't. For example, you might have a service that lies dormant using 0.1mb of memory and then does some scanning/maintenance once a week and uses 50% CPU for 5 minues with 100m memory. Also, checking those dozens of services will take a lot of time Unsuspecting users can't even measure space savings correctly since many components can be hardlinked to something else and deleting them will "free up" the space shown in the folder (the size standard size reporting on Windows is deeply inadequate), but not free up anything in reality. Or for some uwp apps you can't even see the size at all as the folders have a very dumb permission set, and these scripts remove those preinstalled uwp apps. That's the point of public benchmarking - so that ever single user doesn't have to waste time doing the mistaken comparisons on his own, so your suggestion doesn't help at all even in theory.
- fuzzfactor 9mo ago
  I recognized the weakness of that theory to begin with. But at least in practice I can run challenging software that would not otherwise run. Plus outperform those having more powerful hardware. Regardless, it would be good to see a worthwhile suggestion when it comes to public benchmarks.

eviks 10mo ago

Not really, you can't. For example, you might have a service that lies dormant using 0.1mb of memory and then does some scanning/maintenance once a week and uses 50% CPU for 5 minues with 100m memory. Also, checking those dozens of services will take a lot of time Unsuspecting users can't even measure space savings correctly since many components can be hardlinked to something else and deleting them will "free up" the space shown in the folder (the size standard size reporting on Windows is deeply inadequate), but not free up anything in reality. Or for some uwp apps you can't even see the size at all as the folders have a very dumb permission set, and these scripts remove those preinstalled uwp apps. That's the point of public benchmarking - so that ever single user doesn't have to waste time doing the mistaken comparisons on his own, so your suggestion doesn't help at all even in theory.

fuzzfactor 9mo ago
I recognized the weakness of that theory to begin with. But at least in practice I can run challenging software that would not otherwise run. Plus outperform those having more powerful hardware. Regardless, it would be good to see a worthwhile suggestion when it comes to public benchmarks.