CPU Pegged at 100%

Tried the housecall link. Looked like it was working ok at first, but then
took FOREVER. There was no data going across the web, so something hung up,
and the CPU was, again, at 100%. Tried to restart the housecall check, and
it kept giving me error messages, so I don't think I'm going to be able to
successfully run that. Any other ideas???

Mark

"Gerry" wrote:

> mtvet
>
> Try an online scan using this link:
> http://housecall.trendmicro.com/uk/
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Gerry
> ~~~~
> FCA
> Stourport, England
> Enquire, plan and execute
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> mtvet wrote:
> > I know it's the holidays, and that's why responses may be slow, but
> > I'm still looking for help.
> >
> > Any idea if Intel's Application Accelerator would be helpful with
> > this kind of situation? Just been poking along, trying to check on
> > drivers etc, and stumbled across it.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > "Gerry" wrote:
> >
> >> mtvet
> >>
> >> Your commit charge figures are well below available RAM so in that
> >> sense they are fine. In terms of comparables posted these will have
> >> been posted as a result of requests where the user has complained of
> >> slow performance and excessive use of the pagefile is expected. So
> >> any results posted will more than likely be high. However, it is not
> >> easy to get typical figures. You really need to get results when the
> >> user is not conscious of a performance issue.
> >>
> >> Leaving a computer on 24/7 exposes the system to the consequences of
> >> memory leaks. Even when a programme with a memory leak is closed the
> >> memory is not released until the system is shutdown or restarted.
> >>
> >> You can check pagefile usage more directly using pagefilemon.
> >>
> >> A small utility to monitor pagefile usage:
> >> http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_pagefilemon.htm
> >>
> >> Note that programs using undo features, particularly those associated
> >> with graphics and photo editing, require large amounts of memory so
> >> if you use this type of programme check these first observing how
> >> the page usage increases when they start and whether the usage
> >> decreases when you close the programme.
> >>
> >> You can get clues as to what is generating peak memory demands but
> >> this is not a precise science, more a matter of judgement.
> >>
> >> The basis of your complaint is that CPU is pegged at 100%. Are you
> >> counting the System Idle process as part of the 100%. The System Idle
> >> process needs to be disregarded as it represents unused CPU capacity.
> >> Normally if you can match CPU usage to something you are doing then
> >> it is of no concern. It is unexplained CPU usage that needs
> >> investigation as it can indicate malware activity. You can also get
> >> a programme commanding 100% because it has a problem. Windows
> >> Automatic Updates has been known to create this type of problem.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hope this helps.
> >>
> >> Gerry
> >> ~~~~
> >> FCA
> >> Stourport, England
> >> Enquire, plan and execute
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>
> >>
> >> mtvet wrote:
> >>> Gerry-
> >>>
> >>> Under normal circumstances, what would average commit charge figures
> >>> be? Just curious, because the examples I've seen on line have been
> >>> roughly the same as on this machine, so I'm wondering what the
> >>> metric is that you use.
> >>>
> >>> Also, I've heard conflicting arguments for shutting down frequently
> >>> vs. leaving a computer on for longer. Some involve the strain on
> >>> the hardware from frequent power cycles, some involve software
> >>> stability over long periods of time. Why do you say it is "not a
> >>> good idea" to leave the computer on 24/7?
> >>>
> >>> I'll try the spybot thing. I think that McAfee had said that it
> >>> conflicts with their software and that it needed to be removed, but
> >>> I'll double check those conversations and give it a try.
> >>>
> >>> Mark
> >>>
> >>> "Gerry" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Mark
> >>>>
> >>>> Your commit charge figures are high. McAfee is a known cause and
> >>>> two of the items in your list relate to McAfee. Leaving your
> >>>> computer on 24/7 is not a good idea.
> >>>>
> >>>> You might look for malware.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would download and run Spybot S & D (freeware version) and see if
> >>>> it finds anything like a Trojan. If Spybot S & D finds anything
> >>>> significant ( other than cookies) you need to be wary. If it
> >>>> removes something and it returns or another nasty pops up it can
> >>>> be an indication that there is another hidden nasty not being
> >>>> detected by McAfee or Spybot.
> >>>>
> >>>> Spybot S & D. There is a freeware version buried in this link:
> >>>> http://www.safer-networking.org/en/spybotsd/index.html
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hope this helps.
> >>>>
> >>>> Gerry
> >>>> ~~~~
> >>>> FCA
> >>>> Stourport, England
> >>>> Enquire, plan and execute
> >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>> mtvet wrote:
> >>>>> Just wanted to make sure my responses were actually getting out
> >>>>> there, since my ability to see them has been very compromised by
> >>>>> using the Microsoft web-based newsreader. Figured I would ping
> >>>>> this one, just to make sure that if the existence of the other
> >>>>> replies had been unobserved there would be another chance for a
> >>>>> response.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mark
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Gerry" wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> What version of McAfee is it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I do not know whether Windows Defender clashes with McAfee but I
> >>>>>> doubt that is the problem.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Try Ctrl+Alt+Delete to select Task Manager and click the
> >>>>>> Performance Tab. Under Commit Charge what is the Total, the Limit
> >>>>>> and the Peak?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You should be able to gather more information from Task Manager.
> >>>>>> With the Processes tab open select View, Select, Columns and
> >>>>>> check the boxes before Peak Memory Usage and Virtual Memory
> >>>>>> size. What are the figures for the 6 processes using the largest
> >>>>>> amounts?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Do you leave your computer on 24/7?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hope this helps.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Gerry
> >>>>>> ~~~~
> >>>>>> FCA
> >>>>>> Stourport, England
> >>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute
> >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> mtvet wrote:
> >>>>>>> Sorry, it's actually 1.25 G. System came with 500M (250x2). I
> >>>>>>> bought 1G and replace 1 module.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In Task Manager, the total physical memory is : 1308656. Total
> >>>>>>> available hovers around: 583560, and system cache around:
> >>>>>>> 654840.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Any idea if Windows Defender and McAfee clash at all to cause
> >>>>>>> these kinds of symptoms. It's still strange to me that the
> >>>>>>> biggest hog I wind up seeing is svchost.exe with 3 identical
> >>>>>>> threads kernel32.dll!CreateThread+0x22.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> While McAfee may be somewhat of a hog, it doesn't "appear" to be
> >>>>>>> grabbing too much of the CPU (except at certain times).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Gerry" wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In terms of system performance McAfee is a poor choice for a
> >>>>>>>> home computer. Replacing it with freeware alternatives would
> >>>>>>>> result in a significant improvement.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Are you sure you have 1.3 gb RAM? You have two slots. What size
> >>>>>>>> stick is each?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Drivers:
> >>>>>>>> http://snipurl.com/951ce [h10025_www1_hp_com]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hope this helps.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Gerry
> >>>>>>>> ~~~~
> >>>>>>>> FCA
> >>>>>>>> Stourport, England
> >>>>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute
> >>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> mtvet wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On SP3 now...got THAT issue resolved, but performance still
> >>>>>>>>> the same, LOUSY. Updated video driver, no effect. You
> >>>>>>>>> mentioned the motherboard chipset drivers and that they
> >>>>>>>>> should be sure to be updated. If I go into device manager,
> >>>>>>>>> which devices do I select in order to update those drivers
> >>>>>>>>> appropriately? Is there a way to get the system to do a
> >>>>>>>>> global driver update of some type, rather than having to do
> >>>>>>>>> them piecemeal??
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Shenan Stanley" wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> mtvet wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> I've seen this issue a number of times, but no firm
> >>>>>>>>>>> solution, and have a few differences with the other
> >>>>>>>>>>> presentations. Just want to try to get at what's going on
> >>>>>>>>>>> with this machine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> HP Pavilion 503n, XPSP2, Celeron 1.7GHz, 1.3 GB RAM
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Running Process Explorer to try to figure out what's going
> >>>>>>>>>>> on.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Launch an Office program - Jumps to 100% CPU, then drops
> >>>>>>>>>>> down. When I then try to open a file and navigate to My
> >>>>>>>>>>> Computer, the flashlight comes up, and it takes forever,
> >>>>>>>>>>> with the usage up to 100%. The primary process in this
> >>>>>>>>>>> case appears to be the Office App (eg - WinWord). In
> >>>>>>>>>>> other cases, seems like it's svchost that has 3 threads of
> >>>>>>>>>>> kernel32.dll!CreateThread+0x22.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> These each consume 20+% of the CPU.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> When we connect to the web using VZAccessMgr (verizon
> >>>>>>>>>>> wireless connection) the usage jumps from about 20% up to
> >>>>>>>>>>> 80% and back down. Just keeps cycling like that. The
> >>>>>>>>>>> heavy users in this case appear to be the
> >>>>>>>>>>> CreateThread+0x22. Then when anything else runs on top of
> >>>>>>>>>>> that, we have absolutely no functionality at all.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Any help/suggestions appreciated!!!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I tend to see that alot on celeron processors. The lack of
> >>>>>>>>>> sufficient cache on the processor *really* makes a noticable
> >>>>>>>>>> difference.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> - Are you running the latest VZAccessMgr?
> >>>>>>>>>> - Latest hardware drivers (motherboard chipset in
> >>>>>>>>>> particular)?
> >>>>>>>>>> - What AV software?
> >>>>>>>>>> - Integrated or seperate video card (and is the latest driver
> >>>>>>>>>> for that installed?)
> >>>>>>>>>> - What is your virtual memory set at? (I suggest you let
> >>>>>>>>>> Windows control it.)
> >>>>>>>>>> - How much free disk space?
> >>>>>>>>>> - Last time you ran a full CHKDSK?
> >>>>>>>>>> - Followed by a full defragmentation?
> >>>>>>>>>> - What version of Office?
> >>>>>>>>>> - Why SP2 and not SP3 for Windows XP?
> >>>>>>>>>> - Home Edition, Professional Edition, Media Center Edition or
> >>>>>>>>>> Tablet PC Edition?
> >>>>>>>>>> - If you run an application like "HeavyLoad" for a while -
> >>>>>>>>>> does it crash your system? And how long does it take to
> >>>>>>>>>> completely peg your processor and use all your memory?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> Shenan Stanley
> >>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
>
>

Mark

You can use an Intel Application Accelerator with the Intel Chipsets
listed in this link.
http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/sb/cs-009312.htm

An Intel Application Accelerator is not offered by Intel for later
chipsets

Did you disable McAfee and Windows Defender before running Housecall? It
would be helpful to know whether the problem was a fight between
security software or defensive measures being taken by malware? It could
of course be something else.

--



Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



mtvet wrote:
> Tried the housecall link. Looked like it was working ok at first,
> but then took FOREVER. There was no data going across the web, so
> something hung up, and the CPU was, again, at 100%. Tried to restart
> the housecall check, and it kept giving me error messages, so I don't
> think I'm going to be able to successfully run that. Any other
> ideas???
>
> Mark
>
> "Gerry" wrote:
>
>> mtvet
>>
>> Try an online scan using this link:
>> http://housecall.trendmicro.com/uk/
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> Gerry
>> ~~~~
>> FCA
>> Stourport, England
>> Enquire, plan and execute
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> mtvet wrote:
>>> I know it's the holidays, and that's why responses may be slow, but
>>> I'm still looking for help.
>>>
>>> Any idea if Intel's Application Accelerator would be helpful with
>>> this kind of situation? Just been poking along, trying to check on
>>> drivers etc, and stumbled across it.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> "Gerry" wrote:
>>>
>>>> mtvet
>>>>
>>>> Your commit charge figures are well below available RAM so in that
>>>> sense they are fine. In terms of comparables posted these will have
>>>> been posted as a result of requests where the user has complained
>>>> of slow performance and excessive use of the pagefile is expected.
>>>> So any results posted will more than likely be high. However, it
>>>> is not easy to get typical figures. You really need to get results
>>>> when the user is not conscious of a performance issue.
>>>>
>>>> Leaving a computer on 24/7 exposes the system to the consequences
>>>> of memory leaks. Even when a programme with a memory leak is
>>>> closed the memory is not released until the system is shutdown or
>>>> restarted.
>>>>
>>>> You can check pagefile usage more directly using pagefilemon.
>>>>
>>>> A small utility to monitor pagefile usage:
>>>> http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_pagefilemon.htm
>>>>
>>>> Note that programs using undo features, particularly those
>>>> associated with graphics and photo editing, require large amounts
>>>> of memory so if you use this type of programme check these first
>>>> observing how the page usage increases when they start and whether
>>>> the usage decreases when you close the programme.
>>>>
>>>> You can get clues as to what is generating peak memory demands but
>>>> this is not a precise science, more a matter of judgement.
>>>>
>>>> The basis of your complaint is that CPU is pegged at 100%. Are you
>>>> counting the System Idle process as part of the 100%. The System
>>>> Idle process needs to be disregarded as it represents unused CPU
>>>> capacity. Normally if you can match CPU usage to something you are
>>>> doing then it is of no concern. It is unexplained CPU usage that
>>>> needs investigation as it can indicate malware activity. You can
>>>> also get a programme commanding 100% because it has a problem.
>>>> Windows Automatic Updates has been known to create this type of
>>>> problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>
>>>> Gerry
>>>> ~~~~
>>>> FCA
>>>> Stourport, England
>>>> Enquire, plan and execute
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> mtvet wrote:
>>>>> Gerry-
>>>>>
>>>>> Under normal circumstances, what would average commit charge
>>>>> figures be? Just curious, because the examples I've seen on line
>>>>> have been roughly the same as on this machine, so I'm wondering
>>>>> what the metric is that you use.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I've heard conflicting arguments for shutting down
>>>>> frequently vs. leaving a computer on for longer. Some involve
>>>>> the strain on the hardware from frequent power cycles, some
>>>>> involve software stability over long periods of time. Why do you
>>>>> say it is "not a good idea" to leave the computer on 24/7?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll try the spybot thing. I think that McAfee had said that it
>>>>> conflicts with their software and that it needed to be removed,
>>>>> but I'll double check those conversations and give it a try.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark
>>>>>
>>>>> "Gerry" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your commit charge figures are high. McAfee is a known cause and
>>>>>> two of the items in your list relate to McAfee. Leaving your
>>>>>> computer on 24/7 is not a good idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You might look for malware.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would download and run Spybot S & D (freeware version) and see
>>>>>> if it finds anything like a Trojan. If Spybot S & D finds
>>>>>> anything significant ( other than cookies) you need to be wary.
>>>>>> If it removes something and it returns or another nasty pops up
>>>>>> it can be an indication that there is another hidden nasty not
>>>>>> being detected by McAfee or Spybot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Spybot S & D. There is a freeware version buried in this link:
>>>>>> http://www.safer-networking.org/en/spybotsd/index.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gerry
>>>>>> ~~~~
>>>>>> FCA
>>>>>> Stourport, England
>>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute
>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>> mtvet wrote:
>>>>>>> Just wanted to make sure my responses were actually getting out
>>>>>>> there, since my ability to see them has been very compromised by
>>>>>>> using the Microsoft web-based newsreader. Figured I would ping
>>>>>>> this one, just to make sure that if the existence of the other
>>>>>>> replies had been unobserved there would be another chance for a
>>>>>>> response.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Gerry" wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What version of McAfee is it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do not know whether Windows Defender clashes with McAfee but
>>>>>>>> I doubt that is the problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try Ctrl+Alt+Delete to select Task Manager and click the
>>>>>>>> Performance Tab. Under Commit Charge what is the Total, the
>>>>>>>> Limit and the Peak?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You should be able to gather more information from Task
>>>>>>>> Manager. With the Processes tab open select View, Select,
>>>>>>>> Columns and check the boxes before Peak Memory Usage and
>>>>>>>> Virtual Memory size. What are the figures for the 6 processes
>>>>>>>> using the largest amounts?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you leave your computer on 24/7?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gerry
>>>>>>>> ~~~~
>>>>>>>> FCA
>>>>>>>> Stourport, England
>>>>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute
>>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> mtvet wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Sorry, it's actually 1.25 G. System came with 500M (250x2).
>>>>>>>>> I bought 1G and replace 1 module.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In Task Manager, the total physical memory is : 1308656.
>>>>>>>>> Total available hovers around: 583560, and system cache
>>>>>>>>> around: 654840.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any idea if Windows Defender and McAfee clash at all to cause
>>>>>>>>> these kinds of symptoms. It's still strange to me that the
>>>>>>>>> biggest hog I wind up seeing is svchost.exe with 3 identical
>>>>>>>>> threads kernel32.dll!CreateThread+0x22.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While McAfee may be somewhat of a hog, it doesn't "appear" to
>>>>>>>>> be grabbing too much of the CPU (except at certain times).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Gerry" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In terms of system performance McAfee is a poor choice for a
>>>>>>>>>> home computer. Replacing it with freeware alternatives would
>>>>>>>>>> result in a significant improvement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure you have 1.3 gb RAM? You have two slots. What
>>>>>>>>>> size stick is each?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Drivers:
>>>>>>>>>> http://snipurl.com/951ce [h10025_www1_hp_com]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gerry
>>>>>>>>>> ~~~~
>>>>>>>>>> FCA
>>>>>>>>>> Stourport, England
>>>>>>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute
>>>>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> mtvet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On SP3 now...got THAT issue resolved, but performance still
>>>>>>>>>>> the same, LOUSY. Updated video driver, no effect. You
>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned the motherboard chipset drivers and that they
>>>>>>>>>>> should be sure to be updated. If I go into device manager,
>>>>>>>>>>> which devices do I select in order to update those drivers
>>>>>>>>>>> appropriately? Is there a way to get the system to do a
>>>>>>>>>>> global driver update of some type, rather than having to do
>>>>>>>>>>> them piecemeal??
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Shenan Stanley" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> mtvet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've seen this issue a number of times, but no firm
>>>>>>>>>>>>> solution, and have a few differences with the other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> presentations. Just want to try to get at what's going on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HP Pavilion 503n, XPSP2, Celeron 1.7GHz, 1.3 GB RAM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Running Process Explorer to try to figure out what's going
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Launch an Office program - Jumps to 100% CPU, then drops
>>>>>>>>>>>>> down. When I then try to open a file and navigate to My
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computer, the flashlight comes up, and it takes forever,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the usage up to 100%. The primary process in this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> case appears to be the Office App (eg - WinWord). In
>>>>>>>>>>>>> other cases, seems like it's svchost that has 3 threads of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kernel32.dll!CreateThread+0x22.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> These each consume 20+% of the CPU.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we connect to the web using VZAccessMgr (verizon
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wireless connection) the usage jumps from about 20% up to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 80% and back down. Just keeps cycling like that. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> heavy users in this case appear to be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CreateThread+0x22. Then when anything else runs on top of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that, we have absolutely no functionality at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any help/suggestions appreciated!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I tend to see that alot on celeron processors. The lack of
>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient cache on the processor *really* makes a
>>>>>>>>>>>> noticable difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Are you running the latest VZAccessMgr?
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Latest hardware drivers (motherboard chipset in
>>>>>>>>>>>> particular)?
>>>>>>>>>>>> - What AV software?
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Integrated or seperate video card (and is the latest
>>>>>>>>>>>> driver for that installed?)
>>>>>>>>>>>> - What is your virtual memory set at? (I suggest you let
>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows control it.)
>>>>>>>>>>>> - How much free disk space?
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Last time you ran a full CHKDSK?
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Followed by a full defragmentation?
>>>>>>>>>>>> - What version of Office?
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Why SP2 and not SP3 for Windows XP?
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Home Edition, Professional Edition, Media Center Edition
>>>>>>>>>>>> or Tablet PC Edition?
>>>>>>>>>>>> - If you run an application like "HeavyLoad" for a while -
>>>>>>>>>>>> does it crash your system? And how long does it take to
>>>>>>>>>>>> completely peg your processor and use all your memory?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Shenan Stanley
>>>>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Defender and McAfee have now been disabled. After that, wound up trying to
run Housecall and kept getting the message "an error occurred while trying to
transfer data from the internet." I couldn't get past it. I then tried the
newly released revision, and it appears to be working correctly, but is
taking a very long time. It is, at least, updating the status so it looks
like I should have results in 4-5 hours.

Tried some other things and still can't figure out what's going on. In
Process Explorer, when it's up at 100%, the bulk of the time appears to be
kernel time, about 80%. I captured the WINWORD stacks for the two states to
try to get at what is really consuming CPU. Let me know if you have any
thoughts about further measures I can take to debug. I'll report back with
any problems found by housecall. I also have kernrate downloaded, but need
help figuring out where to focus when using it. Here they are:

WINWORD stack when 100% CPU usage
ntoskrnl.exe+0x47f3
ntoskrnl.exe!PsGetContextThread+0x329
ntoskrnl.exe!FsRtlInitializeFileLock+0x83f
ntoskrnl.exe!ExReleaseResourceLite+0x1d4
ntdll.dll!KiFastSystemCallRet
USER32.dll!PeekMessageW+0x167
SHELL32.dll!SHCreateQueryCancelAutoPlayMoniker+0x7023
mso.dll!Ordinal159+0x52a
mso.dll!Ordinal99+0x455
mso.dll!Ordinal99+0x1d8
mso.dll!Ordinal99+0x6e7


WINWORD stack low CPU
ntoskrnl.exe!ExReleaseResourceLite+0x1a3
ntoskrnl.exe!PsGetContextThread+0x329
ntoskrnl.exe!FsRtlInitializeFileLock+0x83f
ntoskrnl.exe!FsRtlInitializeFileLock+0x87e
win32k.sys+0x2ed2
win32k.sys+0x36d8
win32k.sys+0x36f5
ntdll.dll!KiFastSystemCallRet


"Gerry" wrote:

> Mark
>
> You can use an Intel Application Accelerator with the Intel Chipsets
> listed in this link.
> http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/sb/cs-009312.htm
>
> An Intel Application Accelerator is not offered by Intel for later
> chipsets
>
> Did you disable McAfee and Windows Defender before running Housecall? It
> would be helpful to know whether the problem was a fight between
> security software or defensive measures being taken by malware? It could
> of course be something else.
>
> --
>
>
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Gerry
> ~~~~
> FCA
> Stourport, England
> Enquire, plan and execute
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> mtvet wrote:
> > Tried the housecall link. Looked like it was working ok at first,
> > but then took FOREVER. There was no data going across the web, so
> > something hung up, and the CPU was, again, at 100%. Tried to restart
> > the housecall check, and it kept giving me error messages, so I don't
> > think I'm going to be able to successfully run that. Any other
> > ideas???
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > "Gerry" wrote:
> >
> >> mtvet
> >>
> >> Try an online scan using this link:
> >> http://housecall.trendmicro.com/uk/
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hope this helps.
> >>
> >> Gerry
> >> ~~~~
> >> FCA
> >> Stourport, England
> >> Enquire, plan and execute
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>
> >> mtvet wrote:
> >>> I know it's the holidays, and that's why responses may be slow, but
> >>> I'm still looking for help.
> >>>
> >>> Any idea if Intel's Application Accelerator would be helpful with
> >>> this kind of situation? Just been poking along, trying to check on
> >>> drivers etc, and stumbled across it.
> >>>
> >>> Mark
> >>>
> >>> "Gerry" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> mtvet
> >>>>
> >>>> Your commit charge figures are well below available RAM so in that
> >>>> sense they are fine. In terms of comparables posted these will have
> >>>> been posted as a result of requests where the user has complained
> >>>> of slow performance and excessive use of the pagefile is expected.
> >>>> So any results posted will more than likely be high. However, it
> >>>> is not easy to get typical figures. You really need to get results
> >>>> when the user is not conscious of a performance issue.
> >>>>
> >>>> Leaving a computer on 24/7 exposes the system to the consequences
> >>>> of memory leaks. Even when a programme with a memory leak is
> >>>> closed the memory is not released until the system is shutdown or
> >>>> restarted.
> >>>>
> >>>> You can check pagefile usage more directly using pagefilemon.
> >>>>
> >>>> A small utility to monitor pagefile usage:
> >>>> http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_pagefilemon.htm
> >>>>
> >>>> Note that programs using undo features, particularly those
> >>>> associated with graphics and photo editing, require large amounts
> >>>> of memory so if you use this type of programme check these first
> >>>> observing how the page usage increases when they start and whether
> >>>> the usage decreases when you close the programme.
> >>>>
> >>>> You can get clues as to what is generating peak memory demands but
> >>>> this is not a precise science, more a matter of judgement.
> >>>>
> >>>> The basis of your complaint is that CPU is pegged at 100%. Are you
> >>>> counting the System Idle process as part of the 100%. The System
> >>>> Idle process needs to be disregarded as it represents unused CPU
> >>>> capacity. Normally if you can match CPU usage to something you are
> >>>> doing then it is of no concern. It is unexplained CPU usage that
> >>>> needs investigation as it can indicate malware activity. You can
> >>>> also get a programme commanding 100% because it has a problem.
> >>>> Windows Automatic Updates has been known to create this type of
> >>>> problem.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hope this helps.
> >>>>
> >>>> Gerry
> >>>> ~~~~
> >>>> FCA
> >>>> Stourport, England
> >>>> Enquire, plan and execute
> >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> mtvet wrote:
> >>>>> Gerry-
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Under normal circumstances, what would average commit charge
> >>>>> figures be? Just curious, because the examples I've seen on line
> >>>>> have been roughly the same as on this machine, so I'm wondering
> >>>>> what the metric is that you use.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also, I've heard conflicting arguments for shutting down
> >>>>> frequently vs. leaving a computer on for longer. Some involve
> >>>>> the strain on the hardware from frequent power cycles, some
> >>>>> involve software stability over long periods of time. Why do you
> >>>>> say it is "not a good idea" to leave the computer on 24/7?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'll try the spybot thing. I think that McAfee had said that it
> >>>>> conflicts with their software and that it needed to be removed,
> >>>>> but I'll double check those conversations and give it a try.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mark
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Gerry" wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Mark
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Your commit charge figures are high. McAfee is a known cause and
> >>>>>> two of the items in your list relate to McAfee. Leaving your
> >>>>>> computer on 24/7 is not a good idea.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You might look for malware.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I would download and run Spybot S & D (freeware version) and see
> >>>>>> if it finds anything like a Trojan. If Spybot S & D finds
> >>>>>> anything significant ( other than cookies) you need to be wary.
> >>>>>> If it removes something and it returns or another nasty pops up
> >>>>>> it can be an indication that there is another hidden nasty not
> >>>>>> being detected by McAfee or Spybot.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Spybot S & D. There is a freeware version buried in this link:
> >>>>>> http://www.safer-networking.org/en/spybotsd/index.html
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hope this helps.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Gerry
> >>>>>> ~~~~
> >>>>>> FCA
> >>>>>> Stourport, England
> >>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute
> >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>> mtvet wrote:
> >>>>>>> Just wanted to make sure my responses were actually getting out
> >>>>>>> there, since my ability to see them has been very compromised by
> >>>>>>> using the Microsoft web-based newsreader. Figured I would ping
> >>>>>>> this one, just to make sure that if the existence of the other
> >>>>>>> replies had been unobserved there would be another chance for a
> >>>>>>> response.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Mark
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Gerry" wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What version of McAfee is it?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I do not know whether Windows Defender clashes with McAfee but
> >>>>>>>> I doubt that is the problem.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Try Ctrl+Alt+Delete to select Task Manager and click the
> >>>>>>>> Performance Tab. Under Commit Charge what is the Total, the
> >>>>>>>> Limit and the Peak?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You should be able to gather more information from Task
> >>>>>>>> Manager. With the Processes tab open select View, Select,
> >>>>>>>> Columns and check the boxes before Peak Memory Usage and
> >>>>>>>> Virtual Memory size. What are the figures for the 6 processes
> >>>>>>>> using the largest amounts?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Do you leave your computer on 24/7?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hope this helps.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Gerry
> >>>>>>>> ~~~~
> >>>>>>>> FCA
> >>>>>>>> Stourport, England
> >>>>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute
> >>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> mtvet wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Sorry, it's actually 1.25 G. System came with 500M (250x2).
> >>>>>>>>> I bought 1G and replace 1 module.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In Task Manager, the total physical memory is : 1308656.
> >>>>>>>>> Total available hovers around: 583560, and system cache
> >>>>>>>>> around: 654840.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Any idea if Windows Defender and McAfee clash at all to cause
> >>>>>>>>> these kinds of symptoms. It's still strange to me that the
> >>>>>>>>> biggest hog I wind up seeing is svchost.exe with 3 identical
> >>>>>>>>> threads kernel32.dll!CreateThread+0x22.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> While McAfee may be somewhat of a hog, it doesn't "appear" to
> >>>>>>>>> be grabbing too much of the CPU (except at certain times).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Gerry" wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> In terms of system performance McAfee is a poor choice for a
> >>>>>>>>>> home computer. Replacing it with freeware alternatives would
> >>>>>>>>>> result in a significant improvement.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Are you sure you have 1.3 gb RAM? You have two slots. What
> >>>>>>>>>> size stick is each?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Drivers:
> >>>>>>>>>> http://snipurl.com/951ce [h10025_www1_hp_com]
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hope this helps.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Gerry
> >>>>>>>>>> ~~~~
> >>>>>>>>>> FCA
> >>>>>>>>>> Stourport, England
> >>>>>>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute
> >>>>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> mtvet wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On SP3 now...got THAT issue resolved, but performance still
> >>>>>>>>>>> the same, LOUSY. Updated video driver, no effect. You
> >>>>>>>>>>> mentioned the motherboard chipset drivers and that they
> >>>>>>>>>>> should be sure to be updated. If I go into device manager,
> >>>>>>>>>>> which devices do I select in order to update those drivers
> >>>>>>>>>>> appropriately? Is there a way to get the system to do a
> >>>>>>>>>>> global driver update of some type, rather than having to do
> >>>>>>>>>>> them piecemeal??
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Shenan Stanley" wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> mtvet wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I've seen this issue a number of times, but no firm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> solution, and have a few differences with the other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> presentations. Just want to try to get at what's going on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with this machine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> HP Pavilion 503n, XPSP2, Celeron 1.7GHz, 1.3 GB RAM
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Running Process Explorer to try to figure out what's going
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> on.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Launch an Office program - Jumps to 100% CPU, then drops
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> down. When I then try to open a file and navigate to My
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Computer, the flashlight comes up, and it takes forever,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with the usage up to 100%. The primary process in this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> case appears to be the Office App (eg - WinWord). In
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> other cases, seems like it's svchost that has 3 threads of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> kernel32.dll!CreateThread+0x22.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> These each consume 20+% of the CPU.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When we connect to the web using VZAccessMgr (verizon

Post run of housecall - found 37 "grayware/spyware", which consisted of 36
cookies and something identified as "ADWARE_MEMWATCHER" in
c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts\127.0.0.1

That one appears, from what I've seen on the web, to be a false positive
that can be caused by spybot s&d.

So, the system appears to be clean, and yet a huge amount of cpu appears to
be being used by kernel mode.

Any other thoughts, other than getting a new computer?? It really seems
like this machine should be able to handle the work that we want to do on it,
but it bogs down way too much on ridiculously simple tasks.

HELP!

"Gerry" wrote:

> Mark
>
> You can use an Intel Application Accelerator with the Intel Chipsets
> listed in this link.
> http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/sb/cs-009312.htm
>
> An Intel Application Accelerator is not offered by Intel for later
> chipsets
>
> Did you disable McAfee and Windows Defender before running Housecall? It
> would be helpful to know whether the problem was a fight between
> security software or defensive measures being taken by malware? It could
> of course be something else.
>
> --
>
>
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Gerry
> ~~~~
> FCA
> Stourport, England
> Enquire, plan and execute
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> mtvet wrote:
> > Tried the housecall link. Looked like it was working ok at first,
> > but then took FOREVER. There was no data going across the web, so
> > something hung up, and the CPU was, again, at 100%. Tried to restart
> > the housecall check, and it kept giving me error messages, so I don't
> > think I'm going to be able to successfully run that. Any other
> > ideas???
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > "Gerry" wrote:
> >
> >> mtvet
> >>
> >> Try an online scan using this link:
> >> http://housecall.trendmicro.com/uk/
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hope this helps.
> >>
> >> Gerry
> >> ~~~~
> >> FCA
> >> Stourport, England
> >> Enquire, plan and execute
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>
> >> mtvet wrote:
> >>> I know it's the holidays, and that's why responses may be slow, but
> >>> I'm still looking for help.
> >>>
> >>> Any idea if Intel's Application Accelerator would be helpful with
> >>> this kind of situation? Just been poking along, trying to check on
> >>> drivers etc, and stumbled across it.
> >>>
> >>> Mark
> >>>
> >>> "Gerry" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> mtvet
> >>>>
> >>>> Your commit charge figures are well below available RAM so in that
> >>>> sense they are fine. In terms of comparables posted these will have
> >>>> been posted as a result of requests where the user has complained
> >>>> of slow performance and excessive use of the pagefile is expected.
> >>>> So any results posted will more than likely be high. However, it
> >>>> is not easy to get typical figures. You really need to get results
> >>>> when the user is not conscious of a performance issue.
> >>>>
> >>>> Leaving a computer on 24/7 exposes the system to the consequences
> >>>> of memory leaks. Even when a programme with a memory leak is
> >>>> closed the memory is not released until the system is shutdown or
> >>>> restarted.
> >>>>
> >>>> You can check pagefile usage more directly using pagefilemon.
> >>>>
> >>>> A small utility to monitor pagefile usage:
> >>>> http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_pagefilemon.htm
> >>>>
> >>>> Note that programs using undo features, particularly those
> >>>> associated with graphics and photo editing, require large amounts
> >>>> of memory so if you use this type of programme check these first
> >>>> observing how the page usage increases when they start and whether
> >>>> the usage decreases when you close the programme.
> >>>>
> >>>> You can get clues as to what is generating peak memory demands but
> >>>> this is not a precise science, more a matter of judgement.
> >>>>
> >>>> The basis of your complaint is that CPU is pegged at 100%. Are you
> >>>> counting the System Idle process as part of the 100%. The System
> >>>> Idle process needs to be disregarded as it represents unused CPU
> >>>> capacity. Normally if you can match CPU usage to something you are
> >>>> doing then it is of no concern. It is unexplained CPU usage that
> >>>> needs investigation as it can indicate malware activity. You can
> >>>> also get a programme commanding 100% because it has a problem.
> >>>> Windows Automatic Updates has been known to create this type of
> >>>> problem.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hope this helps.
> >>>>
> >>>> Gerry
> >>>> ~~~~
> >>>> FCA
> >>>> Stourport, England
> >>>> Enquire, plan and execute
> >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> mtvet wrote:
> >>>>> Gerry-
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Under normal circumstances, what would average commit charge
> >>>>> figures be? Just curious, because the examples I've seen on line
> >>>>> have been roughly the same as on this machine, so I'm wondering
> >>>>> what the metric is that you use.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also, I've heard conflicting arguments for shutting down
> >>>>> frequently vs. leaving a computer on for longer. Some involve
> >>>>> the strain on the hardware from frequent power cycles, some
> >>>>> involve software stability over long periods of time. Why do you
> >>>>> say it is "not a good idea" to leave the computer on 24/7?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'll try the spybot thing. I think that McAfee had said that it
> >>>>> conflicts with their software and that it needed to be removed,
> >>>>> but I'll double check those conversations and give it a try.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mark
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Gerry" wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Mark
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Your commit charge figures are high. McAfee is a known cause and
> >>>>>> two of the items in your list relate to McAfee. Leaving your
> >>>>>> computer on 24/7 is not a good idea.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You might look for malware.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I would download and run Spybot S & D (freeware version) and see
> >>>>>> if it finds anything like a Trojan. If Spybot S & D finds
> >>>>>> anything significant ( other than cookies) you need to be wary.
> >>>>>> If it removes something and it returns or another nasty pops up
> >>>>>> it can be an indication that there is another hidden nasty not
> >>>>>> being detected by McAfee or Spybot.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Spybot S & D. There is a freeware version buried in this link:
> >>>>>> http://www.safer-networking.org/en/spybotsd/index.html
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hope this helps.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Gerry
> >>>>>> ~~~~
> >>>>>> FCA
> >>>>>> Stourport, England
> >>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute
> >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>> mtvet wrote:
> >>>>>>> Just wanted to make sure my responses were actually getting out
> >>>>>>> there, since my ability to see them has been very compromised by
> >>>>>>> using the Microsoft web-based newsreader. Figured I would ping
> >>>>>>> this one, just to make sure that if the existence of the other
> >>>>>>> replies had been unobserved there would be another chance for a
> >>>>>>> response.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Mark
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Gerry" wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What version of McAfee is it?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I do not know whether Windows Defender clashes with McAfee but
> >>>>>>>> I doubt that is the problem.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Try Ctrl+Alt+Delete to select Task Manager and click the
> >>>>>>>> Performance Tab. Under Commit Charge what is the Total, the
> >>>>>>>> Limit and the Peak?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You should be able to gather more information from Task
> >>>>>>>> Manager. With the Processes tab open select View, Select,
> >>>>>>>> Columns and check the boxes before Peak Memory Usage and
> >>>>>>>> Virtual Memory size. What are the figures for the 6 processes
> >>>>>>>> using the largest amounts?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Do you leave your computer on 24/7?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hope this helps.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Gerry
> >>>>>>>> ~~~~
> >>>>>>>> FCA
> >>>>>>>> Stourport, England
> >>>>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute
> >>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> mtvet wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Sorry, it's actually 1.25 G. System came with 500M (250x2).
> >>>>>>>>> I bought 1G and replace 1 module.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In Task Manager, the total physical memory is : 1308656.
> >>>>>>>>> Total available hovers around: 583560, and system cache
> >>>>>>>>> around: 654840.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Any idea if Windows Defender and McAfee clash at all to cause
> >>>>>>>>> these kinds of symptoms. It's still strange to me that the
> >>>>>>>>> biggest hog I wind up seeing is svchost.exe with 3 identical
> >>>>>>>>> threads kernel32.dll!CreateThread+0x22.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> While McAfee may be somewhat of a hog, it doesn't "appear" to
> >>>>>>>>> be grabbing too much of the CPU (except at certain times).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Gerry" wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> In terms of system performance McAfee is a poor choice for a
> >>>>>>>>>> home computer. Replacing it with freeware alternatives would
> >>>>>>>>>> result in a significant improvement.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Are you sure you have 1.3 gb RAM? You have two slots. What
> >>>>>>>>>> size stick is each?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Drivers:
> >>>>>>>>>> http://snipurl.com/951ce [h10025_www1_hp_com]
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hope this helps.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Gerry
> >>>>>>>>>> ~~~~
> >>>>>>>>>> FCA
> >>>>>>>>>> Stourport, England
> >>>>>>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute
> >>>>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> mtvet wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On SP3 now...got THAT issue resolved, but performance still
> >>>>>>>>>>> the same, LOUSY. Updated video driver, no effect. You
> >>>>>>>>>>> mentioned the motherboard chipset drivers and that they
> >>>>>>>>>>> should be sure to be updated. If I go into device manager,
> >>>>>>>>>>> which devices do I select in order to update those drivers
> >>>>>>>>>>> appropriately? Is there a way to get the system to do a
> >>>>>>>>>>> global driver update of some type, rather than having to do
> >>>>>>>>>>> them piecemeal??
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Shenan Stanley" wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> mtvet wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I've seen this issue a number of times, but no firm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> solution, and have a few differences with the other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> presentations. Just want to try to get at what's going on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with this machine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> HP Pavilion 503n, XPSP2, Celeron 1.7GHz, 1.3 GB RAM
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Running Process Explorer to try to figure out what's going
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> on.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Launch an Office program - Jumps to 100% CPU, then drops
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> down. When I then try to open a file and navigate to My
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Computer, the flashlight comes up, and it takes forever,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with the usage up to 100%. The primary process in this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> case appears to be the Office App (eg - WinWord). In
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> other cases, seems like it's svchost that has 3 threads of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> kernel32.dll!CreateThread+0x22.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> These each consume 20+% of the CPU.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When we connect to the web using VZAccessMgr (verizon

Still looking for some feedback on my posts from the 8th and 9th. Anyone out
there?!?!?!?

Mark

"Gerry" wrote:

> Mark
>
> You can use an Intel Application Accelerator with the Intel Chipsets
> listed in this link.
> http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/sb/cs-009312.htm
>
> An Intel Application Accelerator is not offered by Intel for later
> chipsets
>
> Did you disable McAfee and Windows Defender before running Housecall? It
> would be helpful to know whether the problem was a fight between
> security software or defensive measures being taken by malware? It could
> of course be something else.
>
> --
>
>
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Gerry
> ~~~~
> FCA
> Stourport, England
> Enquire, plan and execute
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> mtvet wrote:
> > Tried the housecall link. Looked like it was working ok at first,
> > but then took FOREVER. There was no data going across the web, so
> > something hung up, and the CPU was, again, at 100%. Tried to restart
> > the housecall check, and it kept giving me error messages, so I don't
> > think I'm going to be able to successfully run that. Any other
> > ideas???
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > "Gerry" wrote:
> >
> >> mtvet
> >>
> >> Try an online scan using this link:
> >> http://housecall.trendmicro.com/uk/
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hope this helps.
> >>
> >> Gerry
> >> ~~~~
> >> FCA
> >> Stourport, England
> >> Enquire, plan and execute
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>
> >> mtvet wrote:
> >>> I know it's the holidays, and that's why responses may be slow, but
> >>> I'm still looking for help.
> >>>
> >>> Any idea if Intel's Application Accelerator would be helpful with
> >>> this kind of situation? Just been poking along, trying to check on
> >>> drivers etc, and stumbled across it.
> >>>
> >>> Mark
> >>>
> >>> "Gerry" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> mtvet
> >>>>
> >>>> Your commit charge figures are well below available RAM so in that
> >>>> sense they are fine. In terms of comparables posted these will have
> >>>> been posted as a result of requests where the user has complained
> >>>> of slow performance and excessive use of the pagefile is expected.
> >>>> So any results posted will more than likely be high. However, it
> >>>> is not easy to get typical figures. You really need to get results
> >>>> when the user is not conscious of a performance issue.
> >>>>
> >>>> Leaving a computer on 24/7 exposes the system to the consequences
> >>>> of memory leaks. Even when a programme with a memory leak is
> >>>> closed the memory is not released until the system is shutdown or
> >>>> restarted.
> >>>>
> >>>> You can check pagefile usage more directly using pagefilemon.
> >>>>
> >>>> A small utility to monitor pagefile usage:
> >>>> http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_pagefilemon.htm
> >>>>
> >>>> Note that programs using undo features, particularly those
> >>>> associated with graphics and photo editing, require large amounts
> >>>> of memory so if you use this type of programme check these first
> >>>> observing how the page usage increases when they start and whether
> >>>> the usage decreases when you close the programme.
> >>>>
> >>>> You can get clues as to what is generating peak memory demands but
> >>>> this is not a precise science, more a matter of judgement.
> >>>>
> >>>> The basis of your complaint is that CPU is pegged at 100%. Are you
> >>>> counting the System Idle process as part of the 100%. The System
> >>>> Idle process needs to be disregarded as it represents unused CPU
> >>>> capacity. Normally if you can match CPU usage to something you are
> >>>> doing then it is of no concern. It is unexplained CPU usage that
> >>>> needs investigation as it can indicate malware activity. You can
> >>>> also get a programme commanding 100% because it has a problem.
> >>>> Windows Automatic Updates has been known to create this type of
> >>>> problem.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hope this helps.
> >>>>
> >>>> Gerry
> >>>> ~~~~
> >>>> FCA
> >>>> Stourport, England
> >>>> Enquire, plan and execute
> >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> mtvet wrote:
> >>>>> Gerry-
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Under normal circumstances, what would average commit charge
> >>>>> figures be? Just curious, because the examples I've seen on line
> >>>>> have been roughly the same as on this machine, so I'm wondering
> >>>>> what the metric is that you use.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also, I've heard conflicting arguments for shutting down
> >>>>> frequently vs. leaving a computer on for longer. Some involve
> >>>>> the strain on the hardware from frequent power cycles, some
> >>>>> involve software stability over long periods of time. Why do you
> >>>>> say it is "not a good idea" to leave the computer on 24/7?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'll try the spybot thing. I think that McAfee had said that it
> >>>>> conflicts with their software and that it needed to be removed,
> >>>>> but I'll double check those conversations and give it a try.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mark
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Gerry" wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Mark
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Your commit charge figures are high. McAfee is a known cause and
> >>>>>> two of the items in your list relate to McAfee. Leaving your
> >>>>>> computer on 24/7 is not a good idea.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You might look for malware.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I would download and run Spybot S & D (freeware version) and see
> >>>>>> if it finds anything like a Trojan. If Spybot S & D finds
> >>>>>> anything significant ( other than cookies) you need to be wary.
> >>>>>> If it removes something and it returns or another nasty pops up
> >>>>>> it can be an indication that there is another hidden nasty not
> >>>>>> being detected by McAfee or Spybot.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Spybot S & D. There is a freeware version buried in this link:
> >>>>>> http://www.safer-networking.org/en/spybotsd/index.html
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hope this helps.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Gerry
> >>>>>> ~~~~
> >>>>>> FCA
> >>>>>> Stourport, England
> >>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute
> >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>> mtvet wrote:
> >>>>>>> Just wanted to make sure my responses were actually getting out
> >>>>>>> there, since my ability to see them has been very compromised by
> >>>>>>> using the Microsoft web-based newsreader. Figured I would ping
> >>>>>>> this one, just to make sure that if the existence of the other
> >>>>>>> replies had been unobserved there would be another chance for a
> >>>>>>> response.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Mark
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Gerry" wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What version of McAfee is it?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I do not know whether Windows Defender clashes with McAfee but
> >>>>>>>> I doubt that is the problem.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Try Ctrl+Alt+Delete to select Task Manager and click the
> >>>>>>>> Performance Tab. Under Commit Charge what is the Total, the
> >>>>>>>> Limit and the Peak?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You should be able to gather more information from Task
> >>>>>>>> Manager. With the Processes tab open select View, Select,
> >>>>>>>> Columns and check the boxes before Peak Memory Usage and
> >>>>>>>> Virtual Memory size. What are the figures for the 6 processes
> >>>>>>>> using the largest amounts?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Do you leave your computer on 24/7?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hope this helps.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Gerry
> >>>>>>>> ~~~~
> >>>>>>>> FCA
> >>>>>>>> Stourport, England
> >>>>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute
> >>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> mtvet wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Sorry, it's actually 1.25 G. System came with 500M (250x2).
> >>>>>>>>> I bought 1G and replace 1 module.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In Task Manager, the total physical memory is : 1308656.
> >>>>>>>>> Total available hovers around: 583560, and system cache
> >>>>>>>>> around: 654840.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Any idea if Windows Defender and McAfee clash at all to cause
> >>>>>>>>> these kinds of symptoms. It's still strange to me that the
> >>>>>>>>> biggest hog I wind up seeing is svchost.exe with 3 identical
> >>>>>>>>> threads kernel32.dll!CreateThread+0x22.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> While McAfee may be somewhat of a hog, it doesn't "appear" to
> >>>>>>>>> be grabbing too much of the CPU (except at certain times).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Gerry" wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> In terms of system performance McAfee is a poor choice for a
> >>>>>>>>>> home computer. Replacing it with freeware alternatives would
> >>>>>>>>>> result in a significant improvement.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Are you sure you have 1.3 gb RAM? You have two slots. What
> >>>>>>>>>> size stick is each?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Drivers:
> >>>>>>>>>> http://snipurl.com/951ce [h10025_www1_hp_com]
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hope this helps.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Gerry
> >>>>>>>>>> ~~~~
> >>>>>>>>>> FCA
> >>>>>>>>>> Stourport, England
> >>>>>>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute
> >>>>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> mtvet wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On SP3 now...got THAT issue resolved, but performance still
> >>>>>>>>>>> the same, LOUSY. Updated video driver, no effect. You
> >>>>>>>>>>> mentioned the motherboard chipset drivers and that they
> >>>>>>>>>>> should be sure to be updated. If I go into device manager,
> >>>>>>>>>>> which devices do I select in order to update those drivers
> >>>>>>>>>>> appropriately? Is there a way to get the system to do a
> >>>>>>>>>>> global driver update of some type, rather than having to do
> >>>>>>>>>>> them piecemeal??
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Shenan Stanley" wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> mtvet wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I've seen this issue a number of times, but no firm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> solution, and have a few differences with the other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> presentations. Just want to try to get at what's going on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with this machine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> HP Pavilion 503n, XPSP2, Celeron 1.7GHz, 1.3 GB RAM
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Running Process Explorer to try to figure out what's going
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> on.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Launch an Office program - Jumps to 100% CPU, then drops
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> down. When I then try to open a file and navigate to My
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Computer, the flashlight comes up, and it takes forever,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with the usage up to 100%. The primary process in this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> case appears to be the Office App (eg - WinWord). In
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> other cases, seems like it's svchost that has 3 threads of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> kernel32.dll!CreateThread+0x22.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> These each consume 20+% of the CPU.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When we connect to the web using VZAccessMgr (verizon

Try Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware
1.32 -freeware (if you upgrade you pay).
http://www.download.com/Malwarebytes-Anti-Malware/3000-8022_4-10804572.html

Run Malwarebytes' in safe mode and turn off McAfee before you do to
avoid
a conflict. Disregard the invitation on the web site regarding the
Registry Optimiser -a Registry Optimiser is not a helpful utitity.

--



Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



mtvet wrote:
> Still looking for some feedback on my posts from the 8th and 9th.
> Anyone out there?!?!?!?
>
> Mark
>
> "Gerry" wrote:
>
>> Mark
>>
>> You can use an Intel Application Accelerator with the Intel Chipsets
>> listed in this link.
>> http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/sb/cs-009312.htm
>>
>> An Intel Application Accelerator is not offered by Intel for later
>> chipsets
>>
>> Did you disable McAfee and Windows Defender before running
>> Housecall? It would be helpful to know whether the problem was a
>> fight between security software or defensive measures being taken by
>> malware? It could of course be something else.
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> Gerry
>> ~~~~
>> FCA
>> Stourport, England
>> Enquire, plan and execute
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>
>>
>> mtvet wrote:
>>> Tried the housecall link. Looked like it was working ok at first,
>>> but then took FOREVER. There was no data going across the web, so
>>> something hung up, and the CPU was, again, at 100%. Tried to
>>> restart the housecall check, and it kept giving me error messages,
>>> so I don't think I'm going to be able to successfully run that.
>>> Any other ideas???
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> "Gerry" wrote:
>>>
>>>> mtvet
>>>>
>>>> Try an online scan using this link:
>>>> http://housecall.trendmicro.com/uk/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>
>>>> Gerry
>>>> ~~~~
>>>> FCA
>>>> Stourport, England
>>>> Enquire, plan and execute
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>
>>>> mtvet wrote:
>>>>> I know it's the holidays, and that's why responses may be slow,
>>>>> but I'm still looking for help.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any idea if Intel's Application Accelerator would be helpful with
>>>>> this kind of situation? Just been poking along, trying to check
>>>>> on drivers etc, and stumbled across it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark
>>>>>
>>>>> "Gerry" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> mtvet
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your commit charge figures are well below available RAM so in
>>>>>> that sense they are fine. In terms of comparables posted these
>>>>>> will have been posted as a result of requests where the user has
>>>>>> complained of slow performance and excessive use of the pagefile
>>>>>> is expected. So any results posted will more than likely be
>>>>>> high. However, it is not easy to get typical figures. You really
>>>>>> need to get results when the user is not conscious of a
>>>>>> performance issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Leaving a computer on 24/7 exposes the system to the consequences
>>>>>> of memory leaks. Even when a programme with a memory leak is
>>>>>> closed the memory is not released until the system is shutdown or
>>>>>> restarted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can check pagefile usage more directly using pagefilemon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A small utility to monitor pagefile usage:
>>>>>> http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_pagefilemon.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that programs using undo features, particularly those
>>>>>> associated with graphics and photo editing, require large amounts
>>>>>> of memory so if you use this type of programme check these
>>>>>> first observing how the page usage increases when they start and
>>>>>> whether the usage decreases when you close the programme.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can get clues as to what is generating peak memory demands
>>>>>> but this is not a precise science, more a matter of judgement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The basis of your complaint is that CPU is pegged at 100%. Are
>>>>>> you counting the System Idle process as part of the 100%. The
>>>>>> System Idle process needs to be disregarded as it represents
>>>>>> unused CPU capacity. Normally if you can match CPU usage to
>>>>>> something you are doing then it is of no concern. It is
>>>>>> unexplained CPU usage that needs investigation as it can
>>>>>> indicate malware activity. You can also get a programme
>>>>>> commanding 100% because it has a problem. Windows Automatic
>>>>>> Updates has been known to create this type of problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gerry
>>>>>> ~~~~
>>>>>> FCA
>>>>>> Stourport, England
>>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute
>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mtvet wrote:
>>>>>>> Gerry-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Under normal circumstances, what would average commit charge
>>>>>>> figures be? Just curious, because the examples I've seen on line
>>>>>>> have been roughly the same as on this machine, so I'm wondering
>>>>>>> what the metric is that you use.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, I've heard conflicting arguments for shutting down
>>>>>>> frequently vs. leaving a computer on for longer. Some involve
>>>>>>> the strain on the hardware from frequent power cycles, some
>>>>>>> involve software stability over long periods of time. Why do
>>>>>>> you say it is "not a good idea" to leave the computer on 24/7?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll try the spybot thing. I think that McAfee had said that it
>>>>>>> conflicts with their software and that it needed to be removed,
>>>>>>> but I'll double check those conversations and give it a try.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Gerry" wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your commit charge figures are high. McAfee is a known cause
>>>>>>>> and two of the items in your list relate to McAfee. Leaving
>>>>>>>> your computer on 24/7 is not a good idea.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You might look for malware.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would download and run Spybot S & D (freeware version) and
>>>>>>>> see if it finds anything like a Trojan. If Spybot S & D finds
>>>>>>>> anything significant ( other than cookies) you need to be wary.
>>>>>>>> If it removes something and it returns or another nasty pops up
>>>>>>>> it can be an indication that there is another hidden nasty not
>>>>>>>> being detected by McAfee or Spybot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Spybot S & D. There is a freeware version buried in this link:
>>>>>>>> http://www.safer-networking.org/en/spybotsd/index.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gerry
>>>>>>>> ~~~~
>>>>>>>> FCA
>>>>>>>> Stourport, England
>>>>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute
>>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>>> mtvet wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Just wanted to make sure my responses were actually getting
>>>>>>>>> out there, since my ability to see them has been very
>>>>>>>>> compromised by using the Microsoft web-based newsreader.
>>>>>>>>> Figured I would ping this one, just to make sure that if the
>>>>>>>>> existence of the other replies had been unobserved there
>>>>>>>>> would be another chance for a response.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Gerry" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What version of McAfee is it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I do not know whether Windows Defender clashes with McAfee
>>>>>>>>>> but I doubt that is the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Try Ctrl+Alt+Delete to select Task Manager and click the
>>>>>>>>>> Performance Tab. Under Commit Charge what is the Total, the
>>>>>>>>>> Limit and the Peak?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You should be able to gather more information from Task
>>>>>>>>>> Manager. With the Processes tab open select View, Select,
>>>>>>>>>> Columns and check the boxes before Peak Memory Usage and
>>>>>>>>>> Virtual Memory size. What are the figures for the 6 processes
>>>>>>>>>> using the largest amounts?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you leave your computer on 24/7?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gerry
>>>>>>>>>> ~~~~
>>>>>>>>>> FCA
>>>>>>>>>> Stourport, England
>>>>>>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute
>>>>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> mtvet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, it's actually 1.25 G. System came with 500M (250x2).
>>>>>>>>>>> I bought 1G and replace 1 module.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In Task Manager, the total physical memory is : 1308656.
>>>>>>>>>>> Total available hovers around: 583560, and system cache
>>>>>>>>>>> around: 654840.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Any idea if Windows Defender and McAfee clash at all to
>>>>>>>>>>> cause these kinds of symptoms. It's still strange to me
>>>>>>>>>>> that the biggest hog I wind up seeing is svchost.exe with 3
>>>>>>>>>>> identical threads kernel32.dll!CreateThread+0x22.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> While McAfee may be somewhat of a hog, it doesn't "appear"
>>>>>>>>>>> to be grabbing too much of the CPU (except at certain
>>>>>>>>>>> times).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Gerry" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of system performance McAfee is a poor choice for
>>>>>>>>>>>> a home computer. Replacing it with freeware alternatives
>>>>>>>>>>>> would result in a significant improvement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure you have 1.3 gb RAM? You have two slots. What
>>>>>>>>>>>> size stick is each?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Drivers:
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://snipurl.com/951ce [h10025_www1_hp_com]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gerry
>>>>>>>>>>>> ~~~~
>>>>>>>>>>>> FCA
>>>>>>>>>>>> Stourport, England
>>>>>>>>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute
>>>>>>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> mtvet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On SP3 now...got THAT issue resolved, but performance
>>>>>>>>>>>>> still the same, LOUSY. Updated video driver, no effect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mentioned the motherboard chipset drivers and that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they should be sure to be updated. If I go into device
>>>>>>>>>>>>> manager, which devices do I select in order to update
>>>>>>>>>>>>> those drivers appropriately? Is there a way to get the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> system to do a global driver update of some type, rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>> than having to do them piecemeal??
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Shenan Stanley" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mtvet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've seen this issue a number of times, but no firm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solution, and have a few differences with the other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presentations. Just want to try to get at what's going
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on with this machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HP Pavilion 503n, XPSP2, Celeron 1.7GHz, 1.3 GB RAM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Running Process Explorer to try to figure out what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Launch an Office program - Jumps to 100% CPU, then drops
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down. When I then try to open a file and navigate to My
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computer, the flashlight comes up, and it takes forever,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the usage up to 100%. The primary process in this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case appears to be the Office App (eg - WinWord). In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other cases, seems like it's svchost that has 3 threads
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of kernel32.dll!CreateThread+0x22.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These each consume 20+% of the CPU.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we connect to the web using VZAccessMgr (verizon