Home > Vista Ultimate > Vista Ultimate 32: High CPU Usage Does Not Correspond With Process Usage

Vista Ultimate 32: High CPU Usage Does Not Correspond With Process Usage

I simply can't use Chrome when on batteries: it cuts the life in half, from 4 hours to less than 2. I'd almost bet that some different program is used in Win7 and that this might just be left over from whatever (XP or Vista) you had before. Then I put the PC in hibernation as I usually do when I leave it and when I got back home and restarted the PC everything was like when I left, So what you are saying doesn't prove it's a only Chrome issue (link below for Firefox to prove that). http://controlpanelsource.com/vista-ultimate/vista-ultimate-question.html

Flag Permalink This was helpful (0) Collapse - excellent question by benhartman / April 17, 2009 12:56 PM PDT In reply to: 100 percent CPU usage caused by SVCHOST process, need This roughly doubles the CPU usage on even your fixed 4.0 alpha - from 10-15% to 30+% consistently on my test set. I've actually seen this issue with svchost more often be legitimate tasks than malware. Then, this evening, I noticed one interesting correlation: Google Reader. https://community.norton.com/en/forums/high-cpu-usage-and-disk-thrashing-during-not-only-quickscans-afterwards-well

Atomic_Blast :) "Every day is just another increment on the bell curve of life." lmacri Norton Fighter25 Reg: 05-May-2009 Posts: 3,047 Solutions: 78 Kudos: 1,504 Kudos0 Re: High CPU usage and I can correct this by killing the Flash task in the Chrome Task Manager, but that's a bit messy. What I've done is test on Windows 7, which on my machine has a much lower and more stable background computation level of 2-4%. I am now being forced to revert to ie8 :( This is really annoying and I am surprised that this issue has not been fixed after all this time.

Comment 43 by [email protected], Jul 8 2009 Processing Status: WontFix I am convinced that this is not a bug in Chromium but instead is due to poorly written javascript or Flash Start Chrome 2. Comment 44 by Deleted [email protected], Jul 25 2009 Processing I have tested this in Chrome 2.0, IE7, IE8 and Firefox 3.0. If you have Comcast internet service, they provide Macafe for free.

BTW, i am currently on Chrome and "Enable Phishing and Malware Protection" is disabled on both Vista and XP. Hotlists: Sign in to add a comment What steps will reproduce the problem? 1. Project: chromium ▼ Issues People Development process History Sign in New issue Search Search within: All issues Open issues New issues Issues to verify for Advanced search Search tips Note: Color More about the author Click the [Processes] tab.

Flag Permalink This was helpful (0) Collapse - SVCHOST by OldPhotoBuff / April 17, 2009 11:16 AM PDT In reply to: 100 percent CPU usage caused by SVCHOST process, need help Also, is there any tool that shows the CPU use of all the services in a list (similar to the process list in the task manager)? What you get for the ads varies, and of course CPU with them, but I checked several times and found I was getting a reasonably even distribution on either browser, similar Skip to main content Norton.com Norton Community Home Forums Blogs Search HelpWelcome Message FAQs Search Tips Participation Guidelines Terms and Conditions MenuUserLog in Sign up English简体中文 Français Deutsch 日本語 Português Español

And it seemed consistent as to what part of the page would cause the CPU spike -- an advertisement area in the center of the (total) page. When you look at about:plugins what version of Flash do you have? (You need at least version 10). Thanks. This problem has been recurrent on many computers for very long time.

It's take it back to factory out of the box state. his comment is here To realize which service consumes your cpu you can try my Service Disclosure tool. Now usage is below 5% . If it is something like a confused process, kill it by highlighting it and pressing Delete. (may have to run processexplorer by right-clicking on the icon and running as administrator) Warning:

Below is an old CNET article about turning off Windows XP services.http://reviews.cnet.com/ipod/9602-12576_7-0.html?messageID=2505922-SC Flag Permalink This was helpful (0) Collapse - Try identifying the related process by Serenity3000 / April 17, 2009 You can download it from CNet. Why survival times are assumed to be exponentially distributed? this contact form Comment 77 by [email protected], Dec 19 2009 Processing Labels: Area-Internals Internals-Install Comment 78 by [email protected], Dec 19 2009 Processing Labels: -Area-Internals -Internals-Install Fixing a bulk edit.

It just takes a little courage, equipment, and source code. Every thing else was just as Bengt has stated. Flag Permalink This was helpful (0) Collapse - SVCHOST running at full CPU by glenn9376 / April 17, 2009 12:20 PM PDT In reply to: 100 percent CPU usage caused by

If I load just a few of the same Flash-bearing NYTimes pages on the very latest Google Chrome, my cpu usage is at or above 80%.

If 3.0 has the tabs loaded one-by-one so that it has the low process count, it operates definitely on the low end of its variation of processor activity -- and sometimes tid=77131c0714e881eb&hl=en Comment 1 by [email protected], Dec 4 2008 Processing Hi! Thanks! It would be a 'do no evil' exercise for sure, and restore a lot of the confidence I have been losing through various carelessness of our large technical store these days.

It's free from Microsoft. Sometimes it is much worse - effective 100%. - With your alpha Chrome 4.0 version, comparable CPU use is 15-30% after settling. it's NOT SVCHOST that is the problem. navigate here You do the math as far as how important that is.

What version of Chrome are you using? It roughly halves the battery time in typical use, from 4 hours to 2 hours, and would be worse if I had Chrome on all the time. Right-click the svchost.exe which is causing you trouble (memory, CPU, etc.) In the pull-down menu select [Go to Service(s)]. It's not a real solution, but for some users it might be plenty good in making Chrome not cave on itself.

I see the same problem on Firefox 3.5.4. The original u2u thread is here: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Chrome/thread? Comment 54 by [email protected], Oct 10 2009 Processing gwilson, this is a real and very unfortunate problem, and I am just amazed that Google engineering isn't to the bottom of it.