Webb Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 AMD 1.0Ghz processor768 Mb RAMWindows XP SP2My newly installed WinXP has begun to run sluggishly. When I compared its task manager to my virtually identical laptop (AMD 1.0Ghz, 512Mb RAM, XP/SP2) I found that the laptop shows 1% CPU usage at idle while this one shows 18% CPU use - both run only ZoneAlarm and Avast at startup.I have defragmented, run Spybot, AdAware and a complete Avast scan - nothing unusual found and nothing changes.As I am typing this in Firefox my task manager shows 99% System Idle Process (expected) but 14% CPU usage (unexpected as these obviously doesn't add up to 100%). No unusual or suspicious processes or applications appear.Is this just a bug in the task manager (I have heard that it can give false results) and the sluggish performance just a figment of my imagination? Or is something more sinister afoot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James M. Fisher Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 What other programs are running at startup, Webb? Look in msconfig to check. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbdietz Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 Task Manager> Processes (tab)> View (menu)> Select Columns... Enable both "CPU usage" and "CPU time."Does that tell you anything?If not -START> Run...> Perfmon.mscRight Click in the graph area and choose "Add Counters..."Set "Performance Object" = "Process"Choose appropriate couters for any proess that seems of interest.HTH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webb Posted March 4, 2005 Author Share Posted March 4, 2005 JMF,Interesting. The buggy one loads ZoneAlarm\zlclient.exe at startup and the good one loads zapro.exe. I'll have to look into ZA's options to see why that is.But I also have Custom Startup, like msconfig but it saves different boot configurations. Booting with no ZoneAlarm and no AV yields the same results.rbdietz,I'll get back to you with the results. I don't know what I may be looking for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webb Posted March 4, 2005 Author Share Posted March 4, 2005 I figured out perfmon as I went along.I have shut down all applications and all but 14 services - I'm afraid if I shut down any others I will crash the system.Task manager still showing 14-17% CPU without perfmon running. Perfmon shows the same 14-17% CPU but no single process can account for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James M. Fisher Posted March 5, 2005 Share Posted March 5, 2005 I would rule out ZA by disabling it (or uninstalling it if you feel comfortable doing that) and using SP2's firewall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbdietz Posted March 5, 2005 Share Posted March 5, 2005 I figured out perfmon as I went along.I have shut down all applications and all but 14 services - I'm afraid if I shut down any others I will crash the system.Task manager still showing 14-17% CPU without perfmon running. Perfmon shows the same 14-17% CPU but no single process can account for it.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Which 14 services?How are things in safe mode? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webb Posted March 5, 2005 Author Share Posted March 5, 2005 rbeditz,I'll have to get back to you, probably tomorrow, as I am now running the most thorough virus scan available, which will take a couple of hours.Offhand, the processes I remember as essential are:alg.exe (probably not essential)crss.exelsass.exeexplorer.exeservices.exesvchost.exe (3 or 4 of these)SystemSystem Idle Processwinlogon.exeI will try safe mode first - glad you thought of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbdietz Posted March 5, 2005 Share Posted March 5, 2005 (edited) Offhand, the processes I remember as essential are:...svchost.exe (3 or 4 of these)...<{POST_SNAPBACK}> This page by Blackviper is a pretty handy reference for WinXP services.With regard to svchost.exe, SysInternal's Process Explorer will let you see what's actually being run under each svchost.It's "Show Fractional CPU" (veiw menu item) may possibly be useful? Edited March 5, 2005 by rbdietz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ablediver Posted March 5, 2005 Share Posted March 5, 2005 AMD 1.0Ghz processor768 Mb RAMWindows XP SP2My newly installed WinXP has begun to run sluggishly. When I compared its task manager to my virtually identical laptop (AMD 1.0Ghz, 512Mb RAM, XP/SP2) I found that the laptop shows 1% CPU usage at idle while this one shows 18% CPU use - both run only ZoneAlarm and Avast at startup.I have defragmented, run Spybot, AdAware and a complete Avast scan - nothing unusual found and nothing changes.As I am typing this in Firefox my task manager shows 99% System Idle Process (expected) but 14% CPU usage (unexpected as these obviously doesn't add up to 100%). No unusual or suspicious processes or applications appear.Is this just a bug in the task manager (I have heard that it can give false results) and the sluggish performance just a figment of my imagination? Or is something more sinister afoot?<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ablediver Posted March 5, 2005 Share Posted March 5, 2005 Hello: I am having the same problem. However, my computer shows 41 files running and between 1 to 100 percent capacity. Not only that, but my IP claims that I have massive output when nothing is going out. As with you, No viruses, no spyware, nothing shows up. Many of the 41 files are duplicates 4 -5 times over. I am not that literate, can anyone tell me if this is proper and where can I find instructions to straighten this machine out.Thanks Ablediver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webb Posted March 5, 2005 Author Share Posted March 5, 2005 Virus scan came up with nothing.Booting into safe mode brought the CPU down to 3%, 2% of which is attributable to taskmgr.exe - I'm getting closer.Out of safe mode, process explorer shows 10-12% attributable to hardware interrupts and 3-4% attributable to deferred procedure calls, but I don't know how to interpret this.I unplugged my USB joystick and camera but the results are the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James M. Fisher Posted March 5, 2005 Share Posted March 5, 2005 May be a bad (poorly written) driver, perhaps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_P Posted March 5, 2005 Share Posted March 5, 2005 my IP claims that I have massive output when nothing is going out.Or scumware. Adaware and SpyBot don't catch everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webb Posted March 5, 2005 Author Share Posted March 5, 2005 I like the bad/inefficient driver theory. Windows did a pretty poor job detecting hardware on the other computer and I had to get most of the drivers from the manufacturers.Windows did a good job detecting hardware on the problem computer but I would have preferred manufacturer's drivers.How would I go about loading individual drivers in safe mode until I see one that set off the CPU use? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbdietz Posted March 5, 2005 Share Posted March 5, 2005 Hello:  I am having the same problem. However, my computer shows 41 files running and between 1 to 100 percent capacity. Not only that, but my IP claims that I have massive output when nothing is going out.  As with you, No viruses, no spyware, nothing shows up.  Many of the 41 files are duplicates 4 -5 times over.  I am not that literate, can anyone tell me if this is proper and where can I find instructions to straighten this machine out.Thanks Ablediver<{POST_SNAPBACK}> To keep your issue from becoming hopelessly intermixed with Webb's issue, I started a new topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbdietz Posted March 5, 2005 Share Posted March 5, 2005 I like the bad/inefficient driver theory. Windows did a pretty poor job detecting hardware on the other computer and I had to get most of the drivers from the manufacturers.Windows did a good job detecting hardware on the problem computer but I would have preferred manufacturer's drivers.How would I go about loading individual drivers in safe mode until I see one that set off the CPU use?<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not exactly what you asked but...Right click My Computer and choose Properties.Select the Hardware tab.Click "Hardware Profiles" button.Click "Copy" to make a copy of the current hardware profile.Reboot your machine and confirm that you're able to select which profile!Right click My Computer and choose Properties.Select the Hardware tab.Click "Device Manager" button.Right click a device you'd like to test and choose Properties.At the bottom of the "General" tab you'll see a box labeled "Device Usage:"For devices that are not absolutely essential you can select "Do not use this device in the current hardware profile." (Others will be greyed out.)Test one device at a time. Reboot before testing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webb Posted March 5, 2005 Author Share Posted March 5, 2005 I was hoping for something a little simpler but I'll give it a try tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbdietz Posted March 5, 2005 Share Posted March 5, 2005 Windows did a good job detecting hardware on the problem computer but I would have preferred manufacturer's drivers.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Read through this again an the above sentence sunk in.Why haven't you downloaded the relevant manufacturer's latest drivers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webb Posted March 5, 2005 Author Share Posted March 5, 2005 (edited) I downloaded them and put them on a seperate HD before installing - audio, video - I'm not at home right now so I can't remember them all.If you think it would help I would much prefer to install these before trying the "one driver at a time" solution.I don't want to sound too stupid, but should I uninstall the existing drivers first, or will the new ones just overwrite the existing ones? Edited March 5, 2005 by Webb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James M. Fisher Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 In Device Manager, go to the device you want to update drivers for, right click it and choose "Update Driver" and the Hardware Wizard will start. Just follow the prompts and direct the wizard to the location where you have the drivers you want to install. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greengeek Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 I would usually uninstall the old drivers first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webb Posted March 6, 2005 Author Share Posted March 6, 2005 I downloaded them and put them on a seperate HD before installing - audio, video - I'm not at home right now so I can't remember them all.If you think it would help I would much prefer to install these before trying the "one driver at a time" solution.I don't want to sound too stupid, but should I uninstall the existing drivers first, or will the new ones just overwrite the existing ones?<{POST_SNAPBACK}> The drivers are not in the conventional windows .inf, etc. format. For example, the Nvidia video drivers are in an executable file that automatically installs them and doesn't just unzip them for later installation.So I'm going to go with GG's advice (is that you, Joy?) and uninstall old drivers first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greengeek Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 Yes it's me! :)Uninstalling old drivers first usually prevents problems later (but not always). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webb Posted March 6, 2005 Author Share Posted March 6, 2005 I should have noticed it in your sig the first time.Good morning to you and good night for me.I have a few drivers to install tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webb Posted March 7, 2005 Author Share Posted March 7, 2005 Success - sort of.I found a shortcut to rbdeitz' advice and went into my device manager and began disabling devices. I was pretty lucky because the second one I disabled was the VIA Audio. CPU use dropped to near zero.Next, I uninstalled the (Microsoft provided) driver and installed one from VIA. The high CPU usage came back but at least I have identified the problematic driver. Since VIA has several different drivers available I may just need an older version to go along with my older (3 yrs old) hardware.The same driver is installed on the other computer, which has newer hardware, with no problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James M. Fisher Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Keep us posted on this Webb. Very interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webb Posted March 8, 2005 Author Share Posted March 8, 2005 "Interesting" is when it's someone else's computer. But I have discovered and corrected the problem.Device manager showed 7 devices using IRQ 11. Disabling Onboard Legacy Audio in BIOS cleared it up. CPU use has dropped to 3% with Task Manager running. Whatever Onboard Legacy Audio is it hasn't affected my ability to play every type of media file I could find.There are still 6 devices using IRQ 11 but they don't seem to affect CPU use and when a conflict arises I will have my handy Process Explorer and know where to start looking.Thanks to all for your help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.