I am just guessing, but it sounds like the XP Recovery utility that runs in
the background, constantly copying RAM to the hard disk. You can turn this
off by going to System and then find the TAB with the Recovery button, and
then un check the appropriate box. You will however, lose the auto recovery
features.
I have found that XP sucks up CPU performance like a black hole!
Particularly when using Media Player 8.
I have a system that was formally used as my Windows 2000 file server
running 2000 server SP2. I ran this Server for two years as my File, Fax,
NAT Server. I also used it for my email = multiple copies of Eudora....
Office 2000 and basic Internet apps all running 24/7. The PC is a AMD K62
550 with 384 megs of RAM , a couple of Matrox G200s with 16 megs of RAM
each, and a couple of 7200 RPM Maxtor DiamondMax drives.
This wasn't by any stretch of the imagination, a game box, or a graphics
video workstation, but for what it was used for, it was, and is, quite
snappy. I certainly never felt that it lacked in performance. After I
upgraded the Server I started using it as my Linux Box, currently Red Hat
7.3 with KDE 3.0. Again, even with KDE it is very snappy.
Last week I decided to install XP as a dual boot with Linux. Mostly for
testing and support purposes. I did a clean install and patched it. It
runs, but when I try to play back a video file that would use up about 55
percent of CPU time in Windows 2000... I immediately jump to 100 percent
and I can barely do anything else...even just moving the position of the
window is a chore.
I have removed all the eye candy features, recovery features, killed all
unnecessary services, and stripped it down to bare essentials, and it
still runs like a pig. I have twice the posted minimum required CPU power,
7 times the RAM and a very fast hard drive, and yet antidotally it feels 25
percent slower then Windows 2000. Without media player it is showing 5 to 8
percent CPU usage
Just to test my theory, I backed up, imaged the XP partition, and then did
a new install of Windows 2000 Workstation on the same partition, with the
same hardware, and the same kind of configuration. Huge difference in
performance. I can play the same video file with Media Player 7.1, and I am
running at 58 percent CPU. You don't really notice this sort of thing on a
PC with a 1 GB plus CPU but when you get closer to the line these
differences are very apparent.
I will be honest, I bitch about every new version of Windows! But I get use
to them, and even start liking them. This hasn't been the case with XP. At
least yet. The more I use XP, the more I dislike it, and frankly I don't
see any advantage over Windows 2000, ...at least for a professional. ....
who neither wants or needs all the wizards that are constantly, and
annoyingly popping up,.... nor who appreciates the overabundance of pop
culture eye candy. But then I hate Rap Music. Maybe this is why there is
still no XP Server.
Rode
The NOSPIN Group
At 03:22 AM 6/1/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>I'm running windows XP on a Dell Dimension XPS B800. When I look at the
>system usage it shows that the CPU is being used at 100% for 4-5 seconds
>and then it drops down to 1 or 2% through two or three steps and then
>builds back up to 100% usage. The process using all the CPU is the SYSTEM
>process running 46 threads. if I terminate the system process the number
>of threads drops to 45 and the CPU useage drops to 1 or 2% and remains
>there - any ideas why the CPU is being used so much, why the large number
>of threads and how to stop the high useage
>
>Max
PCSOFT's List Owner's:
Bob Wright<[log in to unmask]>
Drew Dunn<[log in to unmask]>
|
