How to fix ‘Antimalware Service Executable’ high CPU usage

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by hdwydgw534, Sep 14, 2017.

  1. guest

    guest Guest

    Read more here

    Hope it will help those facing this issue :)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 14, 2017
  2. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,041
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    I don't know. This seems like a very well crafted "opportunistic" article intended to entice users away from Windows Defender and towards Emsisoft's costly offering. :( It is, after all, a simple re-hash of articles from other writers (who don't try to persuade users to their own products) such as this PingZic 2016 article or this 2014 Hyrokumata article or Microsoft's own 2015 Answers.

    Considering your personal association with Emsisoft, you posting this if nothing else, poses the appearance of a Emsisoft promotion tactic.
     
  3. guest

    guest Guest

    @Bill_Bright Which is still useful for some people because you can't deny the issue exist.
     
  4. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,041
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    Interesting how you edited your post to remove what you originally had, which was
    The point was not about whether the problem existed or not. The point was twofold. (1) You clearly have ties to Emsisoft, a company producing a product that is not free and competes with Windows Defender which is free. And (2), unlike the other articles I linked to that tell of the issue, your article makes a point of promoting that competing product, declaring it a "reputable and lightweight solution" - with "lightweight" being a clear dig at the WD high CPU usage issue. So your post and that article promotes a commercial (not free!) product you have ties to - whether that was your intention or not.

    FTR, while the issue does exist for a few people, note it occurs with "full" scans. Windows Defender never runs a full scan by default. By default, it Quick scans when manual scans are selected and even the Automatic Maintenance scan, which is not a "full" scan is scheduled during idle hours and halts should the user start using the computer. This means this high CPU utilization issue is really user-induced, and can easily be undone.

    There really is no need to ever run a full scan - except maybe if you receive a computer that has been used by someone else who disabled WD, never installed an alternative, and didn't keep Windows updated.

    And full disclosure, yes, I am a Microsoft MVP but anyone familiar with the MVP program knows we are not about promoting Microsoft products. While I will defend them when wrongly accused, I am one of their biggest critics too.

    I never promote any Microsoft product or service that costs users money (except to avoid illegal use though licensing violations).
     
  5. guest

    guest Guest

    I will reply now to you from a personal point of view, not as an Emsisoft representative.

    Yes i edited my post because it is a personal observation so not really relevant as a reply to you, i could mention other issues i had with Windows Defender but i didn't.

    If you remembered me from before, you surely knew i am a supporter of Windows built-in security and we side together against some WD "critics" (seems you suddenly forgot that since i represent Emsisoft...), now it doesn't mean i will deny issues Windows Defender have...Everybody knows them and this article just condensed several methods to fix it if it happens.

    Doesn't matter if it is full scan or not, if the full scan was "un-needed" why implement it? if implementing it, why don't do it properly and fix the issue?

    Emsisoft at least is offering to users the choice to buy and install it or not, however i can't say the same for MS who pushed WD in our throat without asking, and made it a pain to fully disable it... so please give me a break about costs & promotion... being forced to use it isn't being free !

    As you said, you are a Microsoft MVP so you should rather tell them to fix some old performance issues with WD, rather than going after companies/articles that gave some fixes for them...

    I see you will defend WD at all costs so you will surely find more arguments to contradict me. I leave you with your opinion , i'm not interested to debate anymore about such futile matters.

    Best Regards.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 16, 2017
  6. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,041
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    No, that is not true at all. NO WAY is Windows Defender perfect, or the best anti-malware solution out there. I defend any product or company that is unfairly targeted or bashed without evidential justification (see some of my posts defending Intel or OEM coolers). It is only because there are so many Microsoft bashers out there, and so many wannabe journalist and bloggers in the IT Press seeking attention that Microsoft and their products have big targets on their backs. Microsoft has done plenty to deserve bashing so I say bash when due based on the facts. But IMO, that is not the time to promote your products instead - especially products that cost users money.

    If a user is experiencing abnormally high CPU utilization during full scans, there is a problem that needs to be resolved. Discussing how to resolve it is good. Using that opportunity to promote a competing product does not fix the problem - it's a product promotion.

    So I will defend them with vigor when unfairly targeted but at the same time, I will defend any one's right to express their opinion with that same vigor. I did not spend 24 years in the military defending peoples rights only to trample them myself. But since these forums are "technical" in nature (and tend to be based on the Laws of Physics), opinions about technical issues need to be based on the facts.
    You need to ask the user that. It is not Microsoft or Windows Defender implementing it. As noted before, "Full" scans are not selected by default. That means the users had to manually select the Full scan option and Full scans by their nature, are more resource intensive and time consuming and therefore should not be implemented if the user intends to keep using their computer. Perhaps Microsoft should be faulted for not making that more clear.
    Suddenly forgot? :( Perhaps I did forget but it was out of convenience as your "suddenly" comment suggests. I visit and help out at many sites every day, interacting with dozens and dozens of posters. I get over 60 post notification emails daily. I surely don't expect that I am so memorable that everyone I encounter automatically remembers that it is I who said something.

    See? This is what I am talking about. :( This is just another opportunistic bash at Microsoft that has no bearing whatsoever on this debate. But you clearly let your biases dictate your response. Did you "suddenly forget" the lessons learned through history?

    What happened when Microsoft wanted to include A/V code in XP? Norton, McAfee, CA, TrendMicro and others whined and cried "monopoly" to Congress and the EU claiming Microsoft was trying to rule the world. They were, but not the point. Microsoft want to secure Windows but Norton and McAfee et al claimed it was their job to control malware. So Congress and the EU only hearing "monopoly" threatened to break up Microsoft (like they did "Ma Bell") if MS did not remove that code.

    So what happened? Norton, McAfee, AVG, and the others FAILED in their one job to protect users. But who got blamed - relentlessly - for next 10+ years? Norton and McAfee? Nope. Users for failing to keep their systems secured and updated? Nope. How about the bad guys who perpetrated the offenses? Nope! Microsoft got blamed for XP being insecure.

    So Microsoft, knowing they will get blamed regardless, decided they would rather get blamed for providing security and protecting users right out of the box instead of getting blamed for the actions (and inactions) of others that allow the bad guys to commit their offenses basically unchecked. And I say kudos to Microsoft for that.

    And why aren't Congress, the EU, Norton, McAfee, Emsisoft and the others screaming "monopoly" now? Because they all know the blew it, big time. If Microsoft had been allowed to include A/V code in XP, there's a good chance the bad guys and malware would not have established the massive, extremely lucrative and undefeatable security mess we are in now.

    And to my point about defending Windows Defender when unfairly or falsely accused, contrary to your incorrect claim above, it is actually very easy to fully disable Windows Defender. In fact, if the alternative solution is properly programmed, Windows Defender will FULLY disable its real time component when the alternative solution is installed.

    But remember too that Microsoft is the ONLY producer of anti-malware products for the general consumer that benefits if malware is defeated! Norton, McAfee, AVG, Avira, Emsisoft, Kaspersky and the others all need and have a financial incentive for malware to thrive in order for them to survive. If malware went away, so too would those companies.

    The How-to Geek: How To Uninstall, Disable, Remove and Turn Off Windows Defender.

    ****

    Just to ensure clarification, the issue here is not with you posting an article about high CPU utilization in certain scenarios with Windows Defender doing Full scans. The issue is the promotion of a competing product. Call it spam, advertising, or whatever you want. But that article had the [not-so] "hidden agenda" of selling Emsisoft's program.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.