Win XP Right Clicking Gobbles CPU Time

I've just finished reading that right clicking under win xp may cause instability problems:

"Windows XP right click gobbles up CPU time

Microsoft says work around it, move along now

A MESSAGE on the Neohapsis bulletin board said that using Windows Explorer and right clicking on a file gobbles up the CPU to the tune of 100%.
Mark Luczkowski says the problem only happens when you select files with a right click of the mouse, not having selected the file with a left click first.

He says that the problem can be reproduced on both Pentium III and Pentium 4 machines, and we've certainly reproduced it here at the INQ.*"

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9169

I read on another web page that you can solve the problem by either left clicking before doing the right clicking--this might be a problem though b'cause it can activate stg we don't necessarily want-- or
go to the control pannel, click on the computer icon, then click on the display property, leave blank the first option in the effect menu, there are 6 option spaces, the first space is the right one you should leave blank. This could avoid consumption problems too. I can't explain why it works but I think it's good to know.
If I find more info on this I'll let you know.
Bye! Uguel

 

Hi Uguel707,

does this behaviour change if you use the Windows 2000 environment instead of the Windows XP environment. It's not that graphical and therefore saves a lot of Memory and CPU usage.

Regards,

Patrice

 

That's strange stuff to me...

patrice - when you say "environment" that means you select whether XP looks/feels like 2000 or XP? I'm not too familiar with the XP OS

 

Hi Patrice!

Relevant question. Well, according to Microsoft this is a problem relating typically to win xp. They did not say that it happens in a different environment or OS. It's typical to Windows XP. I think if you have win xp + windows 2000 on the same system and you use the 2000 environment to do a right click, it shouldn't exploit extra CPU consumption. It shoud be normal. But I'm ain't an expert myself. I guess we can just watch the CPU graphic under windows* 2000 when right clicking and watch how it would go. See the link I gave in the post above... The graphic shows the elevated consumption under xp. Would it be different when right-clicking under 2000? Stg to watch for.
At first, Microsoft said they would correct it by adding a patch to win xp...after they decided not to. They explained that the patch may interfere with some of win xp features.

*OH! I just have Word 2000 installed along with Win xp. I don't have the whole Office suite installed. I can't tell much.
Or at least I may try a right click under Word and watch the CPU while doing it.

Have a nice day! Uguel

 

Hi Detox & Uguel,

Correct! I will make some tests on my computer to be sure and let you know!

Best regards,

Patrice

 

Don't have (or want) XP but this is gonna be interesting to know.. any results?

 

Hi people,

o.k., my tests confirm this issue. As you can see for yourself on my taskmanager, the CPU raises up to 100% when I right-click the file. The second curve illustrates the CPU usage after that I first did a left-click on a file and then a right-click. Wasn't aware until now of this. But in my opinion it's not a major problem. I never realized any problems or lags.

Detox, in my opinion Windows XP is the first "relatively good" Windows produced by Microshit. All the others can't deal with it.

Best regards,

Patrice

 

Hm so it happens in both modes? Still strange stuff to me but mostly just because I don't understand it.

Anyway I'll keep my Win2k and you keep Xp and we'll agree to disagree

You are one person I am sure I can disagree with in a friendly way because you are a good reasonable person from what I've seen! I would be interested to know more about your feelings of the relative dependence of XP on MS servers (connections, etc) compared to 2k or previous but that may be best discussed in another thread?

 

Hi Detox,

I failed to give you the test results of the "Windows 2000" environment under Windows XP. Here they are, but they are identical.

I'm open to discuss the differences of Windows 2000 and XP with you. With Windows 2000 you have a very stable version of Windows! I mean XP is based on the architecture of Windows 2000. I just think that it's a difficult system for a "normal" user. The settings are quite hidden. That was the main reason why I didn't like it. So that you understand my background, I was a network administrator and I had to deal with all versions of Windows (Windows 3.1 - Windows XP).

Best regards,

Patrice

 

Hm it certainly is identical; and there is no patch from MS yet to fix this? While it is avoidable it still seems like something they (MS) would want to fix!!

I hafta say I am loving my win2k after being win98se for some time...

Do you use Xp Anti-SPY or something similar?

 

Hi Detox,

sure I use XP Antispy! My system is absolutely clean, so nothing is sending information out to Microsoft. Well, I don't know about Windows Update, because the traffic is encrypted. I even couldn't find out what was being sent with a network sniffer. Besides this I was changing some registry entries manually to make my system even more clean and safe.

Best regards,

Patrice

 

Well I must admit that with your work then XP isn't so bad - but I am awful wary about the update thing... If there is a "bad" patch will XP have downloaded it automatically?

 

Hi Detox,

the Windows Update is for all Windows OS the same. So, that means, that even for Windows 2000 (if you use the Windows Update Homepage) the traffic is encrypted. Only if you download the updates manually you don't send any data to Microsoft (well, data from your computer).

I have disabled the function, that Windows updates itself automatically. I don't like that at all. I prefer to update my computer myself. Like that I'm able not to install a "bad" patch.

Regards,

Patrice

 

Patrice,
Nice Screenshot! Well, it sounds that win XP takes over 2000. I haven't got the time to try under word 2000 but yes, under xp the graphic level went like crazy when right clicking.

Detox,
I usually download the patches. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it makes things worse. Moreover, you can't anticipate everything the patch is gonna change in advance in your system. Even if I always read: more information about this patch on the windows XP page, I won't be sure how much things the patch may change and if some of the features will disagree with the softwares I had already installed before. Of course, you can refuse the patch or delete it if you had already downloaded it.
Also... some patch are there to correct some flaws in the previous patch version! So it's quite complicated gobbledygook engineering
Especially for a newby like me! Bye, Uguel

 

Hi Uguel707 & Detox,

ever tried the Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer for updating your system? Let's say it's not an easy to use tool (because it produces sometimes false alerts), but overall it's very nice. With it you find out if you miss an update on your system.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/TechNet/Security/tools/tools/MBSAHome.ASP

If you wanna try it out, go ahead, if you need help, let me know!

Regards,

Patrice

 

I've just finished comparing Win XP task CPU window with a right click under word 2000. XP right clicking reached the top level: 100%, no open programs, just a mere right click on the desktop whereas right clicking under Word 2000 has reached about 30% high...My pc may have different settings, a different tower and so on. But one thing is sure, right clicking is somewhat demanding under xp. I haven't found more consistent information in English on that matter. Just found more info in French which almost says the same thing as my link above, except that they explain that right cliking may result in a loss of performance when working on a network. This can result in cut off and they noticed that sound can be altered when you're listening to music or else:

http://www.clubik.com/n/n8760.html

Please note that none of the links or web pages found told it was stg serious. It's just a little annoying problem.

Well, sounds interesting but I like to hear a little more. Can you explain the difference between the Baseline Security analyser and the regular updated (which includes also a scan on line )? I went to the page, it's sound interesting but I wan't to know if there is some special settings before I launch the Analyser. See ya! Uguel

 

I'm not at home now but I will check this out later this week when I return!

 

Hi Uguel707 & Detox,

the MBSA is a tool which scans your whole computer (or several computers) for missing updates. The difference between the Windows Update Homepage and this tool is, that he finds out missing updates from the past, where Windows Update failed. Let's say it like this, the online scan isn't always correct. Sometimes it misses something... Just do this scan once, perhaps it finds an update which is missing on your computer. The reason is, as far as I understand it, that MBSA has more rights on your computer than the online scan from Windows Update.

But be aware, that sometimes it produces false alerts. If you look for the file you will realize, that you already have installed the latest update. Read the next post, so that you understand this issue. Here's a screenshot of the prog:

 

Here's some additional information about MBSA:

The Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer (MBSA) determines the status of a computer patch by evaluating the presence of specific registry keys, file versions, and file checksums that are associated with a specific security update. There are some instances where MBSA cannot determine the patch installation status because the detailed file and registry key information is not available for the specified security bulletin or patch. A note message that is similar to the following note
message is generated in instances where the MSSecure.xml data file does not contain this information:

NOTE MS01-022 Q296441
Please read KBarticle 306460

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;306460

The Hfnetchk tool ships as part of the MBSA V1.1 tool. Users can perform Hfnetchk scans by using the MBSA command line interface, mbsacli.exe/hf.

How to Suppress Note Messages:

After you review each of the security bulletins that are associated with note messages and have tried to resolve the issues, you can suppress note messages from the Hfnetchk output. To suppress these messages, use the -s 1 switch. For example, type the following:

mbsacli.exe/hf -v -s 1 (Suppress security update check notes)

mbsacli.exe/hf -v -s 2 (Suppress security udpate check notes and warnings)

For more information about this issue see Microsoft Knowledge Base Article - 306460

Hope that helps!

Best regards,

Patrice

 

Hi Patrice!

Well, I tried it ! The program analysed my pc security updates and then I was redirected to Microsoft updates after it found some security updates missing. I'm downloading one now...
I find that it is similar to the classical updates except that it is more reliable and tells more about your own security features. Yes, I agree that it goes farther than the regular scans online. It assists you well in the end.

Yes, I'll check that and one more thing: I had to disable my AV when the program executed for it was telling me that I had a bad script executing. So better turn it off before executing Microsoft Baseline Security! I'll tell more about the program after a long run. Bye! Uguel

 

Hi Uguel707,

Glad that you like it. Which AV-scanner do you use? I'm using NAV 2003 but didn't have any problems concerning MBSA. If you need help concerning the "false alerts" let me know. It's quite tricky in the beginning!

Regards,

Patrice

 

Well, I think it had produced false alarms for it said that I've haven't got the patch one downloaded which was wrong...at least, it was still showing in the Control Panel. Any idea why it didn't see it? Is it because the Patch One hadn't been installed under MSBA control?

Yes, I must say. Btw, would you please tell me if there is a way to make MSBA scan my pc more efficiently in order to avoid those false alarms?

And which antivirus I use? Norton 2002. It was already installed in my pc when I purchased it. Bye! Uguel

 

Hi Uguel707,

if you perform a scan, it will show you missing updates (those you should install immediately) and from time to time false alarms. In the beginning you don't know if these are false alarms. If it tells you, that a patch hasn't been installed you have to check that out. How? Go to the Microsoft Update Page, which is mentioned. Look for the files this patch would install and check their versions. Now go and search your computer for these files. If you find them check out their versions as well. If you have the same version or a newer one, keep it, because then it was a false alarm!

If during the next scan with MSBA the same updates are missing you can work around like this: open the command console, and start MSBA with the commands:

mbsacli.exe/hf -v -s 1

or

mbsacli.exe/hf -v -s 2

Then those warnings shouldn't appear. If they ever show up again, just ignore them.

Best regards,

Patrice

 

Well thanks! In fact, yest, one day after the MSBA scan, I went to the regular updates to make sure that my new changes would be taken into account. All right, twas there. That is to say : less updates had to be downloaded after MSBA had scanned my PC. Thank you ! Uguel