If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Solution to browser hogs 100% CPU on Win7 64-bit 1GB RAM AMD Turion
In message , ultred ragnusen
writes: On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 03:09:44 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: Check RAM usage first. I should have mentioned that I checked three things first, all of which were consistent: 1. The CPU was at 100% whenever I browsed (more on that later) 2. The RAM is pretty much at 90% almost all the time (give or take) 3. The NETWORK isn't doing anything (but Windows update on the side) My summary on the RAM is that it's certainly maxed out, but, it was maxed out when the computer was born, and the browser couldn't have been unusable. I doubt that. It would have been pretty sluggish when new, if that was the case, which seems unlikely. The browser would just have been slow (but more on that below). They have a bit perhaps, but the main thing that _has_ changed is the average size of webpages - not so much images or text, but _vast_ amounts of code. IMO, anyway. I agree and have more details, after looking at this for hours. A. The worst browsers are the Chromium based browsers (by far!) B. The number of tabs makes a huge difference (especially in Chrome!) Well, I mostly use Firefox, and find the number of tabs there makes quite a difference. C. Yes. Some web pages, especially web forums, are CPU killers! Turning off and/or blocking a lot of things helps there - certainly ad.s (ABP or the other one), and probably a good hosts file. To the extent that 1G of RAM isn't really enough these days - even for XP, let alone 7. Do do the Task Manager check. The RAM is, as expected, "maxed out" at around 80% to 90% most of the time, but my point is that all I want is to get the computer to browse like it did when it was born - which is to say - to browse slowly - but not impossibly. (Is the HD light - assuming there is one - on a lot?) Remember it was born as an XP machine, _and_ when web pages had far less script running. FWIW, I run XP here, on a single core 1.3 GHz machine. It originally had 1G; I'd bought 2G (the most it can take), but didn't get round to fitting it for some time, and noticed little difference when I did - but in those days, was only using 7xx M according to task manager, so that's not surprising. Now, with just Firefox 26 (granted, with about 30 tabs) running, I'm usually around 1.4G used. I think I made HUGE inroads to solving the problem by deleting all Chromium-based browsers. Some opened nine (9) - yes - NINE processes, just to open the "settings" page (Epic did that). But *all* the Chromium-based browsers were memory hogs because they opened up separate processes. (That's not necessarily the reason. A single process can use a lot of CPU.) So my conclusion is that, on an old no-name cheap WinXP-Win7 laptop with little RAM, Chrome-baesed browsers are just out of the question. I do run Chrome (the last one that will run on XP); I think it uses about the same amount of RAM as Firefox does. (I haven't tweaked Chrome as much as I have Firefox.) [] With Java & Avast & anything Google (e.g., Google Drive) removed, I can now browse with Pale Moon in a way that does not redline the CPU all the time such that any page doesn't take a minute or more to load. Good. But I'd still get more RAM if you can - it'll cheer up the machine no end. (Some years ago my brother had an XP laptop with 256M of RAM - upping that made it like a new machine!) At this point, it's barely usable - especially with only one tab open - which I guess is how we did it in the olden days of WinXP. Though as another has said, the possibility of blocked vents (or in extremis a failed fan) _will_ slow down a CPU if it gets too hot; you can easily check that by running something that monitors the assorted built-in sensors. (I use SpeedFan - not using any of its fan-control ability, just to monitor the sensors, but there are plenty of others.) I saw Paul's suggestion where I didn't look at the fan speed but the fan is definitely working as it's as loud as a freight train most of the time. If it's noisy, that might well mean it's working hard to blow air through narrowed channels somewhere. I'll do something to clean vents (although they don't look blocked) and I'll elevate the bottom so the ports are clear - and I'll load that SpeedFan utility to check the fan speed and the CPU temperature. Depending on what has been built into the mobo and whether SpeedFan has drivers for the chips involved, it may find several temperatures it can monitor: on this machine it finds "Core 0", which I presume is the processor, "HD0", and two others, which I assume are other points on the board. (Paul will probably suggest, especially if you tell us which machine/board it is - Belarc Advisor is a good utility for finding out that sort of thing.) I guess if the CPU is throttled to half, then it would max out sooner at that throttle point - is that what you're suggesting might be happening? I think it would, though if it's getting close to the temperatures at which it might throttle back, it's in danger of shutting down completely to protect itself, which Windows tends not to like - and such temperatures shorten the lives of other parts (I had a HD that stopped suddenly). But this may not be happening - SpeedFan or similar should tell you. So I'd o check the temperatures o add more RAM You might also consider going back to XP, though I did hear when 7 first appeared that it _can_ be configured to be less demanding/more efficient than XP. I don't know though. I have a 7 machine that is single core, and has 3G RAM - seems to work OK, though not lightning fast (the stickers imply it was originally Vista). [I still have a W98 machine with 128M, which runs fine with Firefox 2, but I only access one site with it, with up to about four tabs.] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf The fifth bestselling detail of all time: the Ford Transit. (RT/C4 2015-5-24.) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|