http://s020.radikal.ru/i710/1310/58/6460089d2a94.jpg
http://i031.radikal.ru/1310/d4/ecd121410c70.jpg
Best answer by Rakanisheu Retired
View originalExplorer.exe using up to 300mb RAM.
Windows 8.1 Professional.
http://s020.radikal.ru/i710/1310/58/6460089d2a94.jpg
http://i031.radikal.ru/1310/d4/ecd121410c70.jpg
http://s020.radikal.ru/i710/1310/58/6460089d2a94.jpg
http://i031.radikal.ru/1310/d4/ecd121410c70.jpg
Page 4 / 15
Userlevel 5
+16
Just a quick note on this topic. The behavior of Explorer is a result of Microsoft building fault tolerance into their software to prevent against crashes. This IS a good thing. It increases the overall stability of the operating system.
While we can control what we do, we have no control over what Microsoft chooses to do as a result. The Explorer process detects the inclusion of a non-Microsoft injected DLL and adds some additional buffers in place in the event that DLL causes a shell crash.
I hope that helps add another side to the coin when considering this behavior.
Thanks,
Lucas
While we can control what we do, we have no control over what Microsoft chooses to do as a result. The Explorer process detects the inclusion of a non-Microsoft injected DLL and adds some additional buffers in place in the event that DLL causes a shell crash.
I hope that helps add another side to the coin when considering this behavior.
Thanks,
Lucas
I'm sorry my post is disturbing but see many different opinions here and just voicing mine. I don't require agreement but perhaps if I explain...
Taking a unbias step back, whether or not MS is right or wrong with what they are doing with "their" operating system, it would be WR's responsibility to work around any/all issues if they are to market a product usuable with any OS. I'm not saying they aren't or that their product is not valuable but the two seem to have a few kinks that need ironing out.
Taking a unbias step back, whether or not MS is right or wrong with what they are doing with "their" operating system, it would be WR's responsibility to work around any/all issues if they are to market a product usuable with any OS. I'm not saying they aren't or that their product is not valuable but the two seem to have a few kinks that need ironing out.
Userlevel 7
+56
This is not true!@ wrote:
Thanks Daniel, no I had not read that and yes, it makes perfect sense and, to me, confirms that the issue should be considered a shared issue between both parties. Just my two cent's worth on the subject. It explains what the poster feels regarding MS and what they are doing but also that WRSA is having compatability issues wth the MS OS due to this and maybe shouldn't be recommeded for the Win 8.1, 64 bit OS.
Thanks again!!!
Daniel
agreed, he did not say that, only explained what MS, the rest was my assessment 🙂
Oh, also, I did submit a ticket and received a very quick reply and solution, had to do a uninstall and reinstall of WRSA. Seems it took care of this for now but I am concerned about what is next, since I have had issues with two updates now. Keeping my fingers crossed. I do have to commend the WR Support Techs as each time they have been very knowledgable and able to resolve the issues, very customer oriented. I am in no way knocking the expertese of the Tech's or WR in general, just not happy with having any issues on a brand new computer that is more than capable of handling PS and had no problem doing so before the updates.
Userlevel 7
+56
No he didn't say that I run WSA on Win 8.1 x64 with no issues at all with 2GB of RAM.
Daniel ;)
Daniel ;)
Thanks Daniel, no I had not read that and yes, it makes perfect sense and, to me, confirms that the issue should be considered a shared issue between both parties. Just my two cent's worth on the subject. It explains what the poster feels regarding MS and what they are doing but also that WRSA is having compatability issues wth the MS OS due to this and maybe shouldn't be recommeded for the Win 8.1, 64 bit OS.
Thanks again!!!
Thanks again!!!
Userlevel 7
+56
Hello and Welcome to the Webroot Community!
Did you read what Lucas (TechToc) said here? https://community.webroot.com/t5/Webroot-SecureAnywhere-Antivirus/Explorer-exe-using-up-to-300mb-RAM/td-p/60523/page/27 and if you continue to have issues please Submit a Support Ticket and they can look into it your specific issues.
Thanks,
Daniel ;)
Did you read what Lucas (TechToc) said here? https://community.webroot.com/t5/Webroot-SecureAnywhere-Antivirus/Explorer-exe-using-up-to-300mb-RAM/td-p/60523/page/27 and if you continue to have issues please Submit a Support Ticket and they can look into it your specific issues.
Thanks,
Daniel ;)
I too am running Windows 8.1, 64 bit OS on a Lenovo Ideapad and am getting the following when running WRSA System Anaylzer
Graphics RAM is low which is impacting performance (this shouldn't be)
An active process has a possible memory leak (explorer.exe)
An active process has a possible handle leak (svchost.exe)
My issues began the begining of the September when there was an update issued from WRSA. Then the other day on 9/28, I started getting a "file name warning" for c : program and can no longer run the 3D graphics portion of Photoshop due to low RAM. When I looked into hidden files, found c: program and the properties listed it as being from WRSA. I just found this thread and this has been ongoing on for some time. It is disheartening to read that as of yet no solution has been found by WRSA and it continues to be promoted as compatibel with the 64 bit OS, is that is the case.
I'm a first time user of WRSA and am not feeling very confident that their product will be able to protect my system.
]
Graphics RAM is low which is impacting performance (this shouldn't be)
An active process has a possible memory leak (explorer.exe)
An active process has a possible handle leak (svchost.exe)
My issues began the begining of the September when there was an update issued from WRSA. Then the other day on 9/28, I started getting a "file name warning" for c : program and can no longer run the 3D graphics portion of Photoshop due to low RAM. When I looked into hidden files, found c: program and the properties listed it as being from WRSA. I just found this thread and this has been ongoing on for some time. It is disheartening to read that as of yet no solution has been found by WRSA and it continues to be promoted as compatibel with the 64 bit OS, is that is the case.
I'm a first time user of WRSA and am not feeling very confident that their product will be able to protect my system.
]
Userlevel 6
Thank you Venus60!@ wrote:
I have done a Test. Restarted my computer, and I Waited about 30 minutes, and Double clicked and same thing happen.
I think Baldrick was looking into it, and hopefully I can solve this Issue soon
Thanks.
Nice to see you!
Beth
I have done a Test. Restarted my computer, and I Waited about 30 minutes, and Double clicked and same thing happen.
I think Baldrick was looking into it, and hopefully I can solve this Issue soon
Thanks.
I think Baldrick was looking into it, and hopefully I can solve this Issue soon
Thanks.
Userlevel 6
Hi Venus60!@ wrote:
Thanks To Baldrick, after I did PM him, he told me my Issue is also the same issue as described.
I have a Dell XPS, Window 8.1, with 16 Gig of Ram. 64-bit.
When I turn on my computer, If I Double Click on a folder, It suddenly kind of freezes and If I have to wait about 10 seconds for the Folder to open. After that there is no problem, It only happens when I Turn on my computer,
I think Window 8.1 Is Horrible. I never had these Issues with my window 7.
I don't use any Apps from the Apps.
Also I have installed this Classic Shell. http://www.classicshell.net/
Therefore I can have my screen to be as window 7.
I personally Hate the Window 8 Interface.
Any Helps for me ?
Thanks
When you turn on your computer, are you double clicking the folder immediately? Try giving it a few seconds before you doubleclick the folder. It takes a few seconds for everything to finish loading.
Beth
Thanks To Baldrick, after I did PM him, he told me my Issue is also the same issue as described.
I have a Dell XPS, Window 8.1, with 16 Gig of Ram. 64-bit.
When I turn on my computer, If I Double Click on a folder, It suddenly kind of freezes and If I have to wait about 10 seconds for the Folder to open. After that there is no problem, It only happens when I Turn on my computer,
I think Window 8.1 Is Horrible. I never had these Issues with my window 7.
I don't use any Apps from the Apps.
Also I have installed this Classic Shell. http://www.classicshell.net/
Therefore I can have my screen to be as window 7.
I personally Hate the Window 8 Interface.
Any Helps for me ?
Thanks
I have a Dell XPS, Window 8.1, with 16 Gig of Ram. 64-bit.
When I turn on my computer, If I Double Click on a folder, It suddenly kind of freezes and If I have to wait about 10 seconds for the Folder to open. After that there is no problem, It only happens when I Turn on my computer,
I think Window 8.1 Is Horrible. I never had these Issues with my window 7.
I don't use any Apps from the Apps.
Also I have installed this Classic Shell. http://www.classicshell.net/
Therefore I can have my screen to be as window 7.
I personally Hate the Window 8 Interface.
Any Helps for me ?
Thanks
Userlevel 7
+56
I have to agree with Baldrick it's just a Tool and if Windows itself telling you well that would be a different story as I have Win 7 x64 with 16GB of RAM. I just ran System Analyzer and it doesn't show on my system.@ wrote:
Hi AndersF
At the risk of being shouted down for saying it...I would not put too much store by the System Analyzer...it is provided as a facility and if I am perfectly honest I put my faith in other tools when it comes to assessing RAM usgage on my system. That is not to say that it does not have it uses but in this instance I would rely on something else to give you the relevant information.
Regards
Baldrick
Daniel ;)
Userlevel 6
Hi Anders, thankls for letting us know!@ wrote:
Hi.
I'm using Win 8.1 64.
Same results every time: Physical RAM is low, though the PC is using only 2 of the 16 GB. No other programs running, and largest process is explorer.exe around 300 MB,
I've also got WSA on a Win 8.1 32 with only 2 GB of RAM, and I've never seen a low RAM warning on that one.
The reason for posting in this thread was because I also get the "explorer memory leak" notification in the analyzer on the 64 bit PC, and I wondered if the two notifications could somehow be related (I guess not).
Anders
As Baldrick pointed out, it is just a tool.
Are you having any performance issues?
Webroot does have an excellent Tech Support Team and if you are experiencing any performance issues or are further concerned, please feel free to contact them by submitting a support ticket
Let us know if we can assit you with anything else and come often and post!
Beth
Userlevel 1
Hi.
I'm using Win 8.1 64.
Same results every time: Physical RAM is low, though the PC is using only 2 of the 16 GB. No other programs running, and largest process is explorer.exe around 300 MB,
I've also got WSA on a Win 8.1 32 with only 2 GB of RAM, and I've never seen a low RAM warning on that one.
The reason for posting in this thread was because I also get the "explorer memory leak" notification in the analyzer on the 64 bit PC, and I wondered if the two notifications could somehow be related (I guess not).
Anders
I'm using Win 8.1 64.
Same results every time: Physical RAM is low, though the PC is using only 2 of the 16 GB. No other programs running, and largest process is explorer.exe around 300 MB,
I've also got WSA on a Win 8.1 32 with only 2 GB of RAM, and I've never seen a low RAM warning on that one.
The reason for posting in this thread was because I also get the "explorer memory leak" notification in the analyzer on the 64 bit PC, and I wondered if the two notifications could somehow be related (I guess not).
Anders
Userlevel 7
Hi AndersF
At the risk of being shouted down for saying it...I would not put too much store by the System Analyzer...it is provided as a facility and if I am perfectly honest I put my faith in other tools when it comes to assessing RAM usage on my system. That is not to say that it does not have it uses but in this instance I would rely on something else to give you the relevant information.
Regards
Baldrick
At the risk of being shouted down for saying it...I would not put too much store by the System Analyzer...it is provided as a facility and if I am perfectly honest I put my faith in other tools when it comes to assessing RAM usage on my system. That is not to say that it does not have it uses but in this instance I would rely on something else to give you the relevant information.
Regards
Baldrick
Userlevel 7
+62
@ wrote:
Did anyone with this "problem" also get a message that physical RAM was low?
I've got 16 GB, but still the analyzer reports that physical RAM is low.
Welcome AndersF to the Community Forum! 🙂 Hopefully one of our members Volunteers can itllertate this issue further!
Regards.
Userlevel 6
Welcome to the community AndersF!@ wrote:
Did anyone with this "problem" also get a message that physical RAM was low?
I've got 16 GB, but still the analyzer reports that physical RAM is low.
Depending on what programs and processes were running at the time, it could happen.
Please run the system analyzer againand if you get the same message, submit a support ticket.
May I ask what your system is, PC, Mac? 32 bit? 64 bit?
Please do let us know how everything is and come often and share your experiences!
Beth
Userlevel 1
Did anyone with this "problem" also get a message that physical RAM was low?
I've got 16 GB, but still the analyzer reports that physical RAM is low.
I've got 16 GB, but still the analyzer reports that physical RAM is low.
Userlevel 6
I have not seen any other 64 bit processes (non Microsoft) being effected on my 64 bit system. Could you please provide details on these other 64 bit processes?@ wrote:
There seems to be some confusion with my post. Some here said that neither MBAE nor EAM seem to inject into explorer. That may be right but that was not what I was intending to say. WSA causes this memory behavior in many third party 64bit applications. Most people don't see it on Win 8.1 x64 because the only affected program for most is explorer. The other native 64 bit processes of Windows are probably not monitored by Webroot and hence there is no issue with them.
........ this seems to be an issue with 64 bit processes that are monitored by Webroot,
Sorry, but I think Lucas addressed the issue in your post and gave excellent explanations both times. Perhaps you may want to open a support ticket or maybe call Webroot tech support. Here you will find the phone # for tech support, you can also submit a ticket as well: http://www.webroot.com/us/en/support/contact
The Webroot support team is the best tech support around and they are there to assist all of us.
Userlevel 7
Spot on Daniel, the finger points at something changing on the MS front between Win 8 and Win8.1, and if it is something fundemental then of course Webroot will be looking to react but it may not be a simple something to deal with, hence why time is being taken to get to the bottom of this.@ wrote:
Lucas has answered the Question and the issue only showed up on Win 8.1 x64 I didn't see any issues with Win 8 x64 and it continues with Win 8.1 Update 1 x64 so as Lucas said and Joe Microsoft must of added some extra protection with Win 8.1 x64 I will see if I can get any info I can share from my Microsoft MVP channels and hopefully they can point me to an article so wish me luck!
Daniel
I think that we have had the input from Webroot via Lucas, and at this juncture the question is fundementally answered as to why. Now we have to see what transpires next.
Baldrick
--
Welcome to the community FleischmannTV!
Sorry you feel this way. Malawarebytes Anti-Exploit is NOT an antivirus protection program. It is meant to be used WITH your AV . I believe the same is for Emsisoft. Also, this issue is not a browser issue be it chrome or otherwise
Lucas, perhaps you can give FleischmannTV more info?
--
I know Emisoft Anti-Malware (EAM) and Malwarebytes Anti-Exploit (MBAE) very well. I also know that MBAE is not an antivirus program. EAM by the way is not a companion solution but rather a fully capable complete program.
There seems to be some confusion with my post. Some here said that neither MBAE nor EAM seem to inject into explorer. That may be right but that was not what I was intending to say. WSA causes this memory behavior in many third party 64bit applications. Most people don't see it on Win 8.1 x64 because the only affected program for most is explorer. The other native 64 bit processes of Windows are probably not monitored by Webroot and hence there is no issue with them.
When you look at programs like NoVirusThanks ExeRadarPro, Sandboxie, Softperfect Ramdisk, Windows Firewall Control and so and so forth, you'll see that they are all 64 bit processes and are affected by this memory behavior. When EAM or MBAE inject into 64 bit processes, this memory issue does not seem to happen. Hence my implication that other third-party security programs, which use dll injection, don't cause this behavior.
The reason I mentioned Chrome was not because I was confusing this with a browser issue. I merely mentioned it because the 64 bit version of Chrome is going to hit the stable release channel in a couple of weeks. Since this seems to be an issue with 64 bit processes that are monitored by Webroot, Chrome x64 will probably be affected. Chrome uses a lot of processes. One for the broker process, one for the renderer, and one for each addon and each open tab and each open plugin. So if Chrome is going to be affected, you'll will probably see half a dozen or more chrome.exe's with excess memory consumption. Whether it is going to be affected or not, I cannot say.
Welcome to the community FleischmannTV!
Sorry you feel this way. Malawarebytes Anti-Exploit is NOT an antivirus protection program. It is meant to be used WITH your AV . I believe the same is for Emsisoft. Also, this issue is not a browser issue be it chrome or otherwise
Lucas, perhaps you can give FleischmannTV more info?
--
I know Emisoft Anti-Malware (EAM) and Malwarebytes Anti-Exploit (MBAE) very well. I also know that MBAE is not an antivirus program. EAM by the way is not a companion solution but rather a fully capable complete program.
There seems to be some confusion with my post. Some here said that neither MBAE nor EAM seem to inject into explorer. That may be right but that was not what I was intending to say. WSA causes this memory behavior in many third party 64bit applications. Most people don't see it on Win 8.1 x64 because the only affected program for most is explorer. The other native 64 bit processes of Windows are probably not monitored by Webroot and hence there is no issue with them.
When you look at programs like NoVirusThanks ExeRadarPro, Sandboxie, Softperfect Ramdisk, Windows Firewall Control and so and so forth, you'll see that they are all 64 bit processes and are affected by this memory behavior. When EAM or MBAE inject into 64 bit processes, this memory issue does not seem to happen. Hence my implication that other third-party security programs, which use dll injection, don't cause this behavior.
The reason I mentioned Chrome was not because I was confusing this with a browser issue. I merely mentioned it because the 64 bit version of Chrome is going to hit the stable release channel in a couple of weeks. Since this seems to be an issue with 64 bit processes that are monitored by Webroot, Chrome x64 will probably be affected. Chrome uses a lot of processes. One for the broker process, one for the renderer, and one for each addon and each open tab and each open plugin. So if Chrome is going to be affected, you'll will probably see half a dozen or more chrome.exe's with excess memory consumption. Whether it is going to be affected or not, I cannot say.
Userlevel 6
My experience was the same as you stated, showed up after the Win 8.1 upgrade. Good luck! Looking forward to seeing what you find!@ wrote:
Lucas has answered the Question and the issue only showed up on Win 8.1 x64 I didn't see any issues with Win 8 x64 and it continues with Win 8.1 Update 1 x64 so as Lucas said and Joe Microsoft must of added some extra protection with Win 8.1 x64 I will see if I can get any info I can share from my Microsoft MVP channels and hopefully they can point me to an article so wish me luck!
Daniel
Userlevel 7
+56
Lucas has answered the Question and the issue only showed up on Win 8.1 x64 I didn't see any issues with Win 8 x64 and it continues with Win 8.1 Update 1 x64 so as Lucas said and Joe Microsoft must of added some extra protection with Win 8.1 x64 I will see if I can get any info I can share from my Microsoft MVP channels and hopefully they can point me to an article so wish me luck!
Daniel
Daniel
Page 4 / 15
Reply
Login to the community
No account yet? Create an account
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.