Solved

Explorer.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
icon

Best answer by Rakanisheu Retired 29 April 2015, 10:09

View original

365 replies

Userlevel 7
Hi Shawn,
 
Many thanks for the info :D
I'm very happy that finally there is a chance to solve the issue of high RAM usage by explorer.exe.
I know and I fully agree it has no influence on performance, but it's quite annoying...:(
And yes, I must admit I'm one of those users who stares at least from time to time at the usage of resources ;)
It would be just wonderfully if with an upcoming build this minor inconvenience could be resolved 
I keep my fingers crossed :D 
 
Regards,
 
Mike
Userlevel 7
Hi Shawn,
 
Any news on fixing this issue with the next upcoming build?
 
Regards,
 
Mike
Userlevel 5
Yes I do have an update!
 
Working through the current issues, I have raised this to my TOP ISSUES report and given it a medium severity with high priority. 
 
There is a current build in QA being tested against a number of bug fixes but I will see when we can this fix into a build and update this thread once I know more.
 
Thanks all, stay tuned!
Userlevel 7
Hi Shawn
 
Sounds good...for those that have reported the issue.  Well done to you and the Development Team.
 
Regards
 
 
Baldrick
Userlevel 7
Thank you Shawn!
Userlevel 7
Hi Shawn,
 
Many thank for your reply and for the info!
I'm very happy that this issue is already closer to be resolved.

I'm looking forward and hope it will be soon.
And of course please let us know how things will go on.
Once again thanks, always keeping my finger crossed for Support actions!
 
Regards,
 
Mike
 
 
 
Its a shame that this bug wasnt fixed for about 6 months. What are you doing folks? What i was paying for?
Userlevel 7
Your paying for threat protection and this issue has been explained by the lead developer. Id rather them be working on protecting me from the latest threats than a minor bug that doesnt effect system performance. 
Userlevel 7
@ wrote:
Its a shame that this bug wasnt fixed for about 6 months. What are you doing folks? What i was paying for?
It doesn't have any influence on the performance.
I can fully confirm this statement because I've checked it many times in the real OS environment (without using VM).
It also does not concern every single computer with Win8/Win8.1 64bit onboard (for example for me it works fine).
I'm asking about fixing this minor bug due to I know that many users disscuss and consider it as a big disadvantege of WSA, however they are wrong. WSA is a great product, personally I already can not imagine using any other AV and I care about its good reputation, because this software really deserves it.
And mostly for the reasons mentioned above I would like this "bug"  having no significance in the effects  has been fixed.
 
Regards,
 
Mike
It doesn't have any influence on the performance? So what about games? When explorer.exe uses 300mb ram i've got random frame drops in Battlefield 3 and other games. But sometimes explorer.exe works fine and uses ~30mb ram and games are smooth as butter.
Userlevel 7
Badge +62
Welcome to the Webroot Forum Community hivonzoo!:)
Great to have you here..

Best Regards,
Sherry
Userlevel 7
@ wrote:
It doesn't have any influence on the performance? So what about games? When explorer.exe uses 300mb ram i've got random frame drops in Battlefield 3 and other games. But sometimes explorer.exe works fine and uses ~30mb ram and games are smooth as butter.
Did you read an official statements mentioned before?
 
"There is zero impact to the system with this issue - it only affects available RAM if not used elsewhere, and does not impact performance. We are fully compatible with Win8 x64".
 
"The Explorer RAM issue will not affect your system performance: Explorer is using paged memory and only when it is not being requested from other processes so it will have no system performance impact, even if you only have 1GB of overall system  RAM".
 
"It doesnt matter if you have 1gb or 4gb Windows allocates 4gb of Virtual memory (VMM) for it to operate so this 300mb isnt actual RAM usage but paged memory". 
 
 
Regards,
 
Mike
 
 
Yes, i've read that, but my experiance (and some people from other forums) is completely different. As I mentioned before, i've always checked my system health by run some demanding games, like Battlefield 3 or Far Cry 3. When explorer.exe uses ~300 mb ram, games are not smooth and ive got random frame drops. But if does not - games are smooth as butter.
Userlevel 7
I understand your concerns but it seems unlikely due to it's the paged memory usage.
However if you notice such symptoms and further affirm that the culprit is the explorer.exe you should contact the Support to have this issue closer checked. 

 
Regards,
 
Mike
 
 
Userlevel 7
Battefield 4 uses well over 8 gig of memory when running on my PC so even if the 300mb caused an issue its a drop in the ocean compared to 8000mb. I havent noticed any frame rate drop when playing any games and I use my PC exclusively for gaming. If you are noticing an issue I would submit a support ticket and I can take a look at it. 
Hi guys and girls.. iam super new to webroots, i signed up for a year today for the webroot wsa complete.. so far i like it but yessss i just stumbled upon the same issue as you guys.. 290 mb of explore.exe! wooow .. i currently have a year of norton 360 and a year of avast premier (yes i actually paid for them) and i actually came unboard to webroot because i thought i was going to be using alot less resources.. i understand it is a bug from reading all 15 pages on this part of the forum but more than a quarter gig of ram is classified as "resources" .. umm i dont know what to say, i understand that people are working on this but i have traced people complaining about this issue as far as oct 2013... can it really be fixed? i see they say it will not impact your pc but knowing about it kinda bothers me , it kind of defeates me leaving norton 360 and avast premier .. anyways i hope it will be solved.. who ever is in charge thank you for a nice product.. i would like to know a time frame if possible for the fix.. here are my specs if it helps :
ALIENWARE X51 R2
WINDOWS 8.1 UPDATE 1 INSTALLED (APRIL 8 2014)
INTEL CORE I7 4770 3.9GHZ TURBO
SEAGATE 1TB 7200 RPM HDD
NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 760 TITANIUM
8GB HYNIX RAM
BLURAY DRIVE 
BLUETOOTH ADAPTER 
MALWAREBYTES PRO
 
Userlevel 7
Hello alienwarex51r2, and Welcome!
 
For a short time it'd be best to rely on the words of the main man, and it will be sorted before long. Don't think anyone could give an exact date.
 Re: Explorer.exe using up to 300mb RAM. - Page 13 - Webroot Community
 
  "There is zero impact to the system with this issue - it only affects available RAM if not used elsewhere, and does not impact performance. We are fully compatible with Win8 x64. We should be able to implement a workaround for this but we're focused on more important changes at the moment which actually do improve protection and performance.

(Also, to the followup posters saying they're seeing it fixed: we haven't changed anything, but it's very possible that Microsoft put out a patch to fix it)"
Yes, but there is always the same answer - zero impact... no problem etc.
But users say: we have problems with performance (I also had and removed Webroot).
 
I think is because business clients are more important for company... And these clients use Windows 7.
This problem has not been solved for half a year... and now we have update 1 to Windows 8 and it's possible, that there will be new issues because WSA is not full compatible with Windows 8. 
 
I saw problem, now I do not see problem... removed Webroot for all home computers and install other AV compatible with Windows 8. No chance to renew subscription in this situation.
Userlevel 7
Hello lukasamd, did you ever contact Support Submit a Support Ticket
 
Because they could have examined the Logs, and possibly offered some temporary solution? Looking back at this thread, I'm not sure if you tried any clean installs, also.
 
I accept that this has been frustrating waiting to see confirmed resolution, but there must be only a minimum of users reporting any serious problems, or this would be evident.
 
I don't believe that Webroot favours or values their Enterprise customers sny more than Home users.
If many Home users with Windows 8 were having big problems, then that would generate bad publicity, and would soon be known.
 
I believe you could have, for example, tried a Remote Support session, 4 months ago, to diagnose issues you observed.
 
 
We know the Webroot statement. You dont need to copy that on every page. But as you can see, there are people that claiming there is some influence on performance. I think every system is a little bit different, we had others programs installed, im using laptop, somebody use it on the desktop etc. I payed for a LIGHTWEIGHT program, i dont care about a security that much. If you dont know what are you doing on the web, even program with 100% protection doesnt help you. So, as I mentioned before, its a shame that this wasnt fixed for 6 months. Still waiting for some info.
Userlevel 7
@ wrote:
We know the Webroot statement. You dont need to copy that on every page. But as you can see, there are people that claiming there is some influence on performance. I think every system is a little bit different, we had others programs installed, im using laptop, somebody use it on the desktop etc. I payed for a LIGHTWEIGHT program, i dont care about a security that much. If you dont know what are you doing on the web, even program with 100% protection doesnt help you. So, as I mentioned before, its a shame that this wasnt fixed for 6 months. Still waiting for some info.
Every system is, in fact, totally unique...that's why a Remote Session is the best usual solution in these type of situations.
 
As regards the delay waiting for a sure fix, I am not in a position to add anything to @  and @ ' earlier statements, and don't represent Webroot, but am only a Home user also.
Let's hope that this is resolved for all, in the next few builds.
 
Userlevel 7
@ wrote:
We know the Webroot statement. You dont need to copy that on every page. But as you can see, there are people that claiming there is some influence on performance. I think every system is a little bit different, we had others programs installed, im using laptop, somebody use it on the desktop etc. I payed for a LIGHTWEIGHT program, i dont care about a security that much. If you dont know what are you doing on the web, even program with 100% protection doesnt help you. So, as I mentioned before, its a shame that this wasnt fixed for 6 months. Still waiting for some info.
Webroot is well aware of the problem, and they are working on it.  I would suggest you file a Trouble Ticket if you have not done so.  The more data Webroot as from affected users, the easier it will become for them to fix the problem for you.
 
It really does not affect all users.  I, along with many many others, are not affected. 
So let me make sure that I understand this situation correctly. .In order to have this fixed I already (2nd day as a webroot member) have to have a person go in my pc remotely?so no general fix through firmware update?
Every site like pcmag etc did they miss this info? I hope that it was not done on purpose to hide the foot print under explorer.exe .. I just find it weird that every single reviewer didn't mention this..maybe they haven't noticed??I am not accusing webroot, but this definitely needs to be fixed. .we need a time frame,we need an explanation. .This is totally against what is advertised..ohh webroot uses 3mb of ram blah blah blah..obviously it doesn't. .actually uses more at this point than my norton 360 2014
Was explorer.exe even designed by Microsoft to idle at 290-300 mb?What other system instability can that cost? Do we know?maybe maybe not. ..
TIME FRAME PLEASE
Userlevel 7
@ wrote:
So let me make sure that I understand this situation correctly. .In order to have this fixed I already (2nd day as a webroot member) have to have a person go in my pc remotely?so no general fix through firmware update?
Every site like pcmag etc did they miss this info? I hope that it was not done on purpose to hide the foot print under explorer.exe .. I just find it weird that every single reviewer didn't mention this..maybe they haven't noticed??I am not accusing webroot, but this definitely needs to be fixed. .we need a time frame,we need an explanation. .This is totally against what is advertised..ohh webroot uses 3mb of ram blah blah blah..obviously it doesn't. .actually uses more at this point than my norton 360 2014
Was explorer.exe even designed by Microsoft to idle at 290-300 mb?What other system instability can that cost? Do we know?maybe maybe not. ..
If you read the entire thread, even just the last 6 replies, you would note that this bug does not affect all users.  Thus, PCMag missed nothing and nothing was hidden.
 
Further up in this thread a Webroot Product Manager wrote that a fix is currently in testing, hopefully to be released soon.
 
Timeframe is simply once the fix has been proven to work without causing any other problems... 

Reply