IE9 using huge resources

[Ripsnort]

I have three listings for IE9 in Windows Task Manager, one of them reading 232,744. Is this normal is something totally awry? At times, the CPU usage can be up around 24-38 until I close down the one using the most memory. Then it will come right back again.

 

[Core]

1. Make sure you've applied all available updates for IE9 from Microsoft Update.
2. Make sure you have turned off all add-ons for IE9.
3. Make sure you've run a malware scan & gotten a clean bill of health.

There are other, less shitty browsers available, Chrome, Opera, etc.

 

[amaltom62]

237,744 is about 232 mb.

I had 5 tabs open,one is yahoo mail and the other 3 windows 7 forums and one with nothing(about:tabs)
The yahoo used 90-95 mb while the windows 7 forums used 10-15 mb.The balnk tab used 4-5 mb

So it dependes on the websites open.

Mine is a 32 bit Internet Explorer so it varies on a 64 bit Internet Explorer

 

[Ripsnort]

Presently I have 6 tabs opened. One (I'll call it process in the Windows Task Manager says 367,100; another says 16, 464; another says 136, 588; another says 152, 664. Present CPU usuage is now saying a whopping 1%. I wouldn't have brought this subject up but at times, the CPU usage is up there a bit. I was thinking from looking through the Windows Task Manager and seeing these were the highest processes, this was causing or would be causing the CPU usage to run high. Would this be correct thinking?

 

[Core]

Yes, sounds about right.

 

[Nibiru2012]

Ripsnort - Personally, I wouldn't worry about it as that's about standard for browser usage.

 

[Digerati]

There are other, less shitty browsers available, Chrome, Opera, etc.

Too bad they continue to do poorly compared to IE9, when it comes to the most important aspect, security. That's not my opinion, BTW.

I recommend everyone sign up for the Department of Homeland Security's US-CERT Cyber Security Bulletin Vulnerability Summaries. Sadly, if you go back through the last couple years of archives, you will see FF has had the most reported vulnerabilities (not counting Adobe), followed by Chrome, and then the others. And of course, when it comes to protecting users from socially engineered distribution methods - the most prolific method of distributing malware, IE handedly tops the others (see NSSLabs - Socially Engineered Malware).

IE9 (or IE8 for XP users) is not the IE of yesterday. Neither is MS.

Bottom line, the choice of browsers is just that, a choice. Regardless the browser, you still have to keep your computer updated, patched, scanned and blocked, and you still need to avoid risky behavior - like participating in illegal filesharing via torrents and P2P sites.

Note that most IE issues are due to conflicting or misbehaving add-ons. Try running IE without add-ons, or reset IE by going to Tools > Internet Options > Advanced then click reset. You can then add your add-ons back, one at a time.

I was thinking from looking through the Windows Task Manager and seeing these were the highest processes, this was causing or would be causing the CPU usage to run high. Would this be correct thinking?

Yes, sounds about right.

No, sorry, but that is not right. 367,100, 16, 464, 136,588, and 152,664 are "RAM" values, not CPU. You can have 16Gb of RAM totally stuffed with data, but if the programs are idle, the data is just sitting there and it takes virtually no CPU horsepower to simply hold data in RAM.

Swapping data into and out of RAM and "crunching" data is what eats up your CPU cycles, not how much data you have in RAM.

While RAM and CPU resources certainly impact performance, they are separate resources.

 

[Core]

Usability and customizability are more important to me, but for people who are too half-witted to secure their computers, IE9 may be just the ticket.

 

[Digerati]

people who are too half-witted to secure their computers, IE9 may be just the ticket.

That was uncalled for, totally unprofessional, totally disrespectful to the majority of Windows users, and since securing computers takes the same steps and discipline regardless the browser of choice, a naive statement.

I am out of here.

 

[TrainableMan]

I think you should try multiple browsers and pick the one that best suits your needs. I think a majority of the world have IE thrust onto their computers by Microsoft and a large percentage of those users aren't even aware they can use something else. Some don't even understand that a browser is just software and not part of the W7 OS itself.

I don't believe Microsoft makes the best of everything and I like having a choice. There are more features to consider than security. Plus most Antivirus programs have add-ons that support other browsers (although 64-bit browsers including IE 64-bit have yet to be implemented by most A/Vs) so additional security is available. Personally usability and flexibility are important features to me and I hate how IE constantly moves towards forcing everyone into the same limited box but you should make up your own mind.

But back on topic, I don't believe that your current resource usage is anything to be concerned about.

 

[Nibiru2012]

We can all argue this 'till Doomsday... won't solve much though. Much like debating AV/IS software or how many angels are able to dance on the head of a pin.

Digerati you're input is usually right on and we appreciate your input!

I, for one prefer to use Firefox because the Ad-Blockers work very well. The ones for IE9 don't or you have to pay for them.

As stated by you previously, it's more important to have a good top of the line antivirus or internet security product installed. (Some also like anti-malware protection too.)

If one installs one of the following (not in any particular order) they won't go wrong:

1. Bit-Defender
2. G-DATA
3. F-Secure
4. Kaspersky (although their customer service and/or support really sucks.)
5. Norton I.S. (a little resource heavy though.)
6. Webroot SecureAnywhere Complete

Check out these two websites: www.av-comparatives.org or http://www.av-test.org/en/home/ for the latest updates and such. Most reports there are in a PDF format.

 

[Digerati]

I, for one prefer to use Firefox because the Ad-Blockers work very well. The ones for IE9 don't or you have to pay for them.

Absolutely not true and results in the propagation of false rumors and unfounded bashing. I am all for bashing when due, but let's make sure what we are saying is true. AdblockIE, which I have been using for years now, is free and very effective. Note that is AdblockIE (no space) and NOT Adblock IE (with a space). Two different programs and the second is not free (or as good, IMO). Simple-Adblock is also very effective and free - though the free version is crippled with a 200 blocks/day limit that some active Internet surfers may bump into.

And of course, IE's built in InPrivate mode is extremely effective - noting that IE was the first to offer InPrivate browsing and therefore, as noted here, was the first browser to offer ad-blocking built in!

All I am saying here is you cannot use security as an excuse to discount, or bash IE (or MS) or as a reason to use, (or worse, as a trusted advisor), to recommend an alternative browser. The browser of choice is a choice, just as the color of your next car is.

I don't believe Microsoft makes the best of everything and I like having a choice.

I absolutely agree! They don't and I do too!

I never liked OE and like Windows Live Mail (or whatever it is called today) even less. I really like Outlook 2007, but it's Junk Filter (spam blocker) is lousy so I use Mailwasher Pro. But I use Thunderbird on my notebook and am upset development on it stopped, or will soon. I was threatened with being charged with disobeying a direct order before I let go of WordStar for Word. I don't particularly like it, though I know it well - and concede it is a good word processor.

I like and use and recommend MSE - never a problem in nearly 3 years using it with W7 64-bit (with Windows Firewall too). But I still run supplemental scans with MBAM - just to be sure. Trust, but verify.

I cannot live without UltraMon because multi-monitor support in Win7 is still quirky.

And don't get me started about Microsoft's Marketing/PR department!

So there is lots to bash, but after 10 years of relentless bashing with XP (when security was forced to back burners by the corporate user-base, Congress and the EU) and when badguys, not Microsoft were creating and spreading malware, Microsoft has decided enough, is enough. No more doing nothing and taking bashings for something not their fault. Now Microsoft has put security first. And that's where I think it should be, and that is exactly why I like IE9 best (and I have FF and Chrome installed too). Plus, it is intuitive and easy - but so is anything, once you get used to it.

A couple more places to check,
ICSA Labs
WestCoast Labs

While there are certainly some rogue programs out there, the main thing with anti-malware programs is to keep them (and the OS) current. You don't have to have the absolute best, just good, and current to stop the bad guys. They go for the easy pickings.

 

[Nibiru2012]

Digerati stated:

All I am saying here is you cannot use security as an excuse to discount, or bash IE (or MS) or as a reason to use, (or worse, as a trusted advisor), to recommend an alternative browser. The browser of choice is a choice, just as the color of your next car is.

I am not bashing IE9, did I state that? I don't believe so. IE9 is just not for me personally, plus not very customizable. I tried Googling for IE9 ad-blockers, and AdBlockIE never showed up... of course I didn't go several pages deep either. I was also stating my past experience.

So no need to get on the high-horse and such.

Thanks!

 

[clifford_cooley]

@Digerati - You reported a post above making this statement.

He cusses in the public forums, implies the vast majority of Windows out there are half-witted and certainly wishes to use his mod powers to impose his own personal opinions. Not cool!

As far as his use of Mod powers, he is not abusing his powers no more than you are with your MVP status. You yourself push Microsoft products harder than he has ever pushed against Microsoft. Just because this is a Windows forum, doesn't mean we should 100% support Microsoft software and absolutely leave our opinions out of the equation just because we are Mods.

I'm sorry you took his generalized opinionated statement personal. I do not see where the term "half-witted" is considered cussing nor do I see where his statement is directed at anyone personally. His statement did not attack you personally but you are attacking him personally when you reported his post.

Digerati, I respect you and the knowledge that you obtain but you are a little overbearing with your opinions when you disagree. The Internet is full of people with opinions which is why we must find middle grounds. Please do us a favor and look for the middle ground the rest of us are trying to stand on.

 

[Digerati]

I apologize for the long post but I am responding to several of you - but speaking pretty much to all.

I am not bashing IE9, did I state that? I don't believe so.

Sorry, I did not say nor mean to imply you did. I was responding to your comment that you like FF because you stated, as a matter of fact, that there were no free adblockers for IE that work well.

And we know that is not true, BUT because you are member of the staff - your (all members of the staff) word carries much weight (and rightfully so) with posters. And therefore, IMO, should be correct, without bias - unless you are clearly stating an opinion - which you have every Right to do. Stating the ones for IE9 don't work very well or are not free is not stating an opinion, but a fact, and in this case, an incorrect fact that could falsely lead your readers down a path they do not need to go, or want to go.

That is what I was responding to.

I have no problem with you saying you like FF because it has this or that feature that works well. FF is a good browser. I just ask if being critical of another program, the reasons be factual and valid - or a clear personal opinion. Sticking with "customizability" or "flexibility", for example, is good. Not sure about "usability" - I personally think IE is very usable.

In terms of usability (for those of you reading who are critical of IE's lack thereof), how isn't IE usable? There is nothing I need (or want) IE to do that it doesn't do already. It renders web pages correctly, safely and rapidly. What more do you want from a browser?

What feature in FF or Chrome is lacking in IE9 that you need your browser to do?

I tried Googling for IE9 ad-blockers, and AdBlockIE never showed up... of course I didn't go several pages deep either

Hmmm, well I don't know what search string you tried, but there it is, the 2nd one on page 1 when I use Google to look for the string, adblocker IE. I see AdblockIE. Same with Bing. I see AdblockIE and several other options. So what can say? I had no problem finding them.

I do not see where the term "half-witted" is considered cussing

Clifford! You took something posted in private and posted it here. Not cool! And then you misquoted me in the process! You have made it clear you do not like to be misquoted so come on! I never said or implied half-witted is cussing. I said that comment was insulting to the vast majority of Windows users (your readers) out there, and I said it is inappropriate for a staff member to cuss in the public forums.

Beyond that, adding to my frustration is clearly you did not read this thread! It appears you joined just to pile on. That's really sad Clifford. Please see post #2 above but understand, I spent 24+ years in the military. NO CUSS WORD CAN OFFEND ME! But that does not mean cussing in public, during technical discussions is acceptable - ever - especially by someone representing the site - unless that is the image admin wants to present. Okay, that's my opinion and I will keep pushing it. "Technical forums" are not social gathering places, the local pub, or our private homes.

As far as me pushing MS products harder. Which ones are that? I have NEVER said stop using FF, or Chrome or any other browser. I have NEVER said those products were bad. I have consistently said what matters is keeping your systems current, using a good anti-malware solution, and don't do risky things. Middle ground stuff!

The fact of the matter is, Microsoft makes good products. I recommend those I think will meet users needs, not just the ones I like for me. I do push W7 64-bit over Vista, and especially to those still dragging their feet with XP. But not because W7 64-bit is so good (though it is the best Windows yet, IMO) but because W7 64-bit is the most secure and XP was designed with security as an afterthought. And I say again, security trumps all - thanks to the badguys.

I note in this thread alone, I pushed MailWasher Pro and it is not from MS. MBAM is not from MS. AdBlockIE is not from MS. PSI Secunia is not from MS. UltraMon is not from MS.

In fact, Clifford, where did I actually push IE over the alternatives, except in security? Where did I criticize FF or Chrome?

And I do step up to defend MS when they, or one of their products are unfairly bashed. The folks at MS are not the badguys. And IE is not MS.

You yourself push Microsoft products harder than he has ever pushed against Microsoft

Push against Microsoft? This is about IE, not Microsoft, the company. That illustrates the need to separate the hate and hard-feelings (some justified, some not) people have for the company from the product.

Did you miss where I am not fond of MS marketing/PR or their tactics?

I am saying, if you are going to bash IE, do it with facts. Otherwise, make it clear it is your opinion. Of the major browsers out there, there is not bad one. In fact, they are all good - a point I have repeated made.

but you are attacking him personally when you reported his post.

I reported him! (via a closed, "PRIVATE" method!!!!). That's not attacking. It's reporting! You chose to join this thread for the sole purpose of attacking, via an open, public discussion!

It is nice to know anything anyone says in private is likely to be posted in the public forums by staff here. I am glad what I said was true.

you are a little overbearing with your opinions when you disagree

And yet, go back to when I joined this thread with post #7 (and pretty much the start of every thread you feel I am overbearing in) and see what it is I said in that first post that was (1) my pushy opinion and not a factual statement and (2) where I was overbearing.

Then see the next reply and tell me if that was an appropriate response for anyone, let alone a staff member to say, "for people who are too half-witted to secure their computers, IE9 may be just the ticket." Maybe I should thank him for acknowledging IE truly is the most secure browser.

Please do us a favor and look for the middle ground the rest of us are trying to stand on.

I would ask you do the same thing Clifford. Start again with my first post in this thread where I said RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING,

Bottom line, the choice of browsers is just that, a choice. Regardless the browser, you still have to keep your computer updated, patched, scanned and blocked, and you still need to avoid risky behavior - like participating in illegal filesharing via torrents and P2P sites.

Now, tell me, Clifford, that that is not a middle ground statement I was standing on.

That fact of the matter is, I get attacked when people don't want to hear the truth. Like when I reported 32-bit and 64-bit OEM licenses being separate products and you had cows even after I showed overwhelming evidence from multiple "official" posted documents to support my claim and all you had was...nothing. Absolutely nothing to support your position. Or when I report it is illegal to use an OEM license on an "upgraded" motherboard. Or that aftermarket coolers void CPU warranties. All truthful facts some just don't want to hear and don't feel the readers need to know!

Now look. I like this site otherwise I would not keep wandering back. I respect the staff (ALL of the staff) for your knowledge and technical skills. But that does not allow us (providers) to express personal opinions and biases as fact when giving advice, unless the correctness of facts are verifiable.

And for the record, I was awarded my MVP for the last 6 years in recognition of the unbiased advice I have given, not for supporting MS products. In fact, my (due!) bashing of MS has gotten me into trouble more than once - especially over their mismanaged, misguided "outreach" teams who kept spamming, err... I mean "reaching out" to forums for awhile. But because my facts were true, I am still MVP for yet another year, and I truly believe it was through my efforts spearheading other MVPs (many of whom are forum admin/owners) to complain through our MVP leads that got those "marketing" teams to cease their actions (at least in technical support forums).

So yeah, I use my MVP status to open doors and to "network" my technical support activities, cares and concerns. And I include a link to my MVP profile in my sig so people can see I am not just some mean-looking duck with a funny name so they can decide for themselves if I might know what I am talking about before they follow my advice. Yet I still don't expect them to automatically take what I say as Gospel, so I include links to substantiate my claims, as I did, once again, in the first post I made in this thread!

Now I really am done with this, unless Ripsnort has not been run off and has more questions.

 

[Ian]

I've been keeping an eye on this thread all day, but I think it's gone far enough now and has drifted waaaaay off-topic from the original post. It's not doing any of us any favours - if there are any complaints or comments, please send them to me via PM rather than posting them on the forums.

I don't mind threads evolving in to in-depth discussions, but this is fast becoming an argument.