Jump to content

Windows 10 search process uses almost double the RAM of Winamp


rn10950
 Share

Recommended Posts

I installed Winamp on my Windows 10 VM and went into Task Manager and noticed something interesting. The search process uses almost double the RAM that Winamp 2.95 does.

 

ycLsl8S.png

Edited by rn10950
Link to comment
Share on other sites


and what is your issue? Why do you care about 14MB?

 

The fact that a search process that I'm not using at all is using double the RAM as a media player that is open and playing a file is just sad. This really goes to show the bloat software has been recieving over the last few years. In Windows 7, the indexer uses around 10MB, and that's still too much. But in Windows 10 this is not the indexer, this is the frontend in the new Start menu and taskbar.

Edited by rn10950
Link to comment
Share on other sites

disable the service if you don't need it.

 

I have the Windows Search process disabled, am using a local account, and yet still see Search in my list of Background processes.

 

The process is actually searchui.exe, and appears to be related to Cortana.  This does not appear to be a service.

 

Maybe it's what mans the search box (which I am not displaying) on the Taskbar, but at this point that's just a wild guess.

 

So...  Let's figure out how to kill it and what the implications are.  Win 10 has WAY too many processes running.

 

Edit:  More info...

 

  • It's not listed by Autoruns

     

     

  • Process Hacker shows it as having been started with this command line:

     

    "C:\Program Files\WindowsApps\Microsoft.Cortana_1.3.1.444_x64__8wekyb3d8bbwe\SearchUI.exe" -ServerName:CortanaUI.AppXwbw90g5vtrwjvhq9gjet3rhd0cy7ctte.mca

     

     

  • Attempting to start the "Search App" nets 4 of the following errors in the System Event Log, and nothing comes up.

     

    The application-specific permission settings do not grant Local Activation permission for the COM Server application with CLSID

    {0C0A3666-30C9-11D0-8F20-00805F2CD064}

    and APPID

    {9209B1A6-964A-11D0-9372-00A0C9034910}

    to the user W10VM\NoelC SID (S-1-5-21-3809759404-3132761862-3099056430-1000) from address LocalHost (Using LRPC) running in the application container Microsoft.Cortana_1.3.1.444_x64__8wekyb3d8bbwe SID (S-1-15-2-128907917-1049808183-3772720920-2589851895-2273257875-2082631859-2896883434). This security permission can be modified using the Component Services administrative tool.

     

     

  • Killing it from the Task Manager doesn't seem to get a recurrence in normal desktop usage, until the next logon at least.

 

 

Who could not want to waste their computer resources on Cortana?  :no:

 

-Noel

Edited by NoelC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that a search process that I'm not using at all is using double the RAM as a media player that is open and playing a file is just sad. This really goes to show the bloat software has been recieving over the last few years.

Been extremely dinosaurish  I would like to point out a different unit of measure, the W311FAHR   :w00t::ph34r: (only to put things into perspective ;))

  

A W311R equates to 4 Mb of RAM, i.e. to the amount of RAM present in a PC the hardware on which a WHOLE Windows 3.11 Operating system ran normally (and on which you could at the time - say - write a letter, or create a spreadsheet, etc. fine, though slowly).

A W311FAHR equates to 8 Mb of RAM, i.e. to the amount of RAM present in a PC the hardware on which a WHOLE Windows 3.11 Operating system ran "Fast As Hell".

 

So, we are now at the point where Winamp uses by itself  roughly 1 (one) W311FAHR to play some music (which BTW all in all is fine, as at least it is doing "something" :yes:), and the stupid Windows Search uses by itself roughly 2 (two) W311FAHR to do absolutely NOTHING (not "nothing useful", actually "nothing").

 

Put this way it is even sadder. :(

 

jaclaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, way back then we got some work done on Windows 3.11 for Workgroups.  We had editors that ran in command windows and could keep up with our typing, we could compile code, we could make things work.

 

That being said, what we did back then was mere child's play compared to what we do today.

 

The magnitude of things we could do was not as significant.  That's where the more modern systems shine.  They track things instantly, give you interactive assistance, and don't make you wait.  And we can now do 1000x as much computing for days, weeks, or months at a time without it crashing.  Remember "Save Often"?  Do you have to do that now?

 

We don't have to reboot first thing in the morning, at lunch time, and when leaving the office so the nightly build will complete.  Now we can do a build of a far more complex software system every 30 seconds if that's helpful.

 

And I can collaborate interactively, sharing a multi-monitor desktop and with high quality 2-way hands-free audio, with someone on the other side of the planet, without even feeling the overhead of the process.  I do this all the time.

 

While I agree that by no means are current systems the most efficient or effective they could be, there is really no comparison between developing content / software today and using an OS from 25 years ago.  Windows for Workgroups was flawed and inefficient for what it did.

 

-Noel

Edited by NoelC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@NoelC

We are in the usual disagreement. :(

 

It is not about what can be done, but on what is actually done by most people, and which part of that is actually productive.

 

Not everyone develops software. :no:

Not everyone has a multi-monitor setup.

Not everyone writes programs while video-conferencing with someone at the other end of the planet.

 

Most people in their work hours or when using a computer for their business write letters, or input data in a vertical app, or makes a few calculations on a (usually lousy and half-@§§ed) spreadsheet.

 

Anyway back in the old days we had a specific device, called telephone, to talk two-way (optionally hands-free) with other people, another specific device, called radio or tape player to have music (usually not when working), if you think about it a little bit, the new integration of these devices/functions into the PC has been possible only partially due to the evolution of the operating systems, and much more by the evolution of the hardware (but even more than that by the increased bandwidth of our connections, which again is hardware) and the decreasing of costs.

 

But if you think only at the OS, sure Windows 3.1x sucked (and sometimes sucked big), but if you think of it (circa 1992/93) as an evolution over what was available (say) 3 years before it was great.

 

And if you go back to good ol' NT3.51/4.00 times, 3 years later (1995/96), it was actually really years ahead. (and the whole system used 8 to 16 W311FAHR)

 

But roughly 3 years later,  Windows 2000 (which was an improvement over NT 4.00 in many ways) brought not that many changes. (and the whole system used 16 to 64  W311FAHR)

And 2 years later XP didn't bring much (meaningful) ones. (while using at least, but still for the whole system, 64 to 128 W311FAHR)

Another 6 years later (double that period) Vista :ph34r: didn't bring any. (and really-really needed 256 W311FAHR)

And another 3 years later Vista SP3 rectius Windows 7 brought only marginal enhancements/additions (and everyone started bickering about the need of using 64 bits to have more than 512 W311FAHR)

And another 3 years later 8  :ph34r: didn't bring any.

 

Now look at Windows 10 and compare it with what was available 3 years ago.

 

It is sad, and as said sadder if you put it in a wider perspective.

 

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It is not about what can be done, but on what is actually done by most people, and which part of that is actually productive.

 

I don't really care what most people do.  In some cases it may be less than what I do, and what that usually means is that the makers of the thing think that working at the level I do isn't important, and so they dumb it down.

 

That's just wrong.

 

If a power user / engineer can't get what he needs from a system, then it's going to fail for a layperson as well.  That layperson, if they should decide to dive deep into something - say a long session of working with a spreadsheet or the need to open a really big document - may meet with disappointment.  Why?  Because they couldn't be bothered with trying to make the most of their system.  Because they thought integrating it should be someone else's problem.

 

What's important is that when whomever wants to do something it's actually doable - without muss or fuss.

 

Windows is like a new sports car that badly needs a tuneup, and maybe has a few spark plugs missing (e.g., built on a Friday afternoon).  Unless you take the time to make it better it can be disappointing.  I can read disappointment between the lines of many of your posts, jaclaz.

 

I spend virtually all my time just doing my work.  Sometimes it's demanding stuff.  Yet I can't remember when I had to worry whether I could do more multitasking as needed, or when I had to "save often" or worry about lost data.  I've installed each of the versions of Windows ONCE, tweaked them ONCE, and then they just work.  I barely ever even reboot.  I've been making systems into more since long before Bill Gates dreamed of Windows.  I was expert at the one whose architecture was plagiarized to become NT.

 

What's sad is that most folks really don't know how well Windows can work.  Perhaps they think that taking time to get all the performance and reliability they can out of it is frivolous.

 

Though I love to engage in reminiscing and perspective exercises, it seems to me just silly to tout how much less RAM was needed by a dinosaur OS that if run on a modern processor would crash on average every 47 seconds.  There is really no comparison.

 

Okay, so it was a *little* dinosaur.

 

tumblr_lhxjjkkDB51qciujko1_500.gif

 

I understand your sensibilities may be offended knowing today's systems could actually be more efficient.  But does it really matter?  

 

If it helps, think like this.  The computer box you have now is the same size as those from back then.  If they were cars, and your 1992 model would go 75 mph, your 2015 model would be able to go twice the speed of sound yet use less fuel and cost less.  So what if it could really go four times the speed of sound if it were only made the way you'd do it.  You don't have time to make your own hypersonic vehicle.

 

I wonder whether perhaps you ought to buy yourself a better computer - a good one.  It might just be so light and fast that you'll forget all about Windows for Workgroups 3.11.  I can help you set it up.  :yes:

 

-Noel

Edited by NoelC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand your sensibilities may be offended knowing today's systems could actually be more efficient.  But does it really matter?

Coming from my engineering background, I think this is indeed what bothers jaclaz so much, as it does me and many others.

 

Not that I don't understand your points, Noel.  But surely you can agree that in many cases in our world today, computer programmers, (using those that have programmed the recent versions of Windows as our specific example and not trying to imply that you are guilty as well in any way my friend, since I am not familiar with your products :) ), could be said to have gotten lazy and they can get away with it because of the hardware advances that enable it.  The hardware, and the advances in programming tools, have also enabled the proliferation of programmers that don't have the skill set or the incentive to produce any better products than the playskool products that we've all been complaining about lately.  And the companies involved have no incentive to require anything better or better documented because of the race to capture market share to make more money.  Sure a better product might win the day in the long run, but often the people in the companies that are first to market profit enough that they don't care.  They either are able to retire early, or sell out with a golden parachute.  And the ones that suffer are the consumer who has to deal with companies that go under or are sold off and products that are no longer supported.  Sure, the products are getting cheaper, in every sense of the word, and our income is increasing, even if not as much relatively as we would like, so yes you can say "it doesn't matter", but that doesn't make it "right", or best.

 

What's sad is that most folks really don't know how well Windows can work. Perhaps they think that taking time to get all the performance and reliability they can out of it is frivolous.

Wouldn't it be better if the company that wrote the OS, and knew the most about it, took the time to do that tuning so you wouldn't have to?

 

Yes, any recent version of Windows on any recent hardware runs rings around older versions on older hardware.  For a small percentage of users, such as yourself, that is critical, and might even be noticed by many others, as you pointed out.  And I agree that if a system is made to support the heaviest user, then it can more likely always handle the more common loads even better.  And cheaper and less capable systems can be spun off for the folks with lower needs, Netbooks being an example.  But that leads again to producing products for the masses, and since the profits from such products will always trump the profits from elite products due to sheer numbers, then greedy companies will again head down the "wrong" path, at least according to most of us here, including you.

 

Products are produced today at dizzying rates and their life cycles are ever decreasing, and that is not all good, IMHO.  Choice is usually way up, prices are down, speeds are faster, etc.  But quality?, Reliability?  Haven't I heard you say that you would rather pay for a product that reliably did what it was supposed to, rather than deal with a "free" product that ends up costing you time and aggravation?  And haven't you started threads like http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/172829-im-depressed-about-windows/ and http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/173452-good-enough-stop-now/?  And I know you believe that there is value in "staying current", more appropriate for you as a software developer of course, but you have admitted that your Win 8.x and Win 10 systems, even after all the tweaking you have to do, are no faster than your older Win 7 systems on the same hardware, and I'm not aware of any added capabilities that they offer you.  At least if you were a Windows Phone or Windows Store app developer you would have a true requirement to use the newer OS. :)

 

Sure today's OS on today's hardware can be made to do a good job, but just imagine how good it could be.  If, as was considered best programming practice in my day, all code was written to be ROMable, re-entrant, relocatable, able to be safely recursive if appropriate, and able to handle multiple processors and multiple data steams, the benefits could include speed, size, security, and maintainability, at the expense of time to market, and would require programmers that actually knew what they were doing.  Not a bad trade off in my opinion.

 

Sorry for rambling, it's getting very late/early, I think I even kind of lost the point, but hopefully you understand my intent, even if some of my wishes will never happen in today's market reality. :)

 

Cheers and Regards

Edited by bphlpt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...