Processor runs warmer

[Beck]

Acer Aspire 3613 using a laptop cooler. 1.5ghz Celeron M, 1Gb DDR ram. 128mb
shared graphics (intel 900gml)

Vista runs a wee bit warmer than XP does. I assume this is because it is
working harder with heavier graphics (not glass) and more processes. Is
there an exhaustive list available of processes that I can kill to reduce
the processor hit and hopefully make it a little cooler?
Its not warm to the extend of getting hot so its not something I am worried
about, just feel some things can be removed that are not needed.
At idle the CPU sits at around 1-2%. Opening programs it takes a hit at
100% but soon comes back down to low. With windows mail and opera browser
open (but minimised) it flutters between 1-10%. memory usage 41% (1Gb ddr
ram).
If I hover my mouse over the sidebar the CPU cranks up to 100% for a few
seconds then drops back down.

 

[Rick Rogers]

Hi Beck,

Keep in mind that Vista is not optimized for performance yet, that won't
happen until they get closer to release. Killing a few processes is not
likely to make a significant difference in the cpu temperature. There is no
"exhaustive list available of processes that I can kill", as the necessary
processes vary by configuration.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

 

[Conor]

Acer Aspire 3613 using a laptop cooler. 1.5ghz Celeron M, 1Gb DDR ram. 128mb
shared graphics (intel 900gml)

Vista runs a wee bit warmer than XP does. I assume this is because it is
working harder with heavier graphics (not glass) and more processes. Is
there an exhaustive list available of processes that I can kill to reduce
the processor hit and hopefully make it a little cooler?

According to MS website, both the CPU and GPU will run warmer as power
management code isn't yet anywhere near optimised.

 

[Beck]

According to MS website, both the CPU and GPU will run warmer as power
management code isn't yet anywhere near optimised.

Thankyou both. I realise it won't be quite optimised yet. I thought maybe
there was some things running I did not need.

 

[Mario Rosario]

It won't hurt the CPU runing a bit warm. They operate over a range of
temperatures. I'm sure if you dig into the Intel site, you can find the
characterization data.

 

[Colin Maddocks]

Worst one i've found is Media Player, it creates a lot of CPU usage and
drains battery fast.

Colin.

 

[Travis King]

That's because the DRM (mfpmp.exe) eats between 7% and 20% of my CPU when
running WMP11 alone. Let alone that DWM's CPU usage goes up into the 20's%
when WMP11 is running and then the usage that WMP11 uses on top of that.
Glass really gets slow when WMP11 is running. Even with glass disabled,
WMP11 is still just as slow, so there's not really any point in disabling
glass to improve performance with WMP11. They seriously need some *major*
refining with WMP11 or better yet, get rid of the DRM. They have no excuses
for the DRM eating 20% of my CPU. If it's going to eat that much, they
shouldn't even have it. That would explain why WMP11 eats a lot of your
CPU. I like to play music and do other things on my computer, but it's very
difficult to when WMP11 eats over half of my CPU. (when you combine the DRM,
WMP11, and DWM when I play music.) Did I forget to mention that
visualizations are also slower than molasis in WMP11 on Vista? Even the
bars & waves visualization has some latency and serious lagging. Blazing
Colors looks almost like a slideshow, where if I do Blazing Colors on XP
(even WMP11 on XP), I can do it full screen with no lag. (1600x1200
resolution) This is on an AMD Sempron 64 2800+ @ 1.6GHz. WMP11 for Vista
in my books right now gets a D in my opinion. It gets a B+ in XP. If it
were't for the severly poor performance and CPU utilization, you bet that
WMP11 in Vista would also get a B+ if not, an A- but the performance is so
poor in WMP11 on Vista that it drastically drops its grade. Windows Vista
itself isn't as fast as XP, but I also wouldn't call it slow, however, WMP11
in Vista I would call very slow.