Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Geeks To Go is a helpful hub, where thousands of volunteer geeks quickly serve friendly answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more.

Create Account How it Works
Photo

monitor.exe 95-99% CPU utilisation.


  • Please log in to reply

#1
odubtaig

odubtaig

    New Member

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
I've had this problem since I got this laptop and the vendor refuses to do anything about it as it's a 'software' issue which apparently makes it not their problem.

Firstly, I've had to fix secedit.sdb before I could install IIS which is required for VNCServer.

Now, monitor.exe is still sucking my CPU and keeping all resources from other software and I can't seem to uninstall it as, this being XP Pro, it's not a standard Windows component. It does seem to be tied in with the vendors alterations to the default install.

So what I need to know is what is causing this horrible slowdown? I've run memtest86+ and Prime95 in Torture Test mode for 24 hours and the vendor ran their own 'SOAK' test and so far I've come up with nothing.

My HijackThis and all related gubbins is in this thread and as I've had no replies in 3 days, I'm guessing no-one else can find anything wrong in there.

As someone who's worked with computers since the days of DOS 6, you might imagine I'm finding this more than a little frustrating. I can't find anything in the MS knowledgebase, via google or the search on these forums so if anyone could give me any pointers to any tests I can run or anything I may have missed I'd be immensely grateful.

As I've stated in the other thread, this has the niggly feel of a hardware issue but I just can't pin it down.

Now, if no-one minds I'll be off to bang my head against a wall.

Edited by odubtaig, 21 December 2006 - 11:44 AM.

  • 0

Advertisements


#2
pip22

pip22

    Trusted Tech

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,663 posts
There are some viruses and web-browser redirectors floating around masquerading as monitor.exe so do a full system scan for viruses and other malware. It doesn't overwrite the genuine monitor.exe but copies itself to a different folder -- so in other words if you have more than one instance of this file you need to take remedial action to get rid of the bogus one(s).
  • 0

#3
odubtaig

odubtaig

    New Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
Nope, I've already checked and while monitor.exe isn't a standard process for XP, it is required by Acer eRecovery (backup software) which refuses to work unless it's resident in memory.

However, I did think to do a bit of extra checking after posting this thread and tried running Uniblue Registry Booster. A Registry Scan results in a BSOD with the message:

*** STOP: 0x0000007E (0xC0000005, 0xF7CD8D6C, 0xA9EDDC24, 0xA9EDD920)

*** HSFHWICH.sys - Address F7CD8D6C base at F7CBF000 DateStamp 41c0c648

According to the debug tool kd, C0000005 is the exception code not handled, F7CD8D6C is the exception address, A9EDDC24 is the exception record address and A9EDD920 is the Context record address. C0000005 is an Access Violation. This was an attempt to read from address 1194857e. Process name: System

There's a lot of other information which may or may not be relevant. Honestly, there's a lot of stuff I don't understand, it's all a tad more in depth than I've ever had to get in to.
  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP