1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

XP Systems Running Slowly or Non-Responsive due to wuauclt.exe hoggingmemory

Discussion in 'Windows XP' started by MowGreen, Aug 25, 2010.

  1. MowGreen

    MowGreen Flightless Bird

    This was posted 4 hours ago in the Windows Update forum by Keith, MS
    Support Engineer:
    http://social.answers.microsoft.com...fbda084/#baf3e55a-fc4a-4915-a2f0-3e7f559c7c46

    " If you are currently experiencing issues with XP running slowing due
    to the wuauclt.exe using too much memory, we are interested in hearing
    from you. Please send an email to commod@microsoft.com and include your
    forum display name and contact information.


    Important: When you are composing the email, be sure to include “XP
    Wuauclt.exe” in the subject line. In the body of the email, please
    describe the exact symptoms that you are experiencing, your forum
    display name, a link to any forum thread that applies to your issue, and
    any other information that you feel is relevant to your issue.

    Also include the following information:

    XP Service Pack level

    Antivirus Installed

    Amount of RAM


    Please note that this is not a normal support channel and you may not be
    contacted for a follow up. In the event that you are not contacted, you
    may find additional support options at http://support.microsoft.com."

    For those who do not use the new forums, include the Subject, Author,
    Date and Time of the thread you've posted in this NNTP newsgroup -
    microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

    Also, please include whether the system has been opted into Microsoft
    Update (MU) or if it's updating from Windows Update (WU).

    If Internet Explorer lands here, the system is updating from WU:

    update.microsoft.com/windowsupdate

    If IE lands here, the system is updating from MU:

    update.microsoft.com/microsoftupdate


    MowGreen
    ================
    *-343-* FDNY
    Never Forgotten
    ================

    "Security updates should *never* have *non-security content* prechecked
     
  2. Teflon

    Teflon Flightless Bird

    Re: XP Systems Running Slowly or Non-Responsive due to wuauclt.exehogging memory

    On Aug 25, 1:08 pm, MowGreen <mowgr...@nowandzen.com> wrote:
    > This was posted 4 hours ago in the Windows Update forum by Keith, MS
    > Support Engineer:http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vistawu/thread/7f401...
    >
    > " If you are currently experiencing issues with XP running slowing due
    > to the wuauclt.exe using too much memory, we are interested in hearing
    > from you. Please send an email to com...@microsoft.com  and include your
    > forum display name and contact information.
    >
    > Important:  When you are composing the email, be sure to include “XP
    > Wuauclt.exe” in the subject line.  In the body of the email, please
    > describe the exact symptoms that you are experiencing, your forum
    > display name, a link to any forum thread that applies to your issue, and
    > any other information that you feel is relevant to your issue.
    >
    > Also include the following information:
    >
    > XP Service Pack level
    >
    > Antivirus Installed
    >
    > Amount of RAM
    >
    > Please note that this is not a normal support channel and you may not be
    > contacted for a follow up.  In the event that you are not contacted, you
    > may find additional support options athttp://support.microsoft.com."
    >
    > For those who do not use the new forums, include the Subject, Author,
    > Date and Time of the thread you've posted in this NNTP newsgroup -
    > microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
    >
    > Also, please include whether the system has been opted into Microsoft
    > Update (MU) or if it's updating from Windows Update (WU).
    >
    > If Internet Explorer lands here, the system is updating from WU:
    >
    > update.microsoft.com/windowsupdate
    >
    > If IE lands here, the system is updating from MU:
    >
    > update.microsoft.com/microsoftupdate
    >
    > MowGreen
    > ================
    >   *-343-* FDNY
    > Never Forgotten
    > ================
    >
    > "Security updates should *never* have *non-security content* prechecked


    Mow, I went to that thread, but did find the referenced post by Keith,
    MS Support Engineer. Since the email address in your copy of Keith's
    post is muxed, I have not sent an email to MS to add my 2 cents worth
    regarding my experience with this problem. Although, I am sure MS has
    more emails than they can handle, providing others were able to find
    Keith's post and got the email address. If you have that email
    address, you could pass my experience along to add to the dog-pile.

    My 2 computers - XP Pro SP3 - were experiencing the slow down -
    wuauclt - prior to the Aug 10 mass update. I turned off AutoUpdate,
    killed wuauclt, flipped back to WU and installed Open Office to get
    around the 'no updates' for Office 2003 fiasco. No other 'important'
    MS apps installed. Seems to me the problem may have to do with MS'
    discontinuance of the Office Update site and rolling all updates in to
    MU.

    I installed MSE for a short time about 6 months ago, but uninstalled
    it because of a long update cycle, very similar to what a lot of folks
    are now experiencing. Reactivated Avira's AntiVir and running good,
    until I thought I would see if MU was working for the Aug 10 update,
    it wasn't - unending scan. Went through the kill, turn-off, flip
    routine again and all is back to snappy. WU took care of the Aug 10
    deluge just fine.
     
  3. MowGreen

    MowGreen Flightless Bird

    Re: XP Systems Running Slowly or Non-Responsive due to wuauclt.exehogging memory

    Teflon wrote:
    > Mow, I went to that thread, but did find the referenced post by Keith,
    > MS Support Engineer. Since the email address in your copy of Keith's
    > post is muxed, I have not sent an email to MS to add my 2 cents worth
    > regarding my experience with this problem. Although, I am sure MS has
    > more emails than they can handle, providing others were able to find
    > Keith's post and got the email address. If you have that email
    > address, you could pass my experience along to add to the dog-pile.
    >
    > My 2 computers - XP Pro SP3 - were experiencing the slow down -
    > wuauclt - prior to the Aug 10 mass update. I turned off AutoUpdate,
    > killed wuauclt, flipped back to WU and installed Open Office to get
    > around the 'no updates' for Office 2003 fiasco. No other 'important'
    > MS apps installed. Seems to me the problem may have to do with MS'
    > discontinuance of the Office Update site and rolling all updates in to
    > MU.
    >
    > I installed MSE for a short time about 6 months ago, but uninstalled
    > it because of a long update cycle, very similar to what a lot of folks
    > are now experiencing. Reactivated Avira's AntiVir and running good,
    > until I thought I would see if MU was working for the Aug 10 update,
    > it wasn't - unending scan. Went through the kill, turn-off, flip
    > routine again and all is back to snappy. WU took care of the Aug 10
    > deluge just fine.



    Teflon,

    The post is gone now. Here's the email address -
    commod@microsoft.com
    I'm not sure why it ended up being munged. If it happens again, the
    email addy is commodATmicrosoft.com

    As to why it disappeared ... it was incomplete as to stating whether the
    system is opted in to MU is vitally important. And, perhaps MS received
    a deluge of emails ?

    BTW, although MSE flips a system to MU when it's installed, it actually
    updates from the WU servers. One can opt out of MU back to WU and MSE
    will still update, with *much* less strain on the system.

    MowGreen
    ================
    *-343-* FDNY
    Never Forgotten
    ================

    "Security updates should *never* have *non-security content* prechecked
     
  4. Teflon

    Teflon Flightless Bird

    Re: XP Systems Running Slowly or Non-Responsive due to wuauclt.exehogging memory

    On Aug 26, 9:19 am, MowGreen <mowgr...@nowandzen.com> wrote:
    > Teflon wrote:
    > > Mow, I went to that thread, but did find the referenced post by Keith,
    > > MS Support Engineer.  Since the email address in your copy of Keith's
    > > post is muxed, I have not sent an email to MS to add my 2 cents worth
    > > regarding my experience with this problem.  Although, I am sure MS has
    > > more emails than they can handle, providing others were able to find
    > > Keith's post and got the email address.  If you have that email
    > > address, you could pass my experience along to add to the dog-pile.

    >
    > > My 2 computers - XP Pro SP3 - were experiencing the slow down -
    > > wuauclt - prior to the Aug 10 mass update.  I turned off AutoUpdate,
    > > killed wuauclt, flipped back to WU and installed Open Office to get
    > > around the 'no updates' for Office 2003 fiasco. No other 'important'
    > > MS apps installed.  Seems to me the problem may have to do with MS'
    > > discontinuance of the Office Update site and rolling all updates in to
    > > MU.

    >
    > > I installed MSE for a short time about 6 months ago, but uninstalled
    > > it because of a long update cycle, very similar to what a lot of folks
    > > are now experiencing.  Reactivated Avira's AntiVir and running good,
    > > until I thought I would see if MU was working for the Aug 10 update,
    > > it wasn't - unending scan.  Went through the kill, turn-off, flip
    > > routine again and all is back to snappy.  WU took care of the Aug 10
    > > deluge just fine.

    >
    > Teflon,
    >
    > The post is gone now. Here's the email address -
    > com...@microsoft.com
    > I'm not sure why it ended up being munged. If it happens again, the
    > email addy is commodATmicrosoft.com
    >
    > As to why it disappeared ... it was incomplete as to stating whether the
    > system is opted in to MU is vitally important. And, perhaps MS received
    > a deluge of emails ?
    >
    > BTW, although MSE flips a system to MU when it's installed, it actually
    > updates from the WU servers. One can opt out of MU back to WU and MSE
    > will still update, with *much* less strain on the system.
    >
    > MowGreen
    > ================
    >   *-343-* FDNY
    > Never Forgotten
    > ================
    >
    > "Security updates should *never* have *non-security content* prechecked


    Thanks Mow, it got munged again (probably the @ sign with the dot com
    did it), but thankfully you spelled it out.

    MS deserved my 2 cents, hope they appreciate it.

    BTW, I enjoy reading your posts, always informative, easy to
    understand and no attitude. You're one of several whose suggestions
    always get my attention. Keep up the good work.
     
  5. Teflon

    Teflon Flightless Bird

    Re: XP Systems Running Slowly or Non-Responsive due to wuauclt.exehogging memory

    On Aug 26, 9:19 am, MowGreen <mowgr...@nowandzen.com> wrote:
    >
    > BTW, although MSE flips a system to MU when it's installed, it actually
    > updates from the WU servers. One can opt out of MU back to WU and MSE
    > will still update, with *much* less strain on the system.
    >


    That's good info to have, however, I seem to recall that another post
    in another thread implied that not all MSE components(?) were updated
    by WU. I could be mistaken in what I read, concentrating more on what
    MS is doing to fix MU.
     
  6. PA Bear [MS MVP]

    PA Bear [MS MVP] Flightless Bird

    Re: XP Systems Running Slowly or Non-Responsive due to wuauclt.exe hogging memory

    All of his posts have been deleted.

    Teflon wrote:
    <snip>
    > Mow, I went to that thread, but did find the referenced post by Keith,
    > MS Support Engineer...
     
  7. MowGreen

    MowGreen Flightless Bird

    Re: XP Systems Running Slowly or Non-Responsive due to wuauclt.exehogging memory

    Teflon wrote:
    > Thanks Mow, it got munged again (probably the @ sign with the dot com
    > did it), but thankfully you spelled it out.
    >
    > MS deserved my 2 cents, hope they appreciate it.
    >
    > BTW, I enjoy reading your posts, always informative, easy to
    > understand and no attitude. You're one of several whose suggestions
    > always get my attention. Keep up the good work.


    You're way too kind, Teflon. I reserve attitude for those who seek
    it. <w>
    As to why the addy keeps getting munged ... it's probably something
    aioe.org's end as MS no longer has anything to do with the remaining
    NNTP newsgroups.



    MowGreen
    ================
    *-343-* FDNY
    Never Forgotten
    ================

    "Security updates should *never* have *non-security content* prechecked
     
  8. MowGreen

    MowGreen Flightless Bird

    Re: XP Systems Running Slowly or Non-Responsive due to wuauclt.exehogging memory

    Teflon wrote:
    > On Aug 26, 9:19 am, MowGreen<mowgr...@nowandzen.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> BTW, although MSE flips a system to MU when it's installed, it actually
    >> updates from the WU servers. One can opt out of MU back to WU and MSE
    >> will still update, with *much* less strain on the system.
    >>

    >
    > That's good info to have, however, I seem to recall that another post
    > in another thread implied that not all MSE components(?) were updated
    > by WU. I could be mistaken in what I read, concentrating more on what
    > MS is doing to fix MU.



    Perhaps the engine version or the program itself can not be updated to
    newer Versions if the system is opted out of MU ?
    That's just a guess, Teflon.


    MowGreen
    ================
    *-343-* FDNY
    Never Forgotten
    ================

    "Security updates should *never* have *non-security content* prechecked
     
  9. PA Bear [MS MVP]

    PA Bear [MS MVP] Flightless Bird

    Re: XP Systems Running Slowly or Non-Responsive due to wuauclt.exe hogging memory

    MowGreen wrote:
    >> That's good info to have, however, I seem to recall that another post
    >> in another thread implied that not all MSE components(?) were updated
    >> by WU. I could be mistaken in what I read, concentrating more on what
    >> MS is doing to fix MU.

    >
    > Perhaps the engine version or the program itself can not be updated to
    > newer Versions if the system is opted out of MU ?
    > That's just a guess, Teflon.


    If MU is the default, MU/AU will offer MSE definition, engine & program
    updates.

    If WU is the default, MSE will auto-install definition & engine updates. If
    a program update (i.e., version upgrade) is available, MSE will notify you
    of its availability with a prompt. MSE users can always check for & install
    available program (version) updates via the Help menu.
    --
    ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
    MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Client - since 2002
     
  10. Teflon

    Teflon Flightless Bird

    Re: XP Systems Running Slowly or Non-Responsive due to wuauclt.exehogging memory

    On Aug 26, 11:00 pm, "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABear...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > MowGreen wrote:
    > >> That's good info to have, however, I seem to recall that another post
    > >> in another thread implied that not all MSE components(?) were updated
    > >> by WU.  I could be mistaken in what I read, concentrating more on what
    > >> MS is doing to fix MU.

    >
    > > Perhaps the engine version or the program itself can not be updated to
    > > newer Versions if the system is opted out of MU ?
    > > That's just a guess, Teflon.

    >
    > If MU is the default, MU/AU will offer MSE definition, engine & program
    > updates.
    >
    > If WU is the default, MSE will auto-install definition & engine updates.  If
    > a program update (i.e., version upgrade) is available, MSE will notify you
    > of its availability with a prompt.  MSE users can always check for & install
    > available program (version) updates via the Help menu.
    > --
    > ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
    > MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Client - since 2002


    Advise from 2 of the best, what could be better. Thanks to both of
    you for responding.

    Mow, did the ID 'commod' in that email address portend any disposition
    of the emails in your mind? i.e., emails sent to commod just go down
    the crapper (commode). I wonder if Keith was really with MS, and if
    so, is he still employed, after being so blatant in trying to 'offer
    help' to frustrated users 'in a newsgroup'? Double whammy - very non-
    MS behavior.
     
  11. PA Bear [MS MVP]

    PA Bear [MS MVP] Flightless Bird

    Re: XP Systems Running Slowly or Non-Responsive due to wuauclt.exe hogging memory

    Teflon wrote:
    <snip>
    > Mow, did the ID 'commod' in that email address portend any disposition
    > of the emails in your mind? i.e., emails sent to commod just go down
    > the crapper (commode). I wonder if Keith was really with MS, and if
    > so, is he still employed, after being so blatant in trying to 'offer
    > help' to frustrated users 'in a newsgroup'? Double whammy - very non-
    > MS behavior.


    We have no reason to suspect that the email address and/or "Keith-MS Support
    Engineer" were not legit.

    From Keith's posts in Answers forums (now deleted since, I assume, they
    received more than enough replies): "Please note that this is not a normal
    support channel and you may not be contacted for a follow up..."
    --
    ~PA Bear
     
  12. MowGreen

    MowGreen Flightless Bird

    Re: XP Systems Running Slowly or Non-Responsive due to wuauclt.exehogging memory

    Teflon wrote:
    >> > If MU is the default, MU/AU will offer MSE definition, engine& program
    >> > updates.
    >> >
    >> > If WU is the default, MSE will auto-install definition& engine updates. If
    >> > a program update (i.e., version upgrade) is available, MSE will notify you
    >> > of its availability with a prompt. MSE users can always check for& install
    >> > available program (version) updates via the Help menu.
    >> > --
    >> > ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
    >> > MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Client - since 2002

    > Advise from 2 of the best, what could be better. Thanks to both of
    > you for responding.
    >
    > Mow, did the ID 'commod' in that email address portend any disposition
    > of the emails in your mind? i.e., emails sent to commod just go down
    > the crapper (commode). I wonder if Keith was really with MS, and if
    > so, is he still employed, after being so blatant in trying to 'offer
    > help' to frustrated users 'in a newsgroup'? Double whammy - very non-
    > MS behavior.



    Keith's legit. I'm not so sure that his offer for assistance was
    " officially approved ". I can only speculate as to why his offer was
    withdrawn.


    MowGreen
    ================
    *-343-* FDNY
    Never Forgotten
    ================

    "Security updates should *never* have *non-security content* prechecked
     

Share This Page