3,000 + hard faults per minute in svchost.exe at 58% physical memo

Okay, here's the deal: I just had another Vista program hang- was playing
"Blitzkrieg" WWII RTS by Nival Interactive. The company claims the program
is compatible with Vista, and I agree, as I haven't had the nightmarish
install problems I have had with other programs, and only had to disable
visual themes in the compatibility settings.
Anyway, the game hung yet again.
I did ctrl-alt-delete to unlock the computer (this sometimes works in Vista)
and while I had Task Manager open, I checked the Resource Monitor.

An instance of svchost.exe was getting literally thousands of hard faults
per minute. Physical memory usage was only 58%.

game.exe (the exe for Blitzkrieg) was showing 0 hard faults per minute.

Right now, with just task manager, IE 7 and the resource monitor running,
Vista is still throwing hard faults at only 68% memory used. I can see and
hear the HD running. That would explain why the new PC is such a dog, if
it's constantly in virtual memory.

Yes, AV is installed and up to date.

Am I wrong, or should Vista not be using virtual memory until I hit 100%
memory usage?

If it were a matter of hitting 100% memory usage and Vista having to dip
into virtual memory, then I would just go out and buy another MB or three of
memory and be done with it. But it looks to me like that's not the problem.

Aha! I just looked again- no hard faults right now, and I haven't done
anything different. This might explain why sometimes games run, and
sometimes they hang/crash/refuse to load. Gonna run another virus scan when
I log off just to be double sure.

Anyway, any help would be very much appreciated.

"ostlandr" <> wrote in message
news:62144000-834E-4BE7-8267-...
> Okay, here's the deal: I just had another Vista program hang- was
> playing
> "Blitzkrieg" WWII RTS by Nival Interactive. The company claims the
> program
> is compatible with Vista, and I agree, as I haven't had the nightmarish
> install problems I have had with other programs, and only had to disable
> visual themes in the compatibility settings.
> Anyway, the game hung yet again.
> I did ctrl-alt-delete to unlock the computer (this sometimes works in
> Vista)
> and while I had Task Manager open, I checked the Resource Monitor.
>
> An instance of svchost.exe was getting literally thousands of hard faults
> per minute. Physical memory usage was only 58%.
>
> game.exe (the exe for Blitzkrieg) was showing 0 hard faults per minute.
>
> Right now, with just task manager, IE 7 and the resource monitor running,
> Vista is still throwing hard faults at only 68% memory used. I can see
> and
> hear the HD running. That would explain why the new PC is such a dog, if
> it's constantly in virtual memory.
>
> Yes, AV is installed and up to date.
>
> Am I wrong, or should Vista not be using virtual memory until I hit 100%
> memory usage?
>
> If it were a matter of hitting 100% memory usage and Vista having to dip
> into virtual memory, then I would just go out and buy another MB or three
> of
> memory and be done with it. But it looks to me like that's not the
> problem.
>
> Aha! I just looked again- no hard faults right now, and I haven't done
> anything different. This might explain why sometimes games run, and
> sometimes they hang/crash/refuse to load. Gonna run another virus scan
> when
> I log off just to be double sure.
>
> Anyway, any help would be very much appreciated.

It would appear that new PCs suffer a performance hit for several days while
it indexes the files on the hard drive.
You can either let it finish or you can turn off indexing depending on how
much you use the search function.
Hard faults in the monitoring don't mean Vista is paging.

A few days? How about two weeks? I got the new PC and laptop memorial day
weekend.

"dennis@home" wrote:

>
> "ostlandr" <> wrote in message
> news:62144000-834E-4BE7-8267-...
> > Okay, here's the deal: I just had another Vista program hang- was
> > playing
> > "Blitzkrieg" WWII RTS by Nival Interactive. The company claims the
> > program
> > is compatible with Vista, and I agree, as I haven't had the nightmarish
> > install problems I have had with other programs, and only had to disable
> > visual themes in the compatibility settings.
> > Anyway, the game hung yet again.
> > I did ctrl-alt-delete to unlock the computer (this sometimes works in
> > Vista)
> > and while I had Task Manager open, I checked the Resource Monitor.
> >
> > An instance of svchost.exe was getting literally thousands of hard faults
> > per minute. Physical memory usage was only 58%.
> >
> > game.exe (the exe for Blitzkrieg) was showing 0 hard faults per minute.
> >
> > Right now, with just task manager, IE 7 and the resource monitor running,
> > Vista is still throwing hard faults at only 68% memory used. I can see
> > and
> > hear the HD running. That would explain why the new PC is such a dog, if
> > it's constantly in virtual memory.
> >
> > Yes, AV is installed and up to date.
> >
> > Am I wrong, or should Vista not be using virtual memory until I hit 100%
> > memory usage?
> >
> > If it were a matter of hitting 100% memory usage and Vista having to dip
> > into virtual memory, then I would just go out and buy another MB or three
> > of
> > memory and be done with it. But it looks to me like that's not the
> > problem.
> >
> > Aha! I just looked again- no hard faults right now, and I haven't done
> > anything different. This might explain why sometimes games run, and
> > sometimes they hang/crash/refuse to load. Gonna run another virus scan
> > when
> > I log off just to be double sure.
> >
> > Anyway, any help would be very much appreciated.
>
> It would appear that new PCs suffer a performance hit for several days while
> it indexes the files on the hard drive.
> You can either let it finish or you can turn off indexing depending on how
> much you use the search function.
> Hard faults in the monitoring don't mean Vista is paging.
>

ostlandr wrote:
> A few days? How about two weeks? I got the new PC and laptop memorial day
> weekend.

If you click on computer and then right click and go properties on each
hard drive you should find a checkbox related to indexing. I found this
reduces the problem when unchecked but don't know what the
implications are.

I would think it is supposed to make searching for things quicker, but I
rarely search for things on my own machine anyway and it never seemed to
make a difference at all when searching since the search tool compared
to the XP one is more trouble than it's worth