Talk:Svchost.exe

Copyright?
This is word for word what it states here:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314056

I believe that this is copy written.


 * Looks like it got edited quite a bit since that complaint. 75.37.20.85 00:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Svchost malfunction
Could someone with a little familiarity with the subject add a section on svchost malfunctions? My computer has a problem where all of a sudden one instance of svchost consumes 99% of CPU power, and I have no idea why or what to do about it. I know Wikipedia isn't a troubleshooting or a tech help site, but just a few sentences to help me understand why this happens would be great.

No sig from User:82.139.86.247


 * A user comment: To turn off Microsoft Update, go to WindowsUpdate, choose “Change settings” on the left hand side of the page, then at the bottom of the page choose “Disable Microsoft Update”. Please also look at MS KB article KB916089 for some related information that may be helpful. I downloaded this hot fix and it made no difference on my system.


 * In the news also: - http://www.pcworld.com/article/131770-1/article.html?tk=nl_dnxnws

NevilleDNZ 11:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Research on the svchost "virus" shows Microsoft has done this to regulate non-licensed copies of Windows and to keep the privacy setting on all computers open for their information gathering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:400:A250:1866:B7D9:8653:EFE3 (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

What?
Is this supposed to be an encyclopedia entry or a tech manual one? This entry is not written in coherent language consistent with an encyclopedia. I understand what the authors mean, I think, but it is not at all clear. Waste of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.140.187 (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Name?
What does the name mean -- "servicehost" or "serviceshost"? Please amend. Thanks, Maikel (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

According to http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t310745-svchostexe.html, it's "Service Host Process". However, amending the name would be a bad idea, since in the Windows Task Manager it's shown as "svchost.exe" only. Randolf+slayer 2:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randolf+slayer (talk • contribs)

SVCHost commandline
The command line is a very useful one, and should not be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.172.192 (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

svchostanalyzer
I'm removing it - it's not truly freeware, but a gimmick-advertisement for software (that must be purchased). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.127.21 (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

IMHO SvchostAnalyzer is 100% freeware. There is only a button "About" which open the homepage of the developer (there you can find other freeware and shareware). I think almost all freeware programs have such "About" button or menu item. The program is helpfull for the reader, especially if the user is no tech geeks had. --Achimew (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"100% freeware" would take it out of the linkspam category but it still runs afoul of WP:NOTLINK. The page is quite obviously an adfarm and linkfarm, even the so-called "download" links actually go to doubleclick.net - clearly a commercial venture and a "stealth" one at that. From WP:NOTLINK, my interpretation is that any link provided must offer something that adds materially to understanding of article content. As the article already mentions Process Explorer I'm just not seeing it for this obscure little program. That you are, so far, a WP:SPA does not help. Jeh (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone who understands English grammar please have a look
"Because svchost.exe is used as a common system process, some malware often uses a process name of "svchost.exe" to disguise itself.": "some" is plural, therefore "use". User Jeh insists that it is some malware often uses, perhaps someone can take him or her aside and explain. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * some malware often uses
 * some malware often use


 * It is true that "some malware" refers to a group of things. But we're not speaking of individual members of the group, but rather of a property common to all members of the group. We therefore treat it as singular. I realize that British English would probably use the plural form, but please see WP:ENGVAR - you are not supposed to change usage from one to the other (in either direction) without good reason. And by the way, please review WP:BRD, and learn that it is not supposed to be BRRD. Jeh (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You just simply no no idea what you are talking about! Show me where - any grammar, any grammar guide anywhere - where it says that British English and US English use the singular and plural differently. And since when is this a grammar rule: "But we're not speaking of individual members of the group, but rather of a property common to all members of the group. We therefore treat it as singular." I guess some people speaks different! Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The question is not singular vs. plural, but the treatment of collective nouns. "Malware" is a collective noun, and putting "some" in front of it does not change that. British and American English most definitely treat collective nouns differently. Jeh (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Any grammar guide anywhere." Will Oxford University Press do?
 * Here is a discussion of the difference between American and British treatment of collective or group nouns. Notice that the words "people" and "police" are cited as exceptions, but in general, collective nouns are indeed treated as singular in American usage.
 * So, is "malware" a collective noun? Look here. Notice the designation "uncountable."
 * And here is Oxford dictionaries' description of "uncountable nouns." You see, even in British usage, you only treat a collective noun as plural if it is "countable," i.e. if it refers to a group with a specific number of members (something I did not know before! Hey, cool, I learned something). But "malware" is an uncountable noun. So even you insist on British usage, your preferred wording is still not supported.
 * Finally, items 10 and 11 on this page show "software" as an uncountable noun and show singular treatment as correct, e.g. "Some software is available as 'open source'." I see no reason to treat "malware" differently. Do you? Jeh (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And, seeing no response after 12+ hours even though Rui has been active elsewhere on the site... I'm assuming there is no further objection and so I am restoring the original text. Jeh (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yawn! Some people just does not understand! Did you know that somecattle lives longer than dogs? And some police is really violent ...... boy, is this tedious .... Care to look at the whole thing, putting your ear to it and listening to the word "SOME"? Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Some ignorance runs so deep that it is impervious to reason. Do you just go from page to page picking arguments with native speakers?  EEng (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Quoting: "Do you just go from page to page picking arguments with native speakers?" My question: "Do you just go from page to page picking arguments with me?" I puke when I hear anyone referring to native speakers. Usually those who do give themselves away as jingoistic racists. Who know is is and is not a native speaker, since we all create who we are? Statistics have shown that - just for starters - 90% of Americans cannot use its/ it's correctly, 50% cannot use their/ there/ they're correctly. Go ahead, pick on my hyphens/ dashes. When you are done, grow up. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I frankly admit that after my earlier strange interaction with you (linked above, and very much like this one) I went to see if you make a habit of such polemics. Turns out I wasn't the only person being lectured erroneously by you at that very moment, so I added my voice to those urging you to listen to people who clearly know what they're talking about. In our earlier interaction you described what makes your blood boil -- here you're letting us know that such-and-such makes you puke. Dr. EEng's prescription is less boiling and puking, more listening and thinking. Lost in all of this is the apparent fact that you've silently realized that you're wrong about some -- or do you plan to fight on with this? EEng (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And you, Rui, are apparently not only ignorant of the principles of compound nouns I outlined and for which I gave you unimpeachable references, you are actively refusing to learn. Someone with a professional attitude—or, for that matter, the WP:civil attitude expected of Wikipedia contributors—would have responded something like this: "Oh, that's something I didn't know. It is important to me to use correct grammar, so, thank you for providing good information with solid references; I learned something."
 * Or, if you can't bring yourself to admit that, you could just not respond and go away.
 * Digging in your heels and spouting thinly veiled insults wrapped in irrelevant counterexamples is neither professional nor civil.
 * Yes, many Americans have trouble with certain word usages, but most people with such difficulties don't claim to write at a "professional" level. And the "professionals" among us don't respond with ridicule, rudeness, and anger in defense of their own ignorance when corrected.
 * Nor would we write "You just simply no no idea what you are talking about" or "Who know is is and is not a native speaker". Of course WP talk page contributions need not be written as carefully as articles, but when the subject is English grammar, it seems to me that making such basic mistakes undermines your stature quite thoroughly.
 * Rui, you are in a very deep hole here. My advice is that you stop digging. Jeh (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

First, the word "some" does not necessarily imply a plural. You would not write, for example, "some cattle dung are more smelly than others." That's because "dung" is an uncountable noun: It refers to a "collection" of stuff, but it does not refer to any definite number of things. Putting the word "some" in front of it does not change that. The same is true of "software." And "malware." The Oxford University Press says that "malware" is an uncountable noun, and also that uncountable nouns are treated as singular in both British and American usage. They win.

On the other hand, "people" and "police" and "cattle" are treated as countable nouns. So, those examples of yours are not on point. Yes, your trotting out obviously wrong (but off point) constructs like "some people does not understand" is indeed tedious. Maybe you should stop?

As for how things "sound" to your ear, careful writers of English must always keep in mind that English is rife with constructs that may "sound wrong" to many people, even to themselves... but which are nevertheless grammatically correct. So we can't go by how things "sound." Not even by how they sound to you.

You asked for references. I gave them. They are quite exactly on point (even down to the definition page for "malware"), and they are from possibly the best authority on the English language in the world. I have to assume that the people at Oxford University Press understand English grammar quite well, and so are a far better source than your personal evaluation of how things "sound" to you.

You have not written anything here that refutes those references in any meaningful way, and you have provided not a single reference that defends your position. Accordingly, this matter remains settled as far as I'm concerned. Jeh (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd take out "often" as confusing. "Some malware uses" states the fact, but "often" seems to imply frequent repeated use, because the quantity "some" is already stated. I mean, it's either "Often, malware uses" or "Some malware uses", IMHO. Clearer might be: "Many malware implementations use". Just my 2c. Not pushing. --Lexein (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

2013 XPSP3 svchost.exe CPU overusage
In November 2013, Windows Update reintroduced a long-standing Windows XP SP3 svchost.exe CPU overusage, up to 100%. See Infoworld. Sourced all over. Looking for others, with enough RS for a section: Performance issues. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I imagine it would be quite difficult to find a Windows component that hasn't had a "high CPU usage" bug in at some release. Is this one really significant enough to merit coverage here? And by the way, this bug was not in svchost itself, but rather in one of the DLLs it loads (the actual "service code"). The evidence is that only one instance of svchost, the one running the Windows Update Service, ever showed the problem. So if WP must report this it should be reported in an article about the Windows Update Service. Jeh (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Weeel, it keeps coming back. I'm not beating a drum to jam this into the article. It might be fair to state (given a batch of RS) that svchost.exe has been involved in, and blamed for, but was ultimately not directly responsible for, update related high CPU usage. Not immediately. I'm certainly not intending WP:UNDUE. --Lexein (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Question against page edit
This is for the re review of the edit undid by user jeh of arshad.sre, here is the link to the revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Svchost.exe&oldid=630704064

ok, i know very well that wp is not a how to guide and not we should link to personal sites but what if that content adds great value and highly relevant information about the topic and adds great value to the wp content????

i have not undid the revision yet, but i ask user:jeh that can you re review the edit by keep the link a side that how valuable and relevant information was that and wasn't that helping the people.

If you think that it was not helping the people and was not helpful and relevant information that i accept your undid but if you think that it is adding value to the content and helping and increasing the knowledge of people that plz undo your edit your self. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arshad.sre (talk • contribs) 13:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)