1. You are viewing our forum as a guest. For full access please Register. WindowsBBS.com is completely free, paid for by advertisers and donations.

Explorer fails to execute...

Discussion in 'Windows XP' started by jer2eydevil88, 2005/10/13.

  1. 2005/10/13
    jer2eydevil88

    jer2eydevil88 Inactive Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2005/10/13
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am using Windows XP Pro w/sp2

    This problem is probably nothing more than a bug in the operating system but it bothered me enough that I am asking if anyone else has had it.

    First off, I have no spyware at all and I am sure of it so please don't post telling me this is a spyware/adware problem.

    In the background I have Symantec Corporate Antivirus 10.0.1.1000, Firefox, ABC Torrent, Microsoft Outlook, Snagit, Peergaurdian 2, RealVNC 4.1.1, & the Windows Task Manager.

    I have the option to open new process's for new windows enabled in explorer's options.

    My computer is as follows
    CPU - AMD Athlon 3400+
    MOBO - DFI Lanparty UT 250gb
    RAM - Corsair XMS1024-3200 Pro Ram DDR 400
    HDD - Maxtor 120gb SATA 7200rpm
    GFX - BFG 6800OC

    The Occurance's
    This occurs when I have tons of software running usually 30+ tabs in firefox and some other stuff running in the background. It never happens at any given time or during any specific task that i've noticed but it frustrates me.

    The Problem
    Explorer.exe which generates the start bar and the graphical interface for My Computer, My Network Places and other areas on the hard drive fails to execute new process's completely. I will have say 4 explorer.exe process's running and then click my computer again and nothing will happen. I can solve this by manually closing all the explorer.exe process's and after tediously restarting my taskbar process's I can resume working.

    I would appreciate any help especially if anyone knows why this occurs.
     
  2. 2005/10/13
    TonyT

    TonyT SuperGeek Staff

    Joined:
    2002/01/18
    Messages:
    9,072
    Likes Received:
    400
    reverse this
     

  3. to hide this advert.

  4. 2005/10/13
    BillyBob Lifetime Subscription

    BillyBob Inactive

    Joined:
    2002/01/07
    Messages:
    6,048
    Likes Received:
    0
    This may be just a wild guess, but I think the answer is right in that statement.

    From a similar problem of my own a long time back I would put my money on overloading.

    Or as in another case of mine incompatabilities.

    BillyBob
     
  5. 2005/10/13
    skeet6961

    skeet6961 Inactive

    Joined:
    2005/09/03
    Messages:
    522
    Likes Received:
    0
    exactly ... or add a ton more ram
     
  6. 2005/10/13
    BillyBob Lifetime Subscription

    BillyBob Inactive

    Joined:
    2002/01/07
    Messages:
    6,048
    Likes Received:
    0
    jer2eydevil88

    If you are allowing things to run in the background with the idea of saving time and then you need to do this
    then you are not saving anytime.

    I have also over the years found that loading a certain combination of ( or too many ) things at boot up may cause problems because they may not load PROPERLY. And may even take longer to boot. Again wasting time.

    BillyBob
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.