13 Background Processes, 360MB, general bloat. Why?
It's a new machine with only Premiere installed. do you think this is maybe getting a little excessive, Adobe? I'm already resorting to uninstalling and reinstalling Acrobat whenever I need it just so I don't have to deal with the constant nagging.
Note: None of them really matter, safe enough to kill via task manager/script. (e.g. taskkill /IM AGSService.exe /F)
| Process | Size |
|---|---|
| AdobeUpdateService.exe | 2,036k |
| AGSService.exe | 5,300k |
| CreativeCloud.exe | 53,908k |
| --Adobe CEF Helper.exe | 83,432k |
| --AdobeIPCBroker.exe | 4,628k |
| --Adobe Desktop Service.exe | 83,876k |
| CoreSync.exe | 16,384k |
| CCXProcess.exe | 436k |
| --node.exe | 44,700k |
| ----conhost.exe | 4,884k |
| CCLibrary | 488k |
| --node.exe | 52,668k |
| ----conhost.exea | 4,880 |
More than a third of a billion bytes - with no Adobe products running. Let's be clear here, that's more memory than a several year old Win7 install uses on idle, with NVidia/Intel drivers running - and that's when one of them doesn't act up and start chewing up an entire CPU core or few GB of RAM.
I'm not using the creative cloud, so that's a bust. I'm not running any Adobe product processes, so there's no need for the InterProcess Communication Broker to be running, what is CoreSync syncing and why does the memory use fluctuate? After years of massively bloated and inflated .exe files, has Adobe decided it's time to branch into bloated scripts with node.js? I feel everything Adobe is slowly getting bigger & bigger, and using more memory/hdd space, disproportionate to the number of new features we're seeing and it's frustrating.
I wouldn't mind so much if Adobe justified *why* they've deemed so many distinct resources to be necessary, even by way of a small description of each process, but I'm honestly very uncomfortable with this level of blatant bloat, especially in light of the increased security concerns, and from a company with an incredibly poor history of writing safe software (See the hundreds of documented flash exploits) and keeping user data safe (we all had fun in 2013, didn't we).
Part of me hopes I'm just being a grumpy old ludite but I tried a copy of Photoshop 6 (not Photoshop CS6) out of curiosity. From 2001, it's something like a 40mb install. It starts nearly instantly, doesn't have the skinned UI and has been compatible with all but about 2 .PSD files I've needed. It happily reads illustrator files, I can macro massive numbers of files, many plugins including NVidia's DXT plugin and Valve's VTF plugins still work, the UI is responsive and It's so lightweight and fuss free that I ended up using it for the last 4 years, making me feel like I've been completely duped by using later releases.
I get that the product is wide ranging, so some new features are awesome to some folks, and some new features (like OpenGL acceleration) are super pointless, but are we really seeing a 40mb (Photoshop 6) to 1GB (Photoshop CS4) to 3.1GB (Photoshop CC 2017) improvement?
AdChoices