| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 25311 | 2002-10-01 05:19:00 | Resource Usage | -=JM=- (16) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 84927 | 2002-10-01 05:19:00 | I've noticed quite a few people quoting the amount of resources (in a percentage) that a program is using recently. How are you doing this. I'm using XP Pro and can get a CPU percentage. But with memory just get the amount that the process is using. Are you just working it out manually or is their a secret trick involved? |
-=JM=- (16) | ||
| 84928 | 2002-10-01 05:24:00 | Thats the beauty of Win98SE, there is a Resource Meter in Accessories-System Tools. Are you saying the swept up XP doesnt have that feature? Bad luck :) | Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 84929 | 2002-10-01 05:44:00 | Of course, resource monitors use resources themselves, and can cause the real programmes to run slower. ;-) I once measured the time used by clock programmes on a range of machines from PC to mainframes, and found that the system clocks used a fairly constant 2% of the CPU. So the machines I had control of had the system clocks disabled. The programme to do that on the PDP-11 was very short: clkoff: bic @#177576, #200 exitWe were running realtime data collectors, and wanted all the CPU, and needed interrupts to be responded to immediately. |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 84930 | 2002-10-01 05:46:00 | Lets just say that I haven't found it yet. I haven't had XP for all that long and I haven't tinkered enough yet. |
-=JM=- (16) | ||
| 84931 | 2002-10-01 06:08:00 | It's all a question of Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle. The very act of measuring something affects the thing you are measuring, so no matter how much you believe, you will never really know how much resources are being used. ]:) | Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 84932 | 2002-10-01 06:35:00 | You don't need to worry about free resources in NT/2K/XP, its a Windows 9x problem related to its backwards compatability with Windows 3.x. Basically the problem is Win9x uses 16 bits to ID each resource which limits it to 2^16 (= 65536) for USER and 2^16 for GDI resources, which was a good idea about 9 years ago because it halves the memory needed for each pointer. NT uses 32 bits which gives you 2^32 = ~4 billion so your not going to run out of them anytime soon. If you're still interested you can grab a copy of TaskInfo (http://www.iarsn.com/) which will tell you how many each programme is using. |
bmason (508) | ||
| 84933 | 2002-10-01 06:35:00 | -=JM=-, according to this site here (www.cnet.com) there is no resource monitor in XP. The reason given was .... "....memory management is so good that XP doesn't come with a Resource Meter or specific resource measurement tool." "Memory and resource management are far more efficient under 2000 and XP, thanks to their single, 32-bit memory scheme." Jen |
Jen C (20) | ||
| 84934 | 2002-10-01 06:43:00 | Of course, Jen. XP doesn't need a monitor utility because it is perfect. :D I must answer that nice man in Africa who wants me to help him to move some money ... he's offering me a lot of money for my help. ;-) |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 84935 | 2002-10-01 06:57:00 | >Windows 9x problem related to its backwards compatability with >Windows 3.x. errr.....thats should be DOS dude ;-) |
tweak'e (174) | ||
| 84936 | 2002-10-01 09:35:00 | Thanks bmason I'll have a look at that. | -=JM=- (16) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||