andrel wrote:
> Ah, ok, didn't know that. I did know that quite a lot of the things MS 
> make have trouble running on an average machine when the software comes 
> on the market. But that was not what you were referring to.
> 

That's due to design, though.

You can spend 12 months optimizing something to run on current hardware, 
or wait 18 months and the hardware will have caught up to the point that 
noone cares anymore.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

> a machine without a dedicated video system for handling stuff, while
> just opening the application would spike Windows at 70%+.

The spikes are pretty meaningless, because it depends on what setting you 
have the update speed on in task manager.  And I suspect the "update speed" 
is different on Linux.

Anyway, I want my OS to use 100% CPU when I instruct it to do something 
immediately, that's why I spent good money on a fast processor.

Post a reply to this message

"Patrick Elliott" <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote in message

>until you closed the last window. And that doesn't even mention that
>fact that, for most tasks, Linux never went above 1-2% processor
>utilization, where hard tasks could take 24%, like playing video, and on
>a machine without a dedicated video system for handling stuff, while
>just opening the application would spike Windows at 70%+.

Are you saying Linux wastes 98 - 99% of the CPU? Typical 1-2% CPU
utilization and a cap at 24% tells me that that particular system or Linux
has a severe bottleneck somewhere else.

It of course won't happen, but an ideally balanced system should show 100%
utilization in all active subsystems when performing non-interactive tasks
like launching an application, for instance. Low CPU usage can be a symptom
of poor disk caching.

Post a reply to this message

>> Why Gail, I thought you *already* had lots of big servers to play with?
> ;-)
> 
> I do, but that puts my 16 proc 64GB box to shame.

[Invisible wants to play with Gail's box big anyway...]

> Anyay, I only have access to the big servers til friday. After that the
> biggest machine I'll be able to test on is my new (still in construction)
> quad code, 4GB desktop.

Aww... If it makes you feel any better, *my* desktop box has 256 MB RAM 
and only one core. (AthlonXP 1700 I think...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4886e543@news.povray.org...

>
> > Anyay, I only have access to the big servers til friday. After that the
> > biggest machine I'll be able to test on is my new (still in
construction)
> > quad code, 4GB desktop.
>
> Aww... If it makes you feel any better, *my* desktop box has 256 MB RAM
> and only one core. (AthlonXP 1700 I think...)

Work or home? The quad core I'm talking about is my home machine. The
desktops at work aren't very impressive either

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote in message news:4886e09d@news.povray.org...

> It of course won't happen, but an ideally balanced system should show 100%
> utilization in all active subsystems when performing non-interactive tasks
> like launching an application, for instance. Low CPU usage can be a
symptom
> of poor disk caching.

75% is about the max that you want to see sustained for long periods. More
than that means there's too much contention. That's more applicable to
servers than desktops, and by sustained I mean 10 min or more.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:42:08 -0600, somebody wrote:

> "Patrick Elliott" <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote in message
> 
>>until you closed the last window. And that doesn't even mention that
>>fact that, for most tasks, Linux never went above 1-2% processor
>>utilization, where hard tasks could take 24%, like playing video, and on
>>a machine without a dedicated video system for handling stuff, while
>>just opening the application would spike Windows at 70%+.
> 
> Are you saying Linux wastes 98 - 99% of the CPU? Typical 1-2% CPU
> utilization and a cap at 24% tells me that that particular system or
> Linux has a severe bottleneck somewhere else.
> 
> It of course won't happen, but an ideally balanced system should show
> 100% utilization in all active subsystems when performing
> non-interactive tasks like launching an application, for instance. Low
> CPU usage can be a symptom of poor disk caching.

No, I'd say that it's because Linux is a bit more efficient in its use of 
the processor.  I wouldn't expect to see 100% utilization unless I was 
actually running a highly intensive application like POV-Ray that 
actually needed the CPU.  Launching a program is kid's stuff - no reason 
for that to suck 100% of the CPU.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Aww... If it makes you feel any better, *my* desktop box has 256 MB RAM
>> and only one core. (AthlonXP 1700 I think...)
> 
> Work or home? The quad core I'm talking about is my home machine. The
> desktops at work aren't very impressive either

Oh, work, obviously. ;-)

At home, I have an Athlon64 X2 4200+ 2.2 GHz with 3 GB RAM. >:-D

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

In article <4886e09d@news.povray.org>, x### [at] ycom says...
> "Patrick Elliott" <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote in message
> 
> >until you closed the last window. And that doesn't even mention that
> >fact that, for most tasks, Linux never went above 1-2% processor
> >utilization, where hard tasks could take 24%, like playing video, and on
> >a machine without a dedicated video system for handling stuff, while
> >just opening the application would spike Windows at 70%+.
> 
> Are you saying Linux wastes 98 - 99% of the CPU? Typical 1-2% CPU
> utilization and a cap at 24% tells me that that particular system or Linu
x
> has a severe bottleneck somewhere else.
> 
> It of course won't happen, but an ideally balanced system should show 100
%
> utilization in all active subsystems when performing non-interactive task
s
> like launching an application, for instance. Low CPU usage can be a sympt
om
> of poor disk caching.
> 
No, that was 1% - 24% utilization when running the "basic" tasks that 
the average person does, like editing a document, or a spreedsheet. No 
way in hell I want my OS using 70%, let alone 100% of the CPU just to 
fracking edit a letter. ;)

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

> No, I'd say that it's because Linux is a bit more efficient in its use of
> the processor.  I wouldn't expect to see 100% utilization unless I was
> actually running a highly intensive application like POV-Ray that
> actually needed the CPU.  Launching a program is kid's stuff - no reason
> for that to suck 100% of the CPU.

Of course there is, if a certain amount of code needs to be executed by the 
CPU to "launch" the program, I want my OS to use 100% CPU until it's done. 
Whether that takes 0.01ms or 1 second, it should still use 100% CPU until 
it's done.  What on Earth is the reason not to?

Post a reply to this message