idling at 35%

Al

Distinguished
Apr 8, 2004
558
0
18,980
0
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

Having just taken possession of this Presario 5000 with a Duron 800 and
running ME, I came across a web forum post where somebody was complaining
about how slow his similar machine was.

So I started up System Monitor and discovered that at idle, the cpu usage was
a whopping 35%. The machine was not even online at the time. So, using Task
Monitor, I closed out the bunch of programs had been started at bootup (I
assume most/all were by Comapq's default configuration). The cpu usage
actually went *up* to near 50%.

Any ideas on what is going on? Is it Win ME? My 500Mhz K6 running '98 idles
below 10%, and when online (with a winmodem) I am at under 20%. Thanks.
 

Al

Distinguished
Apr 8, 2004
558
0
18,980
0
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 15:05:07 GMT, none@no.com (Al) wrote:

>Presario 5000 with a Duron 800


sorry, that should read "Duron 700"
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

Windows ME is more bloated than Windows 98SE and it has a half-baked
halfway-there implementation of some of the Windows NT/2000 stuff. The basic
Windows ME operating system and supporting software takes up more memory and
executes more slowly than Windows 98SE. The net results are more CPU cycles
than Win 98 to get the job done, and potentially more Windows swap file
activity.

The amount of system memory is an important factor here, too. A system running
Windows ME in only 64MB of memory will contemplate its navel somewhat
obsessively.

Windows ME is the least well regarded DOS-based version of Windows except
possibly for the original Windows 95A which really was beta software foisted off
on an unsuspecting public. Of course, you'll never hear any "official"
pronouncements from the Microsoft propaganda machine to this effect... Ben Myers

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 15:05:07 GMT, none@no.com (Al) wrote:

>Having just taken possession of this Presario 5000 with a Duron 800 and
>running ME, I came across a web forum post where somebody was complaining
>about how slow his similar machine was.
>
>So I started up System Monitor and discovered that at idle, the cpu usage was
>a whopping 35%. The machine was not even online at the time. So, using Task
>Monitor, I closed out the bunch of programs had been started at bootup (I
>assume most/all were by Comapq's default configuration). The cpu usage
>actually went *up* to near 50%.
>
>Any ideas on what is going on? Is it Win ME? My 500Mhz K6 running '98 idles
>below 10%, and when online (with a winmodem) I am at under 20%. Thanks.
 

Al

Distinguished
Apr 8, 2004
558
0
18,980
0
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 16:24:40 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben
Myers) wrote:

>Windows ME is more bloated than Windows 98SE and it has a half-baked
>halfway-there implementation of some of the Windows NT/2000 stuff. The basic
>Windows ME operating system and supporting software takes up more memory and
>executes more slowly than Windows 98SE. The net results are more CPU cycles
>than Win 98 to get the job done, and potentially more Windows swap file
>activity.

I noticed the following, with System Monitor loaded from the startup folder:
cpu usage was low after bootup, <10%. When I moved the mouse and stopped,
usage climbed to >30% and stayed there.

Then if I moved the mouse around randomly in circles, usage goes back <10%
while the mouse is moving.

Also, when I had 2 instances of System Monitor running, the 2nd one showed
100% always.

>
>Windows ME is the least well regarded DOS-based version of Windows except
>possibly for the original Windows 95A which really was beta software foisted off
>on an unsuspecting public. Of course, you'll never hear any "official"
>pronouncements from the Microsoft propaganda machine to this effect... Ben Myers

well, genius Gates did pay big bucks to celebrities to promote 95 :) what a
dope

other Gates genius-isms: I don't have a URL, but I remember that in the mid
90's gates did say that he thought the internet wouldn't amount to much.
Evidence is at least shown in how Netscape dominated the browser world while
M$ slept, until M$ finally woke up and used it's usual nefarious tactics to
become number 1.

then there was the launch of the MSN network. MSN announced that it would
pattern itself on the AOL style of foscusing on in-house content. Meanwhile,
AOL had just announced one month prior that they were abandoning their focus
on in-house content, and would make it simple and easy for their users to get
out into the internet at large. Day late and dollar short for genius gates
again.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS