Windows timing

[ElPolloDiabl]

Open up the task manager in Windows and watch how windows jumps from process to process apparently at random. Can someone explain to me why it can't operate in an orderly fashion.

It suggests windows is just stitched together from various pieces rahter than being design wholistically.

[tone007]

Windows is a collection of processes, correct.

If you sort by name instead of CPU usage, the list will be easier to follow.

Try "top" on a unix-based OS, exactly the same thing.

[tone007]

Windows is a collection of processes, correct, and not all processes use the processor simultaneously! (gasp)

If you sort by name instead of CPU usage, the list will be easier to follow.

Try "top" on a unix-based OS, exactly the same thing.

[Karlos]

Open up the task manager in Windows and watch how windows jumps from process to process apparently at random. Can someone explain to me why it can't operate in an orderly fashion.

It suggests windows is just stitched together from various pieces rahter than being design wholistically.

The reason the task manager, top etc. appear to do this is the fact that task switching usually happens much, much faster than the monitor application is updated. It also depends on how you've chosen to order the data. In a system where one process is clobbering the CPU, it'll invariably appear at the top when organising by CPU time (which is generally the default).

AmigaOS is no different, other than the lack of dynamic priority scheduling (can be added using Executive). Exec gives processor time in turn to each ready to run process in the current list. Only sleeping processes are skipped over.

[jorkany]

Open up the task manager in Windows and watch how windows jumps from process to process apparently at random. Can someone explain to me why it can't operate in an orderly fashion.

It suggests windows is just stitched together from various pieces rahter than being design wholistically.

What order would you like?

[CSixx]

You can see the same thing in all other modern (and not so modern) OS's.

Maybe when you are browsing the web, you can click on links in a distinctly timed interval, instead of at random? That way the OS can schedule it's response in a similar interval. Will 30 second intervals work?

If so, the mp3 you have playing in the background, will play a 5 second portion of the song, at 35 second intervals.

We can talk about where to schedule TCP sends/receives next, (and disk writes, and some other minor tasks)...

It's the nature of multitasking and priorities...

[Trev]

I don't want to revive this thread (the great joystick timing debate), but there's an OK discussion on Windows scheduling starting on or around post 919 (mine).

http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=511871
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=511871&postcount=919

[Tension]

That Windows thingy will never catch on.

[mikeymike]

Slightly off-topic, but one thing I find infuriating about Vista is how sometimes the hard disk will be getting completely thrashed, yet nothing shows up in Task Manager suggesting that any particular process is up to much.  Yes, I realise that high disk IO = high processor usage went out when DMA came along, but still, normally I would expect to be able to pick out a process that was doing that much disk work.

[zipper]

Indexing?

[Turambar]

Slightly off-topic, but one thing I find infuriating about Vista is how sometimes the hard disk will be getting completely thrashed, yet nothing shows up in Task Manager suggesting that any particular process is up to much.  Yes, I realise that high disk IO = high processor usage went out when DMA came along, but still, normally I would expect to be able to pick out a process that was doing that much disk work.

You can. Press ctrl-alt-del, go to performance, then resource monitor and click the disk tab. As previously mentioned it's probably the indexing service doing this, the vista indexer can be a bit flaky.

[ElPolloDiabl]

I found a site to turn off indexing on Vista:

http://www.howtogeek.com/tag/windows-vista/#vista-tips-tweaks
You can also turn off the caching and get all your memory back. Funny it seems faster with the caching off.

[mikeymike]

Nope, I tried switching off indexing, no difference.  Occasionally I've fired up procmon and found the system doing a tour of the system32 folder, so perhaps it is due to seriously agressive Windows File Protection?

SuperFetch - it really would suck if the performance advantages of SuperFetch resulted in the savings of app startup time being transferred to a longer boot time!

[Karlos]

Your best bet is to switch to linux :lol:

Seriously, on my dual boot, I hear the HD grinding regularly on Vista, yet I only hear the tiniest rattle when doing some obvious file access on linux.

If it weren't for games, I wouldn't even have a windows install.

[tone007]

You could try disabling the swapfile and see if that makes the grinding go away.