|
Re: Measurement of CPU usage
de PaulFXH 05/07/2006 05:04
Daniel Mandic escreveu:
> PaulFXH wrote:
>
> >
> > Daniel Mandic escreveu:
> >
> > > PaulFXH wrote:
> > >
> > > > Too, I really cannot believe that nobody in the NG arena has
> > > > noticed this phenomenon and come up with a plausible explanation.
> > >
> > >
> > > Phenomenon? I thought Windows 9x is already a Phenomenon.
> >
> > Not sure in what sense you say that my WinMe is a "phenomenon".
> > However, as a long time WinXP user, I have just had the opportunity
> > over the last 7 weeks to try out this computer running on WinMe.
> > I didn't expect very much particularly with the reputation this OS has
> > gained for itself.
> > But, I'm actually quite impressed and, now that I've been able to tune
> > it up quite a bit, this computer (256MB RAM) actually does some things
> > faster than my larger/faster/more RAM box running on WinXP SP2.
> > OK, WinMe won't accept a lot of more modern software but for somebody
> > who just wants to do e-mailing, browsing and some office tasks I might
> > even say that WinMe is better (read faster) than WinXP.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > >
> > > Daniel Mandic
>
>
>
> Hi Paul!
>
>
>
> You might not have the sense, or you do not want to see the difference.
> Well, XP is heavy OK, but even then.... it's a NT Kernel.
Whoa!! Daniel, take it easy, man!
I did NOT say that WinMe is better than WinXP or any other NT-based OS.
What I DID say was that, having been somewhat fearful of having to put
up with the WinMe OS for a three-month period while away from my
home-based WinXP machine, I was expecting some rough days ahead.
Actually, I was very pleasantly surprised to find that, once the
computer is cleaned up of unnecessary files, HD defragged, AVs and
Firewalls installed, non-essential start-up apps taken out, WinMe can
run very smartly for office tasks and browsing activities. In some
cases, based on my own personal experience, this WinMe machine performs
better than my WinXP box at home.
However, I don't believe anyone in their right mind would ever say that
WinMe is better than WinXP or the upcoming Vista.
Nevertheless, if this WinMe that I'm using now is as bad as it's ever
going to get, I won't have a lot to complain about.
Enjoy what's left of your weekend
Paul
>
> 256MB is a first argument (as I don't know the machine you are talking
> about, CPU, Chipset?). I would max. install NT4, with licennse, or
> Windows 95,98 or ME - with 256MB.
>
> Try out NT4... that's a blaze, compared to the 18bitters (9x/ME).
> Dazzling is gone, fast true 32bit execution (due to better-kernel away
> from 8 and 16bit).
>
> IMO, Win9x/ME is more for compatibility-types... A today Windows-Spezi
> (as me ;-)) goes with something NT, or Unix (non-windows :)
> internet-specialists).
>
>
> Only with NT5 and above you get the real out of your IBM-PC compatible
> machine. e.g. AGP.
>
> Win9x can start faster, open (some!) apps faster etc.. but it does not
> have a memory-protection and it works in a trivial (crashs??) protected
> mode. Although, the second time I start the same app on a XP (much much
> much better caching strategies - crashfree), it goes faster than any
> 9x/ME, indeed.
>
> Multitasking is far better. I would even say, that's (NT) the first
> real multitasking-OS by Microsoft.
>
>
>
>
> So, your CPU-meter results might be blurred by the OS. Try the same on
> NT, and compare 'em to Ctrl-Alt-Del.
>
> Look to Sysinternals, they have nice utils and tools for Windows.
>
> www.sysinternals.com
>
>
>
>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Daniel Mandic