It doesn't actually use 100% CPU all of the time. I believe it uses the CPU to the point where the meter can't update fast enough to report less than 100%. For if your machine were tied to 100% CPU ALL OF THE TIME, your mouse cursor wouldn't even hover across the screen, as if the machine had become frozen. Your machine can over heat regardless if you use Palace or not. This is usually a sign that your machine doesn't have sufficent cooling systems - like a fan! Hard drives can over heat for instance, and which case it will stop responding. A hard drive that's mounted that stops responding tends to 'panic' the OS (atleast in Linux).

The overheating issue is probably due to dust build-up in the case.

That's incredibly simple to resolve and doesn't take a computer tech to fix.

Simply take the PC case over off (there is probably screws on the back of the case around the edges) and the cover will usually slide right off.

(Make sure you don't unscrew the screws around the power supply, as thats what holds the powersupply to the back of the case; those aren't the screws I'm talking about)

After you have the case off, buy some compressed air stuff from your local computer store and spray nooks, crannies, anywhere you might have dust buildup (Especially in the fans)

If you've never done this before, do it outside, otherwise you're entire house will be filled with dust.

WARNING: Don't use a vacuum cleaner; it promotes static and static will destroy your computer.

Well this is true too you probly already have a cooling problem but it is also true Palace does use make your CPU run at 100%. I actually had to reset my heatsink with new thermal pasta ( not spicey lasagna honest) because it had dried up and my CPU overheated the second I turned on Palace.

Here is a quote from Glide to explain the situation:

This is normal for Windows Palace clients. The Windows client will use
100% of CPU usage if it can, but it will also willingly relinquish CPU
usage to any other program or process that wants it, which is consistent
with what you observed. As you noted, this is very unconventional behavior
in comparison to most other programs, but it is normal for Windows Palace
clients.

Just switch to Linux... Palace32 runs fine for me!

it is also true Palace does use make your CPU run at 100%.

Well that is the craziest thing ever then. Cause on my system it seems to magically not run at 100%.

Here is the output of my top command, which displays linux tasks with palace open and palace closed (the task manager of Linux per se)

With Palace Open
top - 02:27:57 up 7 days, 12:40, 2 users, load average: 1.68, 2.30, 2.61
Tasks: 120 total, 2 running, 118 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 51.5% us, 37.2% sy, 0.0% ni, 11.0% id, 0.0% wa, 0.3% hi, 0.0% si
Mem: 515108k total, 503376k used, 11732k free, 8016k buffers
Swap: 512056k total, 439612k used, 72444k free, 143752k cached

PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
17825 jon_k 18 0 1341m 17m 9588 R 29.8 3.4 0:53.12 wine-preloader
17829 jon_k 15 0 3528 1444 760 S 27.8 0.3 1:00.41 wineserver
20888 root 6 -10 96560 54m 6136 S 14.3 10.9 412:28.45 XFree86
11687 jon_k 16 0 40468 19m 10m S 6.3 3.8 12:33.05 gaim
25827 jon_k 15 0 187m 99m 19m S 3.3 19.8 51:06.92 firefox-bin
15551 jon_k 15 0 368m 72m 9776 S 2.3 14.3 35:13.33 java
21027 jon_k 15 0 37096 14m 10m S 2.0 2.8 11:29.49 kicker
30503 jon_k 15 0 44148 6904 2176 S 0.7 1.3 62:14.33 TeamSpeak.bin
10312 jon_k 15 0 29204 10m 9088 S 0.7 2.2 0:20.20 konsole
20976 jon_k 16 0 23952 3192 2712 S 0.3 0.6 0:21.11 dcopserver
21015 jon_k 16 0 39412 8400 5520 S 0.3 1.6 5:16.40 kwin
21044 jon_k 15 0 30284 7624 5312 S 0.3 1.5 2:12.16 kmix
21045 jon_k 15 0 27616 6164 5124 S 0.3 1.2 9:13.51 smb4k
21706 jon_k 15 0 340m 26m 3400 S 0.3 5.2 16:29.01 xmms

The above is as high as I could get palace while running a script.
Cpu(s): 51.5% us, Shows the CPU's total USAGE (for all processes being run on the machine at the time)

17825 jon_k 18 0 1341m 17m 9588 R 29.8 3.4 0:53.12 wine-preloader Shows the wine process, the text in BOLD is the processor usage for that process at that moment. 49.8%

The US = usage, the other statistics are for like system processes, nice etc
With Palace Closed

top - 02:31:25 up 7 days, 12:43, 2 users, load average: 1.83, 2.20, 2.51
Tasks: 115 total, 2 running, 113 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 21.3% us, 2.0% sy, 0.0% ni, 73.8% id, 3.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
Mem: 515108k total, 501184k used, 13924k free, 8240k buffers
Swap: 512056k total, 439612k used, 72444k free, 150656k cached

PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
11687 jon_k 15 0 40468 19m 10m S 10.3 3.8 12:41.59 gaim
20888 root 5 -10 90400 54m 5808 S 4.3 10.9 412:43.19 XFree86
25827 jon_k 15 0 187m 99m 19m S 3.6 19.8 51:26.65 firefox-bin
15551 jon_k 15 0 368m 72m 9776 S 2.6 14.3 35:20.26 java
30503 jon_k 15 0 44148 6904 2176 S 0.7 1.3 62:20.10 TeamSpeak.bin
21044 jon_k 15 0 30284 7624 5312 S 0.3 1.5 2:12.30 kmix
21706 jon_k 15 0 340m 26m 3400 S 0.3 5.2 16:29.64 xmms
31708 jon_k 15 0 28128 6272 4788 S 0.3 1.2 3:32.30 xchat
7765 jon_k 15 0 27972 8148 6808 S 0.3 1.6 0:15.48 xchat
17947 jon_k 17 0 2064 1076 836 R 0.3 0.2 0:00.15 top
1 root 16 0 1504 460 440 S 0.0 0.1 0:03.48 init
2 root 34 19 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.74 ksoftirqd/0
3 root 5 -10 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:08.23 events/0
4 root 5 -10 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.07 khelper
This is after I closed Palace. You'll see Cpu(s): 21.3% us definitely a lot less processure usage, the load statistics are larger however, but that's because the lined up processes to take up the newly free'd CPU are qued, and that is making the CPU wait time larger.

Before: 49.8%
After: 21.3%

You'll notice there is a wineserver and winepreloader.
The wine preloader = Palace
The wineserver = what communicates between the graphical enviroment of linux and the application you're running under wine. So the CPU listed for the wineserver is irrelevent here (because in windows apps aren't run under a compatability layer, so you don't need a program to communicate between the "Executable" and the GUI like on linux)

So, I don't know if Windows has a bug or what (imagine Windows having a bug? couldn't be!). I do know for a fact though, that it is impossible for a program in one OS to take up less CPU then in another OS when it's the exact same binary. Me and you are using the exact same palace32.exe binary.

SO technically, either Windows has a bug in detecting CPU usage, or Linux does. Since Windows is more prone to bugs, I vote Windows. Furthermore, look at all the additional information Linux tells you about running processes (all those numbers and stuff you can't understand) it seems Linux reports much more about processes than Windows. You can see as well as I do, something with the OS on Windows is not adding up.

It just might be Windows, and not the actual usage.

I mean, try to imagine... if a program took up 100% of the CPU -- how can other programs use the CPU? Wouldn't the system lock up, your mouse not even work, while said program is holding 100%?

That would be like if I had a pie, and I ate 100% of the pie...... you couldn't eat any of the pie...

Now, if I regurgitated 1/4 of the pie, then yes, you could have 25% of the pie (if you like eating throwup)

That's how the CPU Is... if a program has 100% of the CPU, nobody can have the CPU. It's not until the program releases some of the CPU can other programs then grab part of the CPU.

I like making anologies, so I'll do another one.

Say you have a gas tank, 100% full.
Now I siphone 50% of the tank -- your car can only use the other 50%.
If I siphen 100% out of that very tank -- your car cannot use any of the gas now.

It won't be until I put 1% or 25% or 50% or 100% of that gas I siphoned out back in, before your car can run on that percentage.

This is exactly how your CPU (your gas tank) works.

If I siphon out 100% of the CPU by running Palace, how will you be able to browse the web, chat on AIM, watch some adult movies, and listen to MP3's at the same time?

Those other programs have to have Gasoline/Petrol (CPU) too you know. If they don't have it, the engine can't start! The operating system needs it too... so if the OS itself doesn't have gas (cpu) then the mouse won't even move!

That's why I think it's impossible.
Either Palace sucks up 100% for a split nanosecond, and then releases it, grabs it again, releases it -- so quickly in fact that you can't notice a change in usability (and windows monitor is so quick at updating, that since it monitors every nanosecond too -- it always displays 100%) or something else... but whatever is happening, it's not true 100% cpu all the time, or not even near that.

-- ANOTHER ONE for good measure... lol --
So if Palace uses 100% of CPU;; who the heck redefined the definition of percentage or percent while I wasn't looking? ;-)

It was my understanding that if I own 100% of a business, you do not own any part of it, nor does anyone else.
When I drink 100% from a beer keg, nobody else can because it's all gone.
If I have 100% of my body burnt up in a fire -- I no longer have a body.

That is my understanding of percentages.

If Palace has 100% of the CPU -- no other program can run.

That is becuase you overlooked this part:

The Windows client will use 100% of CPU usage if it can.

Windows as in Windows 95, NT, 98, 2000, ME, XP

And you can try to argue this with logic but well.. its Palace lol, it has done this ever since I have used it on NT / W2K and now on XP (yes I stopped using W2K.. aaaaaaah!) the second you log in anywhere the CPU load shoots to 100%. Here is a picture to show you what happens. Logging on and off my Palace while typing this post with only a few programs open.

What can we Linux people say then... Windows must royally suck at management! Whether it's the CPU or RAM or whatever...

That is becuase you overlooked this part:

The Windows client will use 100% of CPU usage if it can.


I hate to be the typical linux zealot then Maartin. But "my OS runs better than your OS!"

No, but seriously yeah Linux must handle CPU better than Windows in this case then. It seems it has better throttling of CPU usage, and better management in the CPU dept alltogether.

I would assume it also has better load management, though my statistics from the top command posted above don't really proove much. In fact if anything, they'd disprove that assumption because as you can see, my load averages are actually HIGHER after I closed palace! lol.. ;)

Though, there's no proof or disproof yet on if Windows can manage loads better or not, so the verdict is still out on that one.

I wonder if they mentioned linux's superior CPU throttling on Microsoft Get The Facts (http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http%3A//www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/default.mspx&ei=5Xi2QqH8O5rO4QHU2on5Cg&sig2=7JgFFV iROww6ubp_KJIjDw) among all the lies they listed though.... :?:

So to sum it all up for Keira:

You need to:

Clean the Pc but not vacuum
re-seat the hatsink
check your PC ventilation
Use Linux
read up on Microsoft Facts
tell everyone Palaceplanet rules

Did I forget anything?

Perhaps we should stick to answering help questions and leave the Linux/ Windows "thing" for another forum :twisted:

Besides compared to the Amiga OS everything else sucks.

The concept of an Amiga is still commonly used. More expensive Network cards have their own microprocessors (mini-CPU for non-teachies). Video Cards PCI/AGP/PCI Express have a GPU (Graphical CPU) of their own to crank out better graphics. Expensive SoundBlaster cards have their own microprocessors too to crank out stuff that owns. It's only the 'cheap ****' like onboard hardware that 'taps off the main CPU'. The days of Amiga's superiority are long gone baby!

I must admit on the side of things though, PCs still rely on the main CPU/RAM too much, especially in Windows. Linux with all the best hardware and drivers support could make a pretty good Amiga rival :P.

Hah I guess you never knew the concept of the Amiga:

Unix kernel with a super effecient graphical interface on top.

Multitasking like mad on 512K of memory, I got a Amiga 4000 here and it is still very fast and does things in real time a dual 2GHZ G5 can just about manage. All on a 25mhz 68040, just shows you how they can make real software if needed. Apple's OSX is a slow ripoff. Amiga used 5 times less resources then any other OS, the dedicated hardware was fun but not what made the Amiga so cool.

And on another note: Computers just KNOW your talking about heat problems, just after the Palace client test my PC died and would not restart the CPU almost friend at 90C. The thermal pasta had dried up, all is well again.

So to sum it all up for Keira:

Perhaps we should stick to answering help questions and leave the Linux/ Windows "thing" for another forum :twisted:
Yeah, its easy to get OT and forget the original purpose of the thread!

I'm aware Amiga had true-multi-tasking. The point was it just uses more microprocessors, and PC hardware has that too. On top of that PC hardware isn't nearly as expensive as either a Mac or Amiga. A Unix Kernel isn't something to be proud of - try reading the Unix haters handbook sometime.

**** lot of attention seeking BS removed*******

A Unix Kernel isn't something to be proud of - try reading the Unix haters handbook sometime.

If i tell you a 25mhz Amiga can do stuff a Dual G5 can just about pull of wtf does this have to do with liking or hating Unix?

Eh dude? You are not going to melt or die horribly if your not right about something. Trust me in life you don't have to be right about everything all the time. 8)

Amigas are 5 times more efficient with resources and this has nothing to do with liking Unix or having a zillion processors. I like my Amiga, it rules with its silly 25mhz processor it does things I could not even do with my 1300mhz PC.

They still use Amigas to run the information system here in the burger kings. Now show me any other home computer that lasted 15 years.

Multitasking is still 5x faster on a Amiga then on any other computer. Ok so the software if outdated but whatever runs on it runs very fast..

Forum rule 1: No Amiga dissing allowed lol

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

If you read the Unix haters handbook you would know what it was about. I didn't diss your Amiga, I dissed Unix! Plus I'm sort of pissed off at the SCO (Unix owners) for attacking Linux and IBM for using Linux the way they have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_v._IBM

Not to mention what you can and cannot do software wise solely depends upon the programmers that develop the software that you're using. Software features matter not on the hardware alone.

SCO? hah they suck, another microsoft pawn trying to fight the evil open source army with all it ideals. How can you make money from ideals? hehe SCO is pathetic, the always have been, its a shame IBM never bought them just for fun.

I remember reading their strategy about 5 years ago, to be honest back then i figured IBM would just splatter them allover the place. I guess some microsoft money found its way into their pockets.

If it'll help Microsoft battle Linux, sure, whynot?

Hah I guess you never knew the concept of the Amiga:

Unix kernel with a super effecient graphical interface on top.

Multitasking like mad on 512K of memory, I got a Amiga 4000 here and it is still very fast and does things in real time a dual 2GHZ G5 can just about manage.

It's mostly cause amiga had a processor for each system.

Video had it's own processor
Sound has it's own processor
Keyboard Controller had its own processor
The central processor didn't have any petty HW I/O tasks to worry about -- it just worked with software.

You can imagine how this sped things up quite a bit. It costed more however, thats why everyones intigrating the ****. NIC's use to have a processor of their own to handle the TCP/IP stack, but like winmodems -- they're making it run by the central CPU. Cost is the reason.

If it'll help Microsoft battle Linux, sure, whynot?

Oh I meant SCO got some MS support, but no big surprise there I guess.

When someone compares a 25mhz 68040 with a 2ghz G5 its a bit stupid to say thats only because it had a processor for everything. Yeah that really makes up for the missing 1975mhz... they where all hidden in those other chips...doh.... It was and still is FIVE TIMES more efficient with resources then anything else, and thats a software thing.

That is why the Amiga was used for 10 years after they stopped making them. I could throw super high-res pics around the screen as if it was nothing. It still runs all my animations smoothly, its a fun computer.

That is one thing you can not say about Linux, being five times more efficient.

Hah I guess you never knew the concept of the Amiga:

Unix kernel with a super effecient graphical interface on top.

Multitasking like mad on 512K of memory, I got a Amiga 4000 here and it is still very fast and does things in real time a dual 2GHZ G5 can just about manage.

It's mostly cause amiga had a processor for each system.

Video had it's own processor
Sound has it's own processor
Keyboard Controller had its own processor
The central processor didn't have any petty HW I/O tasks to worry about -- it just worked with software.

You can imagine how this sped things up quite a bit. It costed more however, thats why everyones intigrating the ****. NIC's use to have a processor of their own to handle the TCP/IP stack, but like winmodems -- they're making it run by the central CPU. Cost is the reason.

A lot of it does depend on the hardware. You can't get true color if the video card only supports 8-bit access. PCs haven't always had that capability, not as long as Amiga. So yeah, the hardware of the Amiga tops a PC by far, why not? You're paying a **** load more for it!

Linux on the other hand can compete with something like an Amiga, -BIG IF- the hardware of the PC can measure up with bitrate access. Perhaps you just have to explorer Linux more.

Any computer is limited by it's hardware. Amiga has had better hardware on the lower levels where access time and accessibility of the software counts. Don't knock Linux for not being able to out do the 'almighty Amiga' simply because the hardware driving the Operating System was lacking. PCs have and always will be the cheapest PoS on the market. Linux could match or out perform an Amiga better if Linux had the hardware to back it to a 'level playing field'.

I believe this argument is 100% founded on the basis of something like Microsoft's hidden APIs vs. a 3rd party application written with public APIs - not a level playing field!

Damn you can talk some serious bull****.

Damn you can talk some serious bull****.

Microsoft is much better... [apologies, but I had to fit it in there]

I actually think they have accomplised porting Linux over to Amiga. Check it out: http://linux-apus.sourceforge.net/

Description: Linux/APUS is the project that allows you to run
Linux/PPC on PowerUP Amiga computer systems.

I almost wish I own an Amiga so I could actually try it out. I heard they were great machines; but to actually expierience it would be awesome.

Since your Amiga is almost a paperweight due to everything being old and outdated, maybe you could get that to run on your amiga box and try it out. That would be excellent if it works and runs fairly fast.

If you ever decide to undertake the project; I'd be delighted to see your results!

I'm not certain however, that it will run as fast as AMIGA OS; partly why it was so quick was because programs were small (they fit on floppies!) and since Linux has become bloated (albiet never as much as Microsoft -- Windows XP has 40,000,000 lines of source. -- Linux 4,287,449 lines of source) it won't run as fast as the True AMIGA OS.

It's sad really, how back then people coded OS's to be efficient as possible and small as possible because of limited processing power and memory. Now days since we have so much memory and processing power-- it's kind of like code as sloppy as you like.

Imagine how fast your system would go TODAY if they coded todays OS's/Programs with the same determination to keep it slim and efficient as they did in the past.

Anyways, if you do that Linux on amiga install; I'd like to hear about it :) [edit] It won't be as easy as installing RH linux though I'm afraid, closer inspection of the site says that you'll have to do your own bootstrapping and such. eeek.