|
| Author |
Message |
Janus |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Jun 19, 2005 - 05:52 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 12, 2005
Posts: 142
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Status: Offline
|
|
| 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). |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
jon_k |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 19, 2005 - 06:49 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Posts: 45
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
maarten |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 20, 2005 - 02:04 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 20, 2002
Posts: 674
Location: DiGiLaNd
Status: Offline
|
|
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:
| Quote: | 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. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Janus |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 20, 2005 - 02:22 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 12, 2005
Posts: 142
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Status: Offline
|
|
| Just switch to Linux... Palace32 runs fine for me! |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
jon_k |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 20, 2005 - 02:32 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Posts: 45
Status: Offline
|
|
| maarten wrote: | | 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
| Code: | 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
| Code: |
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. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
jon_k |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 20, 2005 - 02:55 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Posts: 45
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
Last edited by jon_k on Jun 20, 2005 - 03:02 AM; edited 1 time in total
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
maarten |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 20, 2005 - 02:59 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 20, 2002
Posts: 674
Location: DiGiLaNd
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Janus |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 20, 2005 - 03:01 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 12, 2005
Posts: 142
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Status: Offline
|
|
| What can we Linux people say then... Windows must royally suck at management! Whether it's the CPU or RAM or whatever... |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
jon_k |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 20, 2005 - 03:07 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Posts: 45
Status: Offline
|
|
| maarten wrote: | 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 among all the lies they listed though....  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
maarten |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 20, 2005 - 03:30 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 20, 2002
Posts: 674
Location: DiGiLaNd
Status: Offline
|
|
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 
Besides compared to the Amiga OS everything else sucks. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Janus |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 20, 2005 - 02:30 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 12, 2005
Posts: 142
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Status: Offline
|
|
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 shit' 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  . |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
maarten |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 20, 2005 - 05:04 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 20, 2002
Posts: 674
Location: DiGiLaNd
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
jon_k |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 20, 2005 - 06:06 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Posts: 45
Status: Offline
|
|
| maarten wrote: | 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 |
Yeah, its easy to get OT and forget the original purpose of the thread! |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Janus |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 20, 2005 - 06:08 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 12, 2005
Posts: 142
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Status: Offline
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Shadow99 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 21, 2005 - 02:05 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 18, 2005
Posts: 37
Location: Wisconsin
Status: Offline
|
|
| **** lot of attention seeking BS removed******* |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
members: 9720
guests online: 56
member online: 1
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking 
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Sub-Forum
