On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Tony B wrote:
I'm not sure I understand the question. Not the way you put it,
anyway. In the scenario you describe, there should be no CPU
'slowdown' at all, since the CPU isn't being used completely.
Some things, like having to swap due to memory shortage, don't
show up as used CPU time, but do indeed slow things down. If these
are some memory hungry apps, that could be contributing. As you
say, though, CPU time shortage isn't the issue (or to put it
technically, they aren't "processor-bound").
Maybe you're having some trouble with a specific program?
Certainly, more information would help.
On Jan 30, 2008 8:04 PM, Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here is a curiosity question about CPU usage in Windows XP -- not
important, just wondering. This question shows my ignorance of the
computer.
I notice that the computer execution speed seems independent of the CPU
usage. For example, suppose that two processes are running
simultaneously, with one normally taking up 50% of CPU speed as shown by
Task Manager if running alone, the other normally taking up 20% of CPU
if running alone. Thus, 80% of processor speed is in use, leaving 20%
idle. Both use disk access but not excessively. But it seems that both
programs are slowed down quite a bit -- one would think that there would
be little slowdown (allowing for some disk & RAM reads/writes).
Why is there such a great slowdown on execution time that, I think,
can't be explained by the disk bottleneck?
************************************************************************
* ==> QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in <==
* ==> the body of an email & send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <==
* Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name
* Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST
* Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L
* New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress
* Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
************************************************************************
* List archive from 1/1/2000 is on the MARC http://marc.info/?l=computerguys-l
* List archive at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
* RSS at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.xml
* Messages bearing the header "X-No-Archive: yes" will not be archived
************************************************************************
--
Vicky Staubly http://www.steeds.com/vicky/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
************************************************************************
* ==> QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in <==
* ==> the body of an email & send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <==
* Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name
* Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST
* Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L
* New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress
* Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
************************************************************************
* List archive from 1/1/2000 is on the MARC http://marc.info/?l=computerguys-l
* List archive at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
* RSS at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.xml
* Messages bearing the header "X-No-Archive: yes" will not be archived
************************************************************************
