On 13 Mar 00, at 19:16, Aaron Blosser wrote:
> According to Carmer a computer programmed to give standard
> priority can use up to 90 percent of the computers capacity if no other
> program is running."
>
> Well, I always thought that was a curious statement.
Yeah. With a sane OS a process which demands CPU should get something
pretty darn close to 100%, irrespective of its priority, provided
that no other processes demand CPU at the same or a higher priority.
After all, the CPU clock keeps running & it has to execute something -
even if it's just a time-wasting loop (aka "null process").
> Would it be at all useful to have the program launch itself as priority 1,
> and then elevate the priority of the "management" thread to 9 afterwards,
> so that a cursory examination like the one done by the buffoons at US WEST
> would be more indicative of the real priority of the program?
Maybe. But nothing except relevant training can stop ignorant
buffoons from engaging in behaviour typical for their kind.
>
> Moral of the story, US WEST bad... NTPRIME good. :-)
>
Err - I'd prefer to say "US WEST stupid, NTPRIME smart"
Regards
Brian Beesley
_________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
