On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:11:28 -0600 "Paul Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
babbled:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:39 PM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:27:23 -0600 "Paul Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > babbled:
> >
> > it could be old e config a
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:39 PM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:27:23 -0600 "Paul Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> babbled:
>
> it could be old e config and the battery module is polling really fast:
>
> 1. rm -rf ~/.e
> 2. start e and see.
>
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:27:23 -0600 "Paul Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
babbled:
it could be old e config and the battery module is polling really fast:
1. rm -rf ~/.e
2. start e and see.
other than that e is querying your battery for information likely
via /proc/acpi/... or possibly another one o
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 12:27:23PM -0600, Paul Johnson wrote:
> I did remove the second battery and try the battery module again, but
> it still showed high CPU usage. So I don't know for sure what to
> conclude. Perhaps the whole framework of the motherboard & chassis
> has it confused?
I have
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:27:23 -0600
"Paul Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I installed E DR17 yesterday (with the help of Prof K's RPMS and
> advice) and was troubled that it was using 40-80% of the system CPU,
> even if the PC was sitting idle. I started searching posts in this
> list and sa
I installed E DR17 yesterday (with the help of Prof K's RPMS and
advice) and was troubled that it was using 40-80% of the system CPU,
even if the PC was sitting idle. I started searching posts in this
list and saw Raster's blog, which (2 years ago) showed that E with no
modules was very fast and l
