Program Priorities

surfing the web and downloading pictures from the sat compete with each other. Something may be timing out.

Get a download manager and increase yout timeout levels. that may help

I agree with the underlying theme of Syhprum's statement of what are they doing with modern software and computers. I get the feeling that the plug and play concept has gone too far and there is so much additional branching and code, that never gets used, bogging the system down. When it comes to multi tasking machines why havn't they ever bothered with multiple register sets. Back in the 80s I worked on a system that had multiple register sets. The idea was that a process exchange could be executed between machine cycles just by changing the value on the register address bus. This compares to having to write all the registers to memory and reading all the new values back, for a single register set machine, every time a process exchange is needed. This can save an enormous amount of time in a multi tasking environment.

I also wrote a payroll system that needed to take into account some fairly complex things like tax, overtime loading, penalty rates and allowances etc. It ran error free for over 17 years and took less than 1 second per employee to calculate their pay on a 8088 based PC. So why dose it take 10 seconds for me to flag a piece of email as SPAM on a machine that runs over a thousand times faster? It cant possibly 10,000 times as complex as a pay calculation, can it?. It just doesn't add up.

Back in the DOS days, most programs had pieces of assembly code at critical points in the software. That speeded things up immensely but was used with care lest it cause compatibility problems on different platforms ... Games made large use of this.

I certainly agree that there is too much code and branching.

I hear you on the multiple register sets. CAD workstations used to have vector processors too, but the economic realities are that these things were specialized and low volume which drove their cost way up.

Some of the reasons our "fast" machines are often not so fast is that first of all they are general purpose CPUs ("the jack of all trades, master of none" thing). Large volumes drove their costs down to the point that we still came out way ahead (on average). The GUI (graphical user interface) takes a huge amount of processing power compared to a text based interface. Most lower end machines burden the CPU with chores that are better done in separate chips or cards. Windows contributes to this by building in the software capability to allow it. Windows (and to a lesser extent other programs) is also getting more bloated with each release or service pack (but we all love Macroshaft, right?) And, lets not forget all the security stuff running in the "background". The most demanding is running all the virus protection features.

It seems every program wants to assume it is the only one on your computer ... I just checked, and while I have 3 programs running, there are 54 processes active... a good number of them don't have to be! BTW, I am not running my antivirus at full bore: except for a few features, I leave it off... but then I am careful. I have never had a virus on any home computer I used, and I use them plenty including a lot of surfing, but there were 2 or 3 times I hit the power off button when I saw something going on I didn't understand and looked suspicious.

While I would never recommend not using security features, as a test compare how your machine runs with no security features loaded at startup or running with when it is all loaded and running. The difference will surprise you.

It can also be instructive to open up task manager (from control panel or hiting ctrl-alt-del in Win 2000 or XP). It has an ongoing performance plot and memory usage is displayed along with a page-file usage plot. You can see how many apps are running by looking at "applications" and if you click the processes tab, it tells you how many are loaded and what percent of the CPU they are using. You can experiment by doing different things and seeing their effect. Just keep in mind that while most processes show 0% CPU usage, that is a rounded value and only means less than 1/2% on average over the update interval ... short bursts of many cycles may not show up at all. If they are listed, they are using CPU cycles.

The spam thing I suspect is not the fault of your computer but rather the email software and the fact that marking mail as spam requires relaying this message to a server somewhere, having it update your specific filter database and then relaying back that it has done so, in which case there are numerous places where delays can occur. If you are using AOL, that would explain it all by itself. Spam, spyware and viruses have really burdened down everything and even though we can keep our machines clean, it steals CPU cycles to do so.

"I hear you on the multiple register sets. CAD workstations used to have vector processors too, but the economic realities are that these things were specialized and low volume which drove their cost way up. "

Any processor chip could have multiple register sets built in. Whether on not you use them would be up to the operating system programmer. Those CAD work station, were they PR1ME/Computervision work stations? The PR1ME CPUs all had multiple register sets regardless of whether they were used for CAD or general purpose data processing. In the multi user environment it enable them to out perform much larger and faster systems. The Computervision works stations initially used a specialized processor but were ultimately ported across to SUN workstations running Unix. When you have 100 or so people working on a system you would be surprised how much CPU time is devoted to process exchange. Process exchange is one of the big problems in a multi user environment as the percentage of CPU and memory usage looks something like this

Usage = 1 / (1 - Constant x Number of Users/RegisterSets )

As a result you can end up with a thrashing situation when the processor dose nothing but process exchange but the introduction of a single extra register set can instantly drop the time spent in process exchange by 50%. The other part of the problem is that you need to stop any memory that is used for register set storage from being paged out to disk. If you don't do this you can get a recursive page error where the page error finds it register values have bee paged out. This can really ruin you day.

I run the Windows Task Manager in the background all the time, its surprising how many time I have needed to use it to find out where the CPU went. The number of times Windows or Norton's seems to wander of and arbitrarily decide to update themselves, just when you need all the CPU grunt you can get, is amazing.

"While I would never recommend not using security features, as a test compare how your machine runs with no security features loaded at startup or running with when it is all loaded and running. The difference will surprise you."

I know what you mean. We have a home network with 4 system running on it and I have a 5^th system that is no longer being used. I have been meaning to set it up as a gateway so it dose all the filtering for viruses etc. The only trouble is I have no idea how to actually do this yet. I don't suppose you know of a web site that has a description of how to set up a gateway system do you?

"Some of the reasons our "fast" machines are often not so fast is that first of all they are general purpose CPUs ("the jack of all trades, master of none" thing)."

Most of this is caused by poor programming and trying to do things that the operating system dose. The payroll system I mentioned earlier was written in F77 and had two subroutines that handled the file structure and screen driving. As a result if you wanted to port it to another system it was a simple matter of rewriting these two subroutines then compiling and building it for the new operating system/architecture. Since the compilers I used were written by the people that built the machines it meant that I could take advantage of all the features of that system without serious modifications to the core of the program.

It seems that people are hell bent on getting their final compiled program to work on every platform in existence and as a result it doesn't work well on any platform. The concept of high level languages got round this by letting the compilers take system architecture into account. A technique that seems to have been lost over recent years.

I always found that after a decade or so of evolution of a program it was usually time to start over. You usually ended up with patch on patch with the end result that nobody knew exactly how the darn thing worked. I suspect Windows is well overdue for a complete rethink and rewrite.

Masu:

"Those CAD work station, were they PR1ME/Computervision work stations?"

I never used a workstation for CAD. I was speaking generally about them and thinking HP, Sun, Intergraph etc: Vector processors were a big deal then.

"The number of times Windows or Norton's seems to wander of and arbitrarily decide to update themselves, just when you need all the CPU grunt you can get, is amazing."

I leave all my automatic updates off for the most part ... especially the Microsoft ones ... they can wreak havoc when you least expect it. If I find things "wandering off" on me I turn that particular feature off, remove it from the "open on startup" menu, or even un-install it if necessary. The only program I allow to automatically check for updates is my McCaffee antivirus but that only takes a second or two and the background virus protection is left off. (it does not start when I boot) If I want it, I can turn it on .. then back off. I am conservative with software partly because I have to run 3D Solids CAD programs and they can get "buggered" if things jump in at the wrong time, especially if I am doing something intensive in the program and it also happens to be performing a timed backup in the background. I also don't stay connected online: when I want to I go on, then get back off. As far as my computer, I am old school in that I want to retain a large measure of control over what it is doing.

"I have been meaning to set it up as a gateway so it dose all the filtering for viruses etc. The only trouble is I have no idea how to actually do this yet. I don't suppose you know of a web site that has a description of how to set up a gateway system do you?"

I too have between 4 and 6 computers networked and have considered doing a gateway but so far I haven't felt compelled to put in the effort. I do have a hub (mostly for my kids) off the router and the router is connected to my cable modem so the router offers some degree of protection but of course does nothing in regard to virus screening. Sorry I can't help you there but I'm sure someone can enlighten us.

"It seems that people are hell bent on getting their final compiled program to work on every platform in existence and as a result it doesn't work well on any platform."

I think with the advent of NT, 200 and XP, being virtual machines, the different platform issue has mostly disappeared since the software now merely addresses the windows equivalent of actual hardware. However you hit the mark with bloated, sloppy code that taxes the computer instead of helping it. Have you noticed that over the years the human interface hasn't changed all that much in terms of how long it takes for the computer to react when you ask it to do something in spite of all the changes that have taken place such as the GUI, higher and higher resolution, many times the memory, many times the processor speed etc etc? Of course there have been changes in time back and forth for certain individual operations (formatting a HD for instance) but I'm talking overall. I remember a huge difference when I put in my first HD over working off the 360K floppies, and of course things slow down as your several yr old computer struggles with the latest software but those things we expect.

"You usually ended up with patch on patch with the end result that nobody knew exactly how the darn thing worked. I suspect Windows is well overdue for a complete rethink and rewrite."

I know firsthand what happens after code is debugged then patched a few times, and its never pretty. As to a re-write of Windows (Macrosoft Windoze) I can wait. The NT platform which is the basis of 2000 and XP works well enough. I fear newer versions will be more bloated with things I don't want/don't need, go to greater lengths to "hide" files from me, spread related tools and settings further apart, make even prettier icons that are harder to distinguish from each other at high resolutions and, despite my ever increasing monitor sizes and higher resolutions continue to prevent me from realizing what was originally supposed to be one of windows' great features: the ability to effectively work in more than one "window" at a time. I can still only do that with difficulty in large part because somebody up there likes things to look "pretty" and have excessive borders, complete with realistic buttons, bars and 3D icons .. News Flash to Bill Gates: I don't need them, and they do nothing for me except waste screen space!

BTW, I am running XP Pro, on a 22" CRT at 1280 x 1024 using the "large fonts" setting. If I use the normal size fonts, some software is difficult to read in places. I use the "classic" settings, set to display "details" rather than a bunch of big icons. That way I can find and manipulate my files by various sorts (I use a wide variety of software, and generate a lot of files I have to store in various folders along the way) Luckily we are not limited anymore to 8 character filenames or I would be screwed bigtime.

Happy New Year!

Greg

What do you expect when you start from a software architecture that was quickly cobbled together for a single thread processor (one that was itself selected for company political reasons rather than technical merit), and subsequent processors are optimised for that architecture, and the follow-on software is designed to run very specific tasks as fast as possible with these processors and ...

Camels and appendicitis, anyone?

Of course, and we have all run into that situation many times in our careers.

Technical merit is only one of the reasons that a design or product "suceeds" in the marketplace.

The world is replete with examples of technically inferior designs/products suceeding over "better" ones.

On the other hand if it wasn't so, consider that while we would live in a world with "better" products, we might not be able to afford many of them .....

With computers and many other things, it is usually the overall economics that eventually wins out. We who need powerful computers for our work are now benefitting from those who "just" play games on them. Gamers are presently driving the volume production of powerful graphics and CAD capable machines and its making computers that we use give us more and more bang for the buck.

Happy New Year!

A classic example of deliberate bad design being adopted as the standard is the QWERTY keyboard layout.

When the first typewriter was invented they had problems with the mechanical design fouling because some people became so efficient that it couldn't keep up with their typing. Rather that looking at ways to speed up the mechanics they laid the keyboard out in a way that minimized it's efficiency and thus slowed the typist down enough for the mechanical system to keep up.

The result is a standardized keyboard that is deliberately designed to be difficult and slow to use. How many trillions of dollars do you suppose that little blooper has cost us in delays and added labor over the past century or so?

There is one obvious solution...genetic manipulation to add more fingers and move the fingers around to optimize the operation of the keyboard. This will result in a few of them being grafted to the face, requiring a hunched position, but with 80 fingers you could make a dedicated person who could type with blinding speed. He/she would find it hard to get dates, much like your glaring red pustules of eyes similarly handicap you, resulting in a lifelong employee.

Yes, Gene craft will bring a new Modern Age, I wonder what Chaplin could have made out of it?

But we'd need a few more fingers for the windows keys, and at least one to pick our nose .....

On the other hand, why not just convert to a 9 letter alphabet, leaving one of our existing fingers for the shift, space and enter keys?

I don't know how many of you type correctly using all ten fingers but the 101 key QWERTY keyboard layout has you left little finger working 11 keys and the right one 16 keys. This compares to the strongest digit, the thumbs, that get half a key each.. Personally I believe it should be called the CRAPY keyboard.

Speaking for myself, I probably spend at least 20% of my total typing time when I am "typing away" correcting my typos.

I hate the QUERTY keyboard..but then I hate MS Office too.

I have to maintain compatibility with whats in common use.

At least with MS Office, I can use the Wordperfect suite most of the time.

If I went to Dvorak, I'd have to carry a keyboard around with me, yet I'm thinking of trying it anyway.

I'm seriously thinking about a better keyboard layout as well. A bit over a month ago I decided to keep track the posts that I put up here on CR4, just to see how much I do actually waffle on. I nearly fell over today when I did a word count for December's posts as it came to just of 52,000. I obviously spend way to much time on this site.

Since a notebook has a built in keyboard and I use one fairly exclusively the carrying of a special keyboard isn't a problem. If it even saves me 5% it would probably be worth using.

I use the EHP method. If I went to Dvorak or ??, I would have to remap myself.

EHP = Enhanced hunt-peck

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QWERTY

Hi,

I agree with Greg G that the win' operating system and the anti-virus are to blame. I believe that an 8088 running assembly code would still run circles around any modern machine (running win'). I am perplexed with how much bigger each new version is, and how much slower it runs. I prefer to be 2 versions back, and I probably have as good of performance with a much slower machine.

To speed things up you could try de-fragmenting your hard drive, deleting all your temp files, cookies, and temporary internet files. Some viruses create a bunch of dummy files to fill up your hard drive, cutting your performance immensely. Also I agree that you should turn off any process you don't need. Certain processes can be set to use less memory, etc.

Different software that does the same thing can have vastly different performance. I tried to use another word processor that was recommended, and it was waaaay to slow to even consider. I'm sorry I can't help with the priorities.

Sherman