Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Dream Machine ( Build your own PC ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: wily who wrote (11358)	9/26/2000 2:31:29 AM
From: RC Stein	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14778

MS I agree with Wily, if you pay attention to anything it should be the WINDOWS SYSTEM MONITOR, as he said you can customize it any way you want. For a more detailed look, you won't find anything better than TASKINFO 2000. I keep both of them running all of the time. Also, don't worry about 100% cpu util unless it stays that way most of the time, the OS is supposed to give a program all of the cpu it can use when it needs it, if two or more need it then it starts time slicing and trys to feed everyone all that it can, thats when a slow cpu will hurt you. One more thought, lots of folks talk about Windows 98 doing a poor job of memory management, but it is so much better than previous versions, that there is no comparison. There used to be a slew of programs you could buy that did a better job, but since 98se came out, most of them have gone out of business,, course it could be better, but with the price of memory being so low, memory problems are not the major concern they used to be. I have 256 meg of real and have NO problems and I run a ton of stuff all of them time, course I have a 32 meg video card and that helps too. If you have more than 256 meg of real, you better have a fast cpu, because its going to be working like crazy just managing the memory. With 256 meg, my swap file seldom gets over 20 meg, even when I'm running qcharts and 5-6 browser windows. Richard

To: wily who wrote (11358)	9/26/2000 6:42:21 PM
From: Moving Sphere	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 14778

wily, -Brian-, RC Stein, First of all, thank you all for your feedback. This thread has provided me more help than I expected. And on top of that, I learned quite a few things as well. Guess what, with some of you guiding me, I was finally able to figure out all those little information in the Windows System monitor and TaskInfo2000 monitor. Wily, if you didn't tell me, I would have no clue that the Windows System monitor could do so much more! (Since their default only show the Kernel: Processor Usage(%)) To answer some of your questions, I have a 256K RAM memory, and a 30 gigabytes IBM harddrive running on 7200 rpm (recently replaced my 8 gig drive). Therefore, problem due to lack of physical memory or disk space for virtual memory is ruled out here. OK, here is more result from my investigation... I found out I could load more windows, especially more Netscape browsers, when I load the Netscape browser(s), MyTrack's quote page, charts, and streaming quotes, and then finally, the broker's proprietary software. Here is an interesting observation. After loading up all the above windows in that order, my resource Meter was showing a dangerously low 7% free with a grey warning box popping out to alert me. However, on the other hand, looking at the System monitor, my free physical memory (unused physical memory) was showing a whopping 95,000 KB available! Furthermore, my Swap (file) in Use KB was zero. CPU usuage was only 20-30%! Now, you could see why I was dumbfounded by these two conflicting data- a Resource Meter showing I was running really low on gas while my System Monitor was showing I still got plenty of juice to go around. Nevertheless, my system finally "crashed" with my inability to switch my Netscape browser from one to another. Clicking on each browser did not bring that browser out to the forefront. In fact, all browsers were frozen, so to speak. At this point of "hanging", my System monitor was telling me that I still had 95,000 KB free physical memory and my Swap in Use KB was still zero. CPU was still about 25%. Thus, per System monitor, I shouldn't be "hanging". Look like the Resource Meter was telling me something the System monitor did not. From this point, I closed out the broker's proprietary software. The free physical memory went back up to 108,000 KB or more. However, those browsers were still unresponsive and frozen. This necessitated my having to reboot. At this point, I'm inclined to believe that all of you were right on the point when you said the broker's proprietary software was the culprit by hogging up all the memory even after it was closed later on. Now, here is my curious question: Why did the System monitor still showed a free physical memory of 95,000 KB when the broker's software was hogging up memory? Did it hog up the memory in stealth mode so that none of the System monitor could see it? Btw, did anyone know if an independent run software could be a more reliable order processing media than using a browser window? At least, that what my broker told me. I don't know if this is psychological, but I do feel that the order went faster and cleaner using the broker's program than using browser. The problem with browser is that you've to wait for the "....waiting for reply" response to finish before your order went thru. And not to mention that the browser do "crash" occasionally all on its own without warning. Whoa! Guess I'm banging my keyboard for too long here. As usual, I'm open to all feedback to my dilemma here. Thanks again to all for your generous feedback. ~~~MSphere