If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why does Xtgold use so much CPU? (W7-32)
Old hands may remember the old file manager utility from DOS days - gave
a graphical (though in character mode) tree representation of the filesystem, as well as a few utilities. Well, I'd still been using it in XP - mainly for a _real_ (or more real, anyway) view of what's on the disc, but also its hex viewer. (I also use its editor - 1-word - to edit my quotes file; its limit of just under 64k makes me keep the quote file fresh.) I'd been disappointed when it wouldn't work under W7, as I'd seen at work and on my other W7 machine - but delighted to find it _does_ work on W7-32. However, it seems to nearly (not quite) rail one of my cores - even when it's sitting there not actually doing anything! (Just opening it; it opens in a character mode window.) I hear the fan speed up, and sure enough, if I look in Task Manager, core 1 or 3 (of 4 virtual cores on this machine) is very busy. Not flatlining: the graph is going up and down a lot. Closing XTG - either via its own way, cleanly (Q then Y) or by clicking on the close button - returns the CPU and fan to normal. I'm not _bothered_, nor wanting to get into deep diagnostics; however, it _did_ (and does) puzzle me that an old DOS utility will use so much. (It's a .com file, not a .exe, if that makes any difference.) Anyone else use it and noticed this? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf I'm the oldest woman on primetime not baking cakes. - Anne Robinson, RT 2015/8/15-21 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Why does Xtgold use so much CPU? (W7-32)
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Old hands may remember the old file manager utility from DOS days - gave a graphical (though in character mode) tree representation of the filesystem, as well as a few utilities. Well, I'd still been using it in XP - mainly for a _real_ (or more real, anyway) view of what's on the disc, but also its hex viewer. (I also use its editor - 1-word - to edit my quotes file; its limit of just under 64k makes me keep the quote file fresh.) F*** that. I've got 16,000+ entries in mine. I'd been disappointed when it wouldn't work under W7, as I'd seen at work and on my other W7 machine - but delighted to find it _does_ work on W7-32. However, it seems to nearly (not quite) rail one of my cores - even when it's sitting there not actually doing anything! (Just opening it; it opens in a character mode window.) I hear the fan speed up, and sure enough, if I look in Task Manager, core 1 or 3 (of 4 virtual cores on this machine) is very busy. Not flatlining: the graph is going up and down a lot. Closing XTG - either via its own way, cleanly (Q then Y) or by clicking on the close button - returns the CPU and fan to normal. I'm not _bothered_, nor wanting to get into deep diagnostics; however, it _did_ (and does) puzzle me that an old DOS utility will use so much. (It's a .com file, not a .exe, if that makes any difference.) Anyone else use it and noticed this? My install is 64-bit so I can't check directly on the hardware, but I did some checking in VMware. - NT 3.51: Normally almost nothing, with apparently-random spikes to 100%. - XP 32-bit: 100%. - 10 32-bit: Fluctates, but generally around 80%. My only guess is that XTGold doesn't recognize multi-tasking environments and expects to be the only app running. There are a few Windows XTree clones that you may want to look into. The two I'd suggest: - ZTree, a commercial (US$29.95) work-alike: http://www.ztree.com/ - UnixTree, a free open-source work-alike (which includes a mostly- functional Win32 version): http://www.unixtree.org/ The XTree Fan Page has a list of clones, but for Windows they also recommend ZTree: http://www.xtreefanpage.org/lowres/x63clone.htm Personally, I switched to what's called "orthodox" (or dual-pane) file managers (i.e. Norton Commander clones) many years ago and I'm much happier with them. The keyboard shortcuts take some getting used to, but beyond that, I think they just work better. On Windows I use the old free version of Servant Salamander (now called Altap Salamander): https://www.altap.cz/ ftp://ftp.altap.cz/pub/altap/salamand/salam152.zip ....or Midnight Commander everywhere else (which is include with most *nix systems). -- I figure that if I can get a parser to recognize and deal with I-T-L, I can get it to do the same with IF-THEN-ELSE. And I can. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Why does Xtgold use so much CPU? (W7-32)
In message 23,
Auric__ writes: [] my quotes file; its limit of just under 64k makes me keep the quote file fresh.) F*** that. I've got 16,000+ entries in mine. I could use Notepad+ or any one of the myriad other text editors. I _like_ having to decide which quotes don't seem so funny/interesting/whatever now as they did when I added them. [] My install is 64-bit so I can't check directly on the hardware, but I did some checking in VMware. Thanks! - NT 3.51: Normally almost nothing, with apparently-random spikes to 100%. - XP 32-bit: 100%. - 10 32-bit: Fluctates, but generally around 80%. My only guess is that XTGold doesn't recognize multi-tasking environments and expects to be the only app running. But even if that _is_ the case, what is it actually _doing_! There are a few Windows XTree clones that you may want to look into. The two I'd suggest: - ZTree, a commercial (US$29.95) work-alike: http://www.ztree.com/ I did have a play with that a decade or two ago - looked quite good, though didn't _quite_ have the responsive feel of the original. Could do long filenames, though, I think. - UnixTree, a free open-source work-alike (which includes a mostly- functional Win32 version): http://www.unixtree.org/ The XTree Fan Page has a list of clones, but for Windows they also recommend ZTree: http://www.xtreefanpage.org/lowres/x63clone.htm Yes, I think it's the closest. Personally, I switched to what's called "orthodox" (or dual-pane) file managers (i.e. Norton Commander clones) many years ago and I'm much happier with them. The keyboard shortcuts take some getting used to, but beyond that, I think they just work better. On Windows I use the old free version of Servant Salamander (now called Altap Salamander): https://www.altap.cz/ ftp://ftp.altap.cz/pub/altap/salamand/salam152.zip ...or Midnight Commander everywhere else (which is include with most *nix systems). I've marked your post as keep to keep the above link. I have played with a couple of the explorer alternatives - one with a 2 in it, something like Xplorer2 was it?, at least one other; on the whole, I never got into them enough to really find much advantage over a couple of Explorer windows. (I'm not saying they don't _have_ advantages, just that I haven't _needed_ the extras for long enough or often enough to get over the initial learning hurdle.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Everyone is entitled to an *informed* opinion." - Harlan Ellison |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Why does Xtgold use so much CPU? (W7-32)
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message 23, Auric__ writes: [] my quotes file; its limit of just under 64k makes me keep the quote file fresh.) F*** that. I've got 16,000+ entries in mine. I could use Notepad+ or any one of the myriad other text editors. I _like_ having to decide which quotes don't seem so funny/interesting/whatever now as they did when I added them. I trim them only as I see them. And sometimes the "bad" ones are the ones worth keeping. My quotes are split by subject, source, or whatever into several hundred text files in a 100+-subdirectory tree. (Only 2 of those files are too large for XTG's editor.) I have a batch that rolls them into one big 1.2mb quotefile, and then a program I wrote sorts them (to make finding duplicates easier). My install is 64-bit so I can't check directly on the hardware, but I did some checking in VMware. Thanks! Np. - NT 3.51: Normally almost nothing, with apparently-random spikes to 100%. - XP 32-bit: 100%. - 10 32-bit: Fluctates, but generally around 80%. My only guess is that XTGold doesn't recognize multi-tasking environments and expects to be the only app running. But even if that _is_ the case, what is it actually _doing_! Shrug. I never had reason to check its cpu usage under plain DOS, so for all I know, that's "normal" for it. There are a few Windows XTree clones that you may want to look into. The two I'd suggest: - ZTree, a commercial (US$29.95) work-alike: http://www.ztree.com/ I did have a play with that a decade or two ago - looked quite good, though didn't _quite_ have the responsive feel of the original. Could do long filenames, though, I think. Yes. My only complaint was the "not free" part, but meh. Personally, I switched to what's called "orthodox" (or dual-pane) file managers (i.e. Norton Commander clones) many years ago and I'm much happier with them. The keyboard shortcuts take some getting used to, but beyond that, I think they just work better. On Windows I use the old free version of Servant Salamander (now called Altap Salamander): https://www.altap.cz/ ftp://ftp.altap.cz/pub/altap/salamand/salam152.zip ...or Midnight Commander everywhere else (which is include with most *nix systems). I forgot to mention muCommander, which I use on my Macs. It's written in Java and is therefore cross-platform: http://www.mucommander.com/ I've marked your post as keep to keep the above link. I have played with a couple of the explorer alternatives - one with a 2 in it, something like Xplorer2 was it?, at least one other; on the whole, I never got into them enough to really find much advantage over a couple of Explorer windows. (I'm not saying they don't _have_ advantages, just that I haven't _needed_ the extras for long enough or often enough to get over the initial learning hurdle.) Wikipedia has a decent comparison of various file managers he https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar..._file_managers You might want to poke through there a bit. If you ever used WinFile, the default vaguely-XTG-ish file manager under Win3x, you might be interested in hearing that it was recently open sourced by Microsoft, and has been updated to work under modern 32-bit systems. It works on my Win7x64 system just fine. (I don't use it, but it works.) https://github.com/Microsoft/winfile/releases -- Brain gone bad. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Why does XTGold use so much CPU? (W7-32) [Now file managers and quotes]
In message 3, Auric__
writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message 23, Auric__ writes: [] my quotes file; its limit of just under 64k makes me keep the quote file fresh.) F*** that. I've got 16,000+ entries in mine. I could use Notepad+ or any one of the myriad other text editors. I _like_ having to decide which quotes don't seem so funny/interesting/whatever now as they did when I added them. I trim them only as I see them. And sometimes the "bad" ones are the ones worth keeping. (-: My quotes are split by subject, source, or whatever into several hundred text files in a 100+-subdirectory tree. (Only 2 of those files are too large for XTG's editor.) I have a batch that rolls them into one big 1.2mb quotefile, and then a program I wrote sorts them (to make finding duplicates easier). I just keep them alphabetically. I _only_ use them for .sig, so like to keep them fresh - I've seen some other people's which seem amusing/interesting the first time, but they aren't the twentieth. I have a very ancient DOS utility (TomQuote - 1995 or before) that picks one at random and adds it to the fixed part of my .sig file; I have that set to run at boot and at 42 minutes past each hour, to keep my posts varied. [] My only guess is that XTGold doesn't recognize multi-tasking environments and expects to be the only app running. But even if that _is_ the case, what is it actually _doing_! Shrug. I never had reason to check its cpu usage under plain DOS, so for all I know, that's "normal" for it. But all it _can_ be doing when just sitting there is waiting for a keypress! I don't _think_ it can have been a CPU hog in DOS days, because you could - and many did - run things from within it, i. e. use it as a sort of shell: in fact where I worked, you were more likely to see a PC screen showing the blue of XTree than a plain DOS prompt screen. And in those days of few-tens-of-MHz CPUs (single core of course), I think we'd have noticed if it had been a CPU hog. I can only guess that there's some adverse interaction between it and the DOS emulation (perhaps it's the graphics part?) that 7 etc. provide. [Ztree] Yes. My only complaint was the "not free" part, but meh. XTree wasn't free either, officially! [] If you ever used WinFile, the default vaguely-XTG-ish file manager under Win3x, you might be interested in hearing that it was recently open sourced by Microsoft, and has been updated to work under modern 32-bit systems. It works on my Win7x64 system just fine. (I don't use it, but it works.) https://github.com/Microsoft/winfile/releases I did use it, and was aware it would still run under '9x and later (I wasn't aware that it ever _didn't_ work under modern ones, not having had any great desire to use it over Explorer - I think there _was_ some advantage some said it had, but I don't remember what). Interesting that MS have released the source, though; I thought they _never_ released source of anything (many claiming because they're still using so much of it!). -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Bother," said Pooh, as he tasted the bacon in his sandwich. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Why does XTGold use so much CPU? (W7-32) [Now file managers and quotes]
On Wed, 30 May 2018 15:23:05 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: I just keep them alphabetically. I _only_ use them for .sig, so like to keep them fresh - I've seen some other people's which seem amusing/interesting the first time, but they aren't the twentieth. I have a very ancient DOS utility (TomQuote - 1995 or before) that picks one at random and adds it to the fixed part of my .sig file; I have that set to run at boot and at 42 minutes past each hour, to keep my posts varied. 42. Of course. It's always 42. That's the answer to everything. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/42-the-answer-to-life-the-universe-and-everything-2205734.html -- Char Jackson |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Why does XTGold use so much CPU? (W7-32) [Now file managers and quotes]
In message , Char Jackson
writes: On Wed, 30 May 2018 15:23:05 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: I just keep them alphabetically. I _only_ use them for .sig, so like to keep them fresh - I've seen some other people's which seem amusing/interesting the first time, but they aren't the twentieth. I have a very ancient DOS utility (TomQuote - 1995 or before) that picks one at random and adds it to the fixed part of my .sig file; I have that set to run at boot and at 42 minutes past each hour, to keep my posts varied. 42. Of course. It's always 42. That's the answer to everything. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...nswer-to-life- the-universe-and-everything-2205734.html That's why I chose it, of course. 101010 rules ... -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Veni Vidi Vacuum [I came, I saw, It sucked] - , 1998 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Why does XTGold use so much CPU? (W7-32) [Now file managers and quotes]
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message 3, Auric__ writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message 23, Auric__ writes: [snip] My quotes are split by subject, source, or whatever into several hundred text files in a 100+-subdirectory tree. (Only 2 of those files are too large for XTG's editor.) I have a batch that rolls them into one big 1.2mb quotefile, and then a program I wrote sorts them (to make finding duplicates easier). I just keep them alphabetically. I _only_ use them for .sig, so like to keep them fresh - I've seen some other people's which seem amusing/interesting the first time, but they aren't the twentieth. I have a very ancient DOS utility (TomQuote - 1995 or before) that picks one at random and adds it to the fixed part of my .sig file; I have that set to run at boot and at 42 minutes past each hour, to keep my posts varied. I wrote my own program for that, as well. It runs every minute. My only guess is that XTGold doesn't recognize multi-tasking environments and expects to be the only app running. But even if that _is_ the case, what is it actually _doing_! Shrug. I never had reason to check its cpu usage under plain DOS, so for all I know, that's "normal" for it. But all it _can_ be doing when just sitting there is waiting for a keypress! I don't _think_ it can have been a CPU hog in DOS days, because you could - and many did - run things from within it, i. e. use it as a sort of shell: in fact where I worked, you were more likely to see a PC screen showing the blue of XTree than a plain DOS prompt screen. And in those days of few-tens-of-MHz CPUs (single core of course), I think we'd have noticed if it had been a CPU hog. I can only guess that there's some adverse interaction between it and the DOS emulation (perhaps it's the graphics part?) that 7 etc. provide. Without running it through a debugger, I couldn't say for sure. XTree wasn't free either, officially! My copy came from my mother, who bought it in the 80's. Free for me, or close enough. [snip] Interesting that MS have released the source, though; I thought they _never_ released source of anything (many claiming because they're still using so much of it!). They released the source for MS-DOS 1.0 and Word for Windows 1.1a a few years ago. Not "open source", mind you, but more "released for historical interest". See he http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/tag/source-code/ (That page also has sources for things like Photoshop 1.0 and the Eudora email client.) MS has open-sourced numerous things over the years. Their github page includes 62 pages of projects: https://github.com/Microsoft -- I hunger after independence. Strengthen freedom's reign. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Why does Xtgold use so much CPU? (W7-32)
"J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Tue, 29 May 2018 14:05:22 GMT in alt.windows7.general, wrote: I'm not _bothered_, nor wanting to get into deep diagnostics; however, it _did_ (and does) puzzle me that an old DOS utility will use so much. (It's a .com file, not a .exe, if that makes any difference.) It's an old DOS program that isn't aware of, nor has any real way of sharing resources with other applications that are running. As a result, it will consume resources (since it expects to be able to consume all of them and release some as you run apps thru it via a click or two) even when it's idle, because it's keyboard polling routines don't understand time slicing or any other way of sharing resources or giving them up for others to use. Anyone else use it and noticed this? It's normal when the OS has to provide an emulated environment for an older actual DOS based program for the reasons stated above. You could do a few things when writing DOS apps to be easier on system resources, but, you couldn't entirely eliminate the resource sharing issue. -- To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber stalking, it's highly recommended you visit he https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php ================================================== = Cat: Murphy's way of saying 'Nice Furniture!' |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Why does XTGold use so much CPU? (W7-32) [Now file managers and quotes]
On Wed, 30 May 2018 15:23:05 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
Yes. My only complaint was the "not free" part, but meh. XTree wasn't free either, officially! [] True. But this hails from the days when all you had to do was drop the directory from the computer it was on, to a floppy, and you had it...... Actually, i used to carry a copy of it in my glovebox..... I am still using a ztree version in win 7 though in the last few years i have started using windows explorer quite often. I don't think the xtree's run under win 7 or if they do they crash right soon after starting. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Why does XTGold use so much CPU? (W7-32) [Now file managers and quotes]
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|