xask

i understand your comments, they are true , the trends today are for
quick development and not for faster apps, one of the reasons being low
cost resources. But that is no excuse for efficient software. Changing
a mouse pointer when its over something uses CPU time.. but does not
hog it!. In firefox if i click on File menu and then move on to Edit
and View, My processor usage simply soars up to around 60 % (on a 333
Mhz Celeron 96 MB ram). there is no reason for that to happen what ever
be the zause i call it inefficient programming. Note: The same thing
doesnot happen with other gui applications

jan panteltje

On a sunny day (8 Jan 2006 21:07:30 -0800) it happened "xask"


.. In firefox if i click on File menu and then move on to Edit


Ah, did you look up 'minimum system requirements'??????????????
LOL
Time to upgrade I'd say:-)

måns_rullgård

Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> writes:

That's exactly his point. *WHY* should a simple operation like
displaying a menu require a supercomputer? It didn't 20 years ago, so
why does it today?

--
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com

grant edwards

Because people think it's cool to have the menu rendered in 3D
with shadowing and then composited with what's underneath it so
it can have a neat translucent look?

I hear that "Vista" is going to require 3D HW accelleration for
the basic operations like menus and buttons.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! The Korean War must
at have been fun.
visi.com

jan panteltje

On a sunny day (Mon, 09 Jan 2006 19:51:03 -0000) it happened Grant Edwards

Yes and people run in 1280x1024 because the Samsung monitor displays
that as 'recommended timing'.
The result is a very small mouse cursor, and those apps that were written
for 640x480 so small you cannot even click these ;-)
It is called progress.
And I need that resolution for my DVB-S HDTV anyways!

But if he thinks it ****s he can always use lynx.
LOL

xask

people there's no need to fight on the topic,
neither will it stop inefficient programming nor will it promote but
facts will remain facts, application today are inefficient. The firefox
webbrowser does not use fancy menus, or shadow etc .. even then it
bloats which is completely out of my grasp,. The new Windows Vista may
use 3D cards for simple tasks, I dont question their right to design
such software, but they should certainly include features to turn fancy
stuff off, I personally (very personally) beleive simplicity has
beauty. As a programmer i can tell you to show fancy stuff in menus
their not always a need to use great hardware !. Extrememly beautiful
and captivating graphics and effects are possible without fancy
hardware, remmber the time when scanners and hacking software included


it a marvel, a masterpiece.

The point is that using clever techniques and skilled programming
outdated hardware would appear so outdated. I find the whole bussiness
quite silly, if we are not to play heavy games (like quake or unreal)
why should the hardware requirements increase at all !!, We should be
able to do the same tasks (word processing, image editing etc) more
efficiently with new Operating system releases and not actually more
slowly, as is the case today.

I must point out linux is a good examply. The hardware requirements for
the Windows OS have only been increasing i.e. it will run slowly on old
hardware (wrt the release date of the OS) whereas the linux kernel has
constantly added new hardware support but the kernel will be able to
run on the same hardware which it ran on some years ago with the same
efficieny. I appreciate this approach. Unfortunately new applications
for the linux kernel are not following this approach, they are getting
bloated.

Bye

jan panteltje

On a sunny day (12 Jan 2006 21:52:51 -0800) it happened "xask"

It is OK to voice your observation, however the way Linux manifests for
me is by what code *I* add to the pool.

So if you are so 100% convinced there is a better way, go an show us.
For sure it will help you, and for sure many people, specially in poorer
countries who still run 486 or older, or perhaps embedded systems.

Merely stating it here, will have zero effect, at least for me, as I will
use the same GUI libs and the same coding techniques I have always used,
and link in more and more useful libs.

And that from somebody who wrote a whole CP/M clone in what was it: 8k for
BIOS + BDOS + CCP?
I have the memory now (not 64 kByte, - 8 kByte for the OS, - 30 kB for the
C compiler ;-) ) so I will use it, and swap too.

lester l.

|I just did a "ps aux" on my Linux system and realized that
|Firefox uses a massive 47 MB of RAM, and Thunderbird
|uses an amazing 45 MB. I don't have a "hot rod" P4 computer
|so perhaps this is all the more alarming to me, but
|something seems to have gone wrong, I think.

Hehehe, firefox 1.5 on Win XP has 118 Megs of my RAM right now, and I've seen it
get up to 400MB. Rumors I've read say it has something to do with forward and
back arrow caching.

I only have Mozilla 1.7.8 on the only linux box (Debian Sarge) that sees the
light of init 5 around here, and with 8 tabs open, and a little back and forth
through pages, It's taking up 51 Megs - with only the browser portion in use..
--
LesterOfPuppets
http://stumptownrock.servebeer.com/
http://thedings.servebeer.com/

joseph2k

I got curious so i ran top:
top - 04:57:37 up 29 days, 14:25, 6 users, load average: 1.65, 1.94, 2.05
Tasks: 100 total, 2 running, 98 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 28.2% us, 71.8% sy, 0.0% ni, 0.0% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
Mem: 1035776k total, 981740k used, 54036k free, 164912k buffers
Swap: 3140656k total, 304664k used, 2835992k free, 263116k cached

PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
9104 ******xx 25 0 119m 13m 46m R 99.1 1.3 16821:26 kdeinit
9005 ******xx -51 0 25156 5260 10m S 0.7 0.5 188:45.47 artsd
8352 root 15 0 238m 65m 133m S 0.3 6.4 1067:56 X
23296 ******xx 16 0 58076 26m 38m S 0.3 2.6 71:43.85 kdeinit
21358 root 17 0 1968 952 1764 R 0.3 0.1 0:00.02 top
1 root 16 0 596 80 452 S 0.0 0.0 0:01.58 init
2 root 34 19 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.03 ksoftirqd/0
3 root 5 -10 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:01.25 events/0
4 root 5 -10 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.01 khelper
5 root 5 -10 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 netlink/0
6 root 6 -10 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 kacpid
34 root 5 -10 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:01.58 kblockd/0
44 root 15 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:03.41 pdflush
45 root 15 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:02.90 pdflush
47 root 6 -10 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 aio/0
46 root 15 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:09.60 kswapd0
630 root 25 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 kseriod
1741 root 15 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:29.91 kjournald
dumbarton:/home/******xx #

I have always ran high memory machines, even since my first which maxed out
at 8MB (it came with 2MB and ran a both MS and Linux GUI's)
--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen Die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.
--Shiller

kasper dupont

Is that 16821 hours of CPU time? How could that be possible when the
system has only been up for about a month? Whatever it is, I say this
looks like a KDE bug. I't use "strace -p 9104" to find out what is
going on.

--
Kasper Dupont -- Rigtige mænd skriver deres egne backupprogrammer
#define _(_)"d.%.4s%."_"2s" /* This is my new email address */
char*_="@2kaspner"_()"%03"_("4s%.")"t\n";printf(_+ 11,_+6,_,6,_+2,_+7,_+6);