[RC5] question/comment

Linux Fan rhlinux at yahoo.com
Tue Mar 17 16:41:29 EST 1998


> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 98 18:54:58 -0600
> From: "Alexey Guzeev" <aga at permonline.ru>
> Subject: Re: [RC5] question/comment
> 
> On Sun, 15 Mar 1998 21:35:45 -0800 (PST), Linux Fan wrote:
> 
> So, you definitelly have some process wich consumes all time at
priority higher than 
> "very nice" (i.e., Idle:0 aka 1:0). Run
WatchCat/ProcessCommander/TOP/CPUMeter or 
> any of the numerous available tools to determine which process isn't
modest enough 
> ;-)

The easy way out for now is to set the priority of the GUI client a
little higher and leave the system alone.
OS/2 tends to get cranky when I touch any configuration, and since I
didn't start any processes, there must be one it wants to run.

> rem If you are using Warp 4.0 you should apply fixpack#3 or higher
to have the same 
> "VDM poll tick stealing" quality as it is at Warp 3.0 versions.

That could be part of the problem right there.  I've never bothered to
put any of the fixpacks on.

> That's the blue progress indicator is for. At your P133 it is
increased every 30-35 
> seconds (yes, you guess it right ;-) ) when system 
is unused, if you are using 2^28 block 
> size.

?  The only progress indicator I see is the dots at the bottom of the
window with the percentages, and it doesn't move nearly that fast.

> It doesn't worth it. I'm sure several weeks later you will minimize
you client out of 
> desktop (if not will switch to detached cli version ;-) ). You are
not looks like a person 
> needs to see clouds often enough to feel all is OK. ;-)

You might be surprised...  When I'm at home all day, I check on my BBS
*often* even though I know no one has called, mainly to make sure
everything is working OK.

> >Also, what\\'s the difference between the cli and gui versions
anyway?
> At my expierence, they are practically same (few differences are
documented), except 
> of interface, of course. Ah, OS/2 PM (GUI) client is more handsome
than Win32 GUI. ;-)

I'd have to agree.  I have Win95 on another machine and it's client
isn't as neat, although it does add that little butterfly to the
systray, which is kind of cool.

> >Last but not least, has anyone ever considered a TSR version for DOS
> >machines?  
> Hmm, why don't you run OS/2 at this machine too? 
Even if you had 4 Mb at this machine 
> you could use TShell and have wonderful DOS (and WIN-OS2, OS/2 text)
multitasking, 
> but I'm sure you have at least 8.

This machine has 16MB.  There is a reason I don't run OS/2 on it:  The
BBS started thinking the user had dropped carrier every time someone
tried to downloaded a file, but things worked fine when I rebooted to
DOS, so I just took OS/2 off the machine.
 

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest



More information about the rc5 mailing list