WinMe measures CPU usage TWICE..both different!

Hi
I've been puzzled for some time as to why the multitude of third-party
utilities that report CPU usage can be divided into two distinct
groups: those that report LOW values and those that report HIGH values.
(E.g. on my computer when lightly loaded, Process Explorer sees CPU
usage as typically 2-4% while FreeMeter gives it as 50-70%).

Now, I find that within Windows WinMe itself, two utilities are
available which report very dfferent CPU usage numbers. These are
WinTop (subtract the Idle usage from 100% to get the number that Task
Manager reports as CPU usage in the NT OSs) and System Monitor.

Is one more correct than the other or should a different significance
be associated with each?

TIA
Paul

Noel
Tue May 16 05:57:47 CDT 2006

Paul
One of the problems with all these utilities is that they themselves use CPU
time - and some use more than others. Any utility with a graphic interface
is likely to use more CPU time than one without, etc..

The Win ME System Monitor numbers are notoriously buggy, and are probably
best ignored. Wintop (which actually comes from Win95, IIRC) is a better
tool for this.

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
"PaulFXH" <paul_hackett2@yahoo.com.br> wrote in message
news:1147775841.102919.267720@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi
> I've been puzzled for some time as to why the multitude of third-party
> utilities that report CPU usage can be divided into two distinct
> groups: those that report LOW values and those that report HIGH values.
> (E.g. on my computer when lightly loaded, Process Explorer sees CPU
> usage as typically 2-4% while FreeMeter gives it as 50-70%).
>
> Now, I find that within Windows WinMe itself, two utilities are
> available which report very dfferent CPU usage numbers. These are
> WinTop (subtract the Idle usage from 100% to get the number that Task
> Manager reports as CPU usage in the NT OSs) and System Monitor.
>
> Is one more correct than the other or should a different significance
> be associated with each?
>
> TIA
> Paul
>

PaulFXH
Tue May 16 14:18:54 CDT 2006


Noel Paton escreveu:

> Paul
> One of the problems with all these utilities is that they themselves use CPU
> time - and some use more than others. Any utility with a graphic interface
> is likely to use more CPU time than one without, etc..
>
> The Win ME System Monitor numbers are notoriously buggy, and are probably
> best ignored. Wintop (which actually comes from Win95, IIRC) is a better
> tool for this.

Thanks for the reply Noel.
The problem is that there is a whole slew of third-party utilities that
report the same sort of high CPU usages as does System Monitor. These
include PCWizard, SysMon 1.22, FreeMeter, Aida32, Active CPU, TClockEx
and Everest 2.20.405 (the last FreeWare version).
As far as I can gather, the "high" results emanate from (or from the
same source as) the registry key
HKEY_DYN_DATA\PerfStats\StatData\KERNEL\CPUUsage.
Must we conclude, therefore, that all CPU usage information based on
the values in this key are nonsense?
Actually, I don't know if there is a separate registry key that logs
the performance data counter from which the "low" CPU usage utilities
(Process Explorer and WinTop)get their numbers although there is a key
at
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\PerfStats\Enum\KERNEL\CPUUsage]
whose description (% time CPU is not idle) at least fits that which
seems to be associated with the "low" CPU usage readings. However, no
numbers are evident in this key.
Notwithstanding your comments, I still find it very strange that the
WinMe OS (and possibly others as well) at least permit, and possibly
even promote, the reading of two very different values for the current
CPU usage without explanation.
Paul
>
> --
> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)
>
> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
> http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>
> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
> "PaulFXH" <paul_hackett2@yahoo.com.br> wrote in message
> news:1147775841.102919.267720@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Hi
> > I've been puzzled for some time as to why the multitude of third-party
> > utilities that report CPU usage can be divided into two distinct
> > groups: those that report LOW values and those that report HIGH values.
> > (E.g. on my computer when lightly loaded, Process Explorer sees CPU
> > usage as typically 2-4% while FreeMeter gives it as 50-70%).
> >
> > Now, I find that within Windows WinMe itself, two utilities are
> > available which report very dfferent CPU usage numbers. These are
> > WinTop (subtract the Idle usage from 100% to get the number that Task
> > Manager reports as CPU usage in the NT OSs) and System Monitor.
> >
> > Is one more correct than the other or should a different significance
> > be associated with each?
> >
> > TIA
> > Paul
> >

Mike
Tue May 16 14:48:46 CDT 2006

High cpu usage means nothing without you providing details as to what is
using the cpu cycles. If none of the products you have used to date do
that then download and use WinTop as has already been suggested by Noel
Paton.

For example I have a PC with an AMD64 x2 4400+ processor and the cpu usage
is wavering between 95 and 100% but that isn't a problem as I'm currently
encoding two large video files and this will use virtually all of the
available cpu cycles for the next few hours.

> Notwithstanding your comments, I still find it very strange that the
> WinMe OS (and possibly others as well) at least permit, and possibly
> even promote, the reading of two very different values for the current
> CPU usage without explanation.

Not strange at all when one only tells half of the story. You need to
establish what is using those cpu cycles.
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby@gmail.com


PaulFXH <paul_hackett2@yahoo.com.br> wrote:

> Thanks for the reply Noel.
> The problem is that there is a whole slew of third-party utilities
> that report the same sort of high CPU usages as does System Monitor.
> These include PCWizard, SysMon 1.22, FreeMeter, Aida32, Active CPU,
> TClockEx and Everest 2.20.405 (the last FreeWare version).
> As far as I can gather, the "high" results emanate from (or from the
> same source as) the registry key
> HKEY_DYN_DATA\PerfStats\StatData\KERNEL\CPUUsage.
> Must we conclude, therefore, that all CPU usage information based on
> the values in this key are nonsense?
> Actually, I don't know if there is a separate registry key that logs
> the performance data counter from which the "low" CPU usage utilities
> (Process Explorer and WinTop)get their numbers although there is a key
> at
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\PerfStats\Enum\KERNEL\CPUUsage]
> whose description (% time CPU is not idle) at least fits that which
> seems to be associated with the "low" CPU usage readings. However, no
> numbers are evident in this key.
> Notwithstanding your comments, I still find it very strange that the
> WinMe OS (and possibly others as well) at least permit, and possibly
> even promote, the reading of two very different values for the current
> CPU usage without explanation.

PaulFXH
Tue May 16 15:20:16 CDT 2006


Mike M escreveu:

> High cpu usage means nothing without you providing details as to what is
> using the cpu cycles. If none of the products you have used to date do
> that then download and use WinTop as has already been suggested by Noel
> Paton.

Hi Mike,
Sorry if this wasn't clear to you but when I refer to HIGH and LOW CPU
usage, I'm talking about SIMULTANEOUS readings from a variety of CPU
Usage utilities.
For example, if I run BOTH Process Explorer and FreeMeter (while my
computer is lightly loaded), while Process Explorer will read typically
2-4% CPU Usage, FreeMeter will read in the region of 50-70% CPU
Usage----at the same time, under necessarily the exact same conditions.
Now, while Process Explorer does list the currently running processes
and the CPU time being consumed by each, NONE of the utilities I
mentioned which indicate HIGH CPU Usages provide this information. For
this reason, it is not possible to say what is consuming the CPU time.
I have actually been using WinTop for some time.
What is interesting is that the two utilities that I use on this
computer which indicate LOW CPU usage figures, both provide details of
the contribution of the running processes to the CPU usage.
Of the 6 or 7 CPU utilities that I have used on this computer which
indicate HIGH CPU usage numbers, NONE provide any information
whatsoever WRT running processes.
This strongly suggests two different measurement techniques for CPU
usage on the same computer.
Further details on possible explanations for this difference are
provided in my previous post.

>
> For example I have a PC with an AMD64 x2 4400+ processor and the cpu usage
> is wavering between 95 and 100% but that isn't a problem as I'm currently
> encoding two large video files and this will use virtually all of the
> available cpu cycles for the next few hours.
>
> > Notwithstanding your comments, I still find it very strange that the
> > WinMe OS (and possibly others as well) at least permit, and possibly
> > even promote, the reading of two very different values for the current
> > CPU usage without explanation.
>
> Not strange at all when one only tells half of the story. You need to
> establish what is using those cpu cycles.

I hope the "whole" story is a little clearer now and that perhaps you
agree with me about its strangeness.

TIA
Paul


> --
> Mike Maltby
> mike.maltby@gmail.com
>
>
> PaulFXH <paul_hackett2@yahoo.com.br> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the reply Noel.
> > The problem is that there is a whole slew of third-party utilities
> > that report the same sort of high CPU usages as does System Monitor.
> > These include PCWizard, SysMon 1.22, FreeMeter, Aida32, Active CPU,
> > TClockEx and Everest 2.20.405 (the last FreeWare version).
> > As far as I can gather, the "high" results emanate from (or from the
> > same source as) the registry key
> > HKEY_DYN_DATA\PerfStats\StatData\KERNEL\CPUUsage.
> > Must we conclude, therefore, that all CPU usage information based on
> > the values in this key are nonsense?
> > Actually, I don't know if there is a separate registry key that logs
> > the performance data counter from which the "low" CPU usage utilities
> > (Process Explorer and WinTop)get their numbers although there is a key
> > at
> > [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\PerfStats\Enum\KERNEL\CPUUsage]
> > whose description (% time CPU is not idle) at least fits that which
> > seems to be associated with the "low" CPU usage readings. However, no
> > numbers are evident in this key.
> > Notwithstanding your comments, I still find it very strange that the
> > WinMe OS (and possibly others as well) at least permit, and possibly
> > even promote, the reading of two very different values for the current
> > CPU usage without explanation.

Mike
Tue May 16 15:51:19 CDT 2006

IMO all readings are 100% meaningless unless accompanied by details of the
processes involved. Knowing the processes the question answers itself.

> Of the 6 or 7 CPU utilities that I have used on this computer which
> indicate HIGH CPU usage numbers, NONE provide any information
> whatsoever WRT running processes.

Which just goes to show how useless these 6 or 7 utilities are. Discard
all that produce unsupported cpu usage without information about the
running processes. For all one knows they are including the system idle
time.

> agree with me about its strangeness.

Not really. I could write a process call it a cpu monitor and let it
output random numbers between 0 and 100 with a % symbol. Perhaps that is
all the writers of those 6 or 7 utilities have done.
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby@gmail.com


PaulFXH <paul_hackett2@yahoo.com.br> wrote:

> Mike M escreveu:
>
>> High cpu usage means nothing without you providing details as to
>> what is using the cpu cycles. If none of the products you have used
>> to date do that then download and use WinTop as has already been
>> suggested by Noel Paton.
>
> Hi Mike,
> Sorry if this wasn't clear to you but when I refer to HIGH and LOW CPU
> usage, I'm talking about SIMULTANEOUS readings from a variety of CPU
> Usage utilities.
> For example, if I run BOTH Process Explorer and FreeMeter (while my
> computer is lightly loaded), while Process Explorer will read
> typically 2-4% CPU Usage, FreeMeter will read in the region of 50-70%
> CPU Usage----at the same time, under necessarily the exact same
> conditions. Now, while Process Explorer does list the currently
> running processes and the CPU time being consumed by each, NONE of
> the utilities I mentioned which indicate HIGH CPU Usages provide this
> information. For this reason, it is not possible to say what is
> consuming the CPU time. I have actually been using WinTop for some
> time.
> What is interesting is that the two utilities that I use on this
> computer which indicate LOW CPU usage figures, both provide details of
> the contribution of the running processes to the CPU usage.
> Of the 6 or 7 CPU utilities that I have used on this computer which
> indicate HIGH CPU usage numbers, NONE provide any information
> whatsoever WRT running processes.
> This strongly suggests two different measurement techniques for CPU
> usage on the same computer.
> Further details on possible explanations for this difference are
> provided in my previous post.

PaulFXH
Tue May 16 20:30:34 CDT 2006


Mike M escreveu:

> IMO all readings are 100% meaningless unless accompanied by details of the
> processes involved. Knowing the processes the question answers itself.
>
> > Of the 6 or 7 CPU utilities that I have used on this computer which
> > indicate HIGH CPU usage numbers, NONE provide any information
> > whatsoever WRT running processes.
>
> Which just goes to show how useless these 6 or 7 utilities are. Discard
> all that produce unsupported cpu usage without information about the
> running processes. For all one knows they are including the system idle
> time.
>
> > agree with me about its strangeness.
>
> Not really. I could write a process call it a cpu monitor and let it
> output random numbers between 0 and 100 with a % symbol. Perhaps that is
> all the writers of those 6 or 7 utilities have done.

C'mon. Wouldn't you be somewhat surprised to learn that MS had tried to
fool the world by setting up System Monitor (this is one of the 6 or 7)
with a RNG masquerading as a measure of CPU usage?
Anyway, thanks for your input Mike
Paul

> --
> Mike Maltby
> mike.maltby@gmail.com
>
>
> PaulFXH <paul_hackett2@yahoo.com.br> wrote:
>
> > Mike M escreveu:
> >
> >> High cpu usage means nothing without you providing details as to
> >> what is using the cpu cycles. If none of the products you have used
> >> to date do that then download and use WinTop as has already been
> >> suggested by Noel Paton.
> >
> > Hi Mike,
> > Sorry if this wasn't clear to you but when I refer to HIGH and LOW CPU
> > usage, I'm talking about SIMULTANEOUS readings from a variety of CPU
> > Usage utilities.
> > For example, if I run BOTH Process Explorer and FreeMeter (while my
> > computer is lightly loaded), while Process Explorer will read
> > typically 2-4% CPU Usage, FreeMeter will read in the region of 50-70%
> > CPU Usage----at the same time, under necessarily the exact same
> > conditions. Now, while Process Explorer does list the currently
> > running processes and the CPU time being consumed by each, NONE of
> > the utilities I mentioned which indicate HIGH CPU Usages provide this
> > information. For this reason, it is not possible to say what is
> > consuming the CPU time. I have actually been using WinTop for some
> > time.
> > What is interesting is that the two utilities that I use on this
> > computer which indicate LOW CPU usage figures, both provide details of
> > the contribution of the running processes to the CPU usage.
> > Of the 6 or 7 CPU utilities that I have used on this computer which
> > indicate HIGH CPU usage numbers, NONE provide any information
> > whatsoever WRT running processes.
> > This strongly suggests two different measurement techniques for CPU
> > usage on the same computer.
> > Further details on possible explanations for this difference are
> > provided in my previous post.

Mike
Wed May 17 02:47:58 CDT 2006

> C'mon. Wouldn't you be somewhat surprised to learn that MS had tried
> to fool the world by setting up System Monitor

Come on now how about taking a reality pill or twenty? You have been
repeatedly told that sysmon in Win Me has a faulty algorithm but for some
inexplicable reason known only to yourself seem quite unable to accept or
understand this and have continued to post. To myself it is yourself that
might appear to have a problem not that Microsoft has tried to fool
anyone.
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby@gmail.com


PaulFXH <paul_hackett2@yahoo.com.br> wrote:

> Mike M escreveu:
> C'mon. Wouldn't you be somewhat surprised to learn that MS had tried
> to fool the world by setting up System Monitor (this is one of the 6
> or 7) with a RNG masquerading as a measure of CPU usage?
> Anyway, thanks for your input Mike

PaulFXH
Wed May 17 04:57:33 CDT 2006


Mike M escreveu:

> > C'mon. Wouldn't you be somewhat surprised to learn that MS had tried
> > to fool the world by setting up System Monitor
>
> Come on now how about taking a reality pill or twenty? You have been
> repeatedly told that sysmon in Win Me has a faulty algorithm but for some
> inexplicable reason known only to yourself seem quite unable to accept or
> understand this and have continued to post. To myself it is yourself that
> might appear to have a problem not that Microsoft has tried to fool
> anyone.

Hi Mike
Thank you for your observations.

However, while your concern about my mental well-being is welcome, you
will be glad to learn that it is quite unnecessary at this point in
time.
When you have a spare moment, perhaps you might care to ponder over the
difference between a "faulty algorithm" and what is implied in this
earlier remark of yours:
"I could write a process call it a cpu monitor and let it
output random numbers between 0 and 100 with a % symbol. Perhaps that
is
all the writers of those 6 or 7 utilities have done."

Have a great day,
Paul

> --
> Mike Maltby
> mike.maltby@gmail.com
>
>
> PaulFXH <paul_hackett2@yahoo.com.br> wrote:
>
> > Mike M escreveu:
> > C'mon. Wouldn't you be somewhat surprised to learn that MS had tried
> > to fool the world by setting up System Monitor (this is one of the 6
> > or 7) with a RNG masquerading as a measure of CPU usage?
> > Anyway, thanks for your input Mike