# How many processes do you have running?



## Runefox (Aug 23, 2010)

So, I'm pretty intense when it comes to trying to minimize the amount of wasted CPU cycles on my machine, and I got to wondering just now when thinking about what the average numbers might be - What does everyone else's Task Manager process list look like (or the equivalent for whichever distro of *NIX/OS X you're running)?

Here's mine (Win7 Ultimate):







Pidgin, Steam, Skype, and Task Manager are all launched after startup, Wacom takes 3 processes for itself, and then there's Avast, the Sidebar, KatMouse, ATI Tray Tools, Hamachi, AltDrag and Prio, all of which could also be disabled (but I don't want to >=|) for a total of about 25 processes.

What's everyone else's look like?

EDIT: (Ubuntu laptop, more or less default): 176


----------



## Joeyyy (Aug 23, 2010)

I have 45 processes.  some that look pointless.


----------



## Zenia (Aug 23, 2010)

lol Photoshop is using so much memory... then again, my current file is 2400x3400 at 300dpi.


----------



## Pine (Aug 23, 2010)

this is without Google Chrome running. When it does run it has about 5 or 6 extra processes

Steam and my keyboard seem to be using a good majority of it


----------



## Willow (Aug 23, 2010)

It says I have 90, though I'm pretty sure it's from running all 9 of my Firefox tabs, though CPU usage fluctuates between 20% and 30%.

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/3668/cpuk.png

I also have a bunch of pictures and files I need to clear out.


----------



## Alstor (Aug 23, 2010)

The program goes down too long, so I'll say that I'm running 91 processes.

:\


----------



## FancySkunk (Aug 23, 2010)

http://i36.tinypic.com/i2rsar.png

118 processes, using 13% of my CPU's capacity.

Also, lol censoring my name.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 23, 2010)

Whoa, really? To the people with 90+ processes, are your computers sluggish? o__O


----------



## FancySkunk (Aug 23, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Whoa, really? To the people with 90+ processes, are your computers sluggish? o__O


Mine is only sluggish on rare occasions. I can, and have, run multiple tabs of FireFox, a couple mIRC windows, AIM, iTunes, and Photoshop without issue. Also this thing pretty much runs 24/7. I'll only shut it down if I have to do updates, or if I have to travel to/from school with it. It's all about the RAM.


----------



## Leafblower29 (Aug 23, 2010)

At idle I have 68 at least and usually no more than 90.


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 23, 2010)

*arielmt@cleos-cat:~$ ps aux | wc -l
189
*


----------



## Velystord (Aug 24, 2010)

65 processes 
2% cpu usage
77% physical mem 
gta 4 running 
and 12 firefox tabs running


----------



## Boom (Aug 24, 2010)

96. Only one copy of Maya running for once!


----------



## Willow (Aug 24, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Whoa, really? To the people with 90+ processes, are your computers sluggish? o__O


 Surprisingly no, not really. 

I don't know how to get rid of some of the processes though if that really is the case. I just don't wanna mess up my computer. 
(right now I have like 87)


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 24, 2010)

74 processes running right now. That's about average for me.


----------



## Boom (Aug 24, 2010)

Oh, missed that. No, my computer is not sluggish. The only time my computer gets sluggish is during a render. Which isn't a real shocker.


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Aug 24, 2010)

Processes 98
CPU usage 7%
Physical memory 44%


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 24, 2010)

Forgot to show CPU usage, etc.

*arielmt@cleos-cat:~$ ps aux | wc -l
189
arielmt@cleos-cat:~$ uptime
 23:23:59 up 13 days, 15:50,  4 users,  load average: 0.62, 0.62, 0.59

arielmt@tinkerbell:~$ ps aux | wc -l
154
arielmt@tinkerbell:~$ uptime
 23:28:26 up  6:26,  2 users,  load average: 0.39, 0.53, 0.59*


----------



## Leafblower29 (Aug 24, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> Forgot to show CPU usage, etc.
> 
> *arielmt@cleos-cat:~$ ps aux | wc -l
> 189
> ...


 
You use linux?


----------



## Lapdog (Aug 24, 2010)

Meh, I've not had Win 7 for long, so right now there's only a few...


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 24, 2010)

Well that depends on when and what conditions. :/  I think if you want an accurate idea of what's going on or not, you need to take that measurement after logging in, before running any other applications.  On my Work Linux laptop, that's 152 just sitting in the desktop.

On a Windows XP Virtual machine, I have 21 processes running after login (2 of which are specifically for the VM).

For those that might be curious as to why Linux/Unix seem to have a crap ton more processes it's because Windows and *nix handle them in a bit of a different way.  In Linux/Unix, EVERYTHING is a process, no matter how simple or tiny the program may be.  In Windows, a great number of system-level processes are executed as a sub-system of a few visible processes.  For example, svchost.exe (which you'll see a few instances of in the Task Manager) is the most common service-host process, hence it's name.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 24, 2010)

right now 58 including the taskmanager itself and MSN which is not running at all times.






my system is idling at 0% CPU usage and about 1/3 of my 4gb memory


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 24, 2010)

Dang... now, I know Windows 7 is going to probably have more than XP in general, but wow... more than 30 to me in Windows seems a terribly large number.  I need to find a copy of Windows 7 to install and test to see if I can get it tuned down... only no one runs it at work. :/


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 24, 2010)

ToeClaws said:


> Dang... now, I know Windows 7 is going to probably have more than XP in general, but wow... more than 30 to me in Windows seems a terribly large number.  I need to find a copy of Windows 7 to install and test to see if I can get it tuned down... only no one runs it at work. :/


 
if i wanted to there are probably about 10 processes that i could switch off. but yeah, it IS a lot! i remember having about 39 processes on XP all the time.

memory usage is still kinda OK though in my opinion. i think its about the same in my case. its using a little bit more of course because of superfetch


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 24, 2010)

CaptainCool said:


> if i wanted to there are probably about 10 processes that i could switch off. but yeah, it IS a lot! i remember having about 39 processes on XP all the time.


 
I know!  Right now on my work system, I have a ton of apps opened - firefox, thunderbird, chromium (with 6 tabs), teraterm, in-house java apps, keynote and some putty SSH clients: even with all that, I total 40 processes.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 24, 2010)

ToeClaws said:


> I know!  Right now on my work system, I have a ton of apps opened - firefox, thunderbird, chromium (with 6 tabs), teraterm, in-house java apps, keynote and some putty SSH clients: even with all that, I total 40 processes.


 
i just checked, i could nuke about 13 threads. like bluetooth and all that. but even then id be at 45 tasks...
but since the memory usage is still about the same i think that windows 7 just spreads the whole thing up into more processes and adds a few features here and there. its still about the same. and my system is running pretty well so i dont really care  im at about 0% CPU usage all the time and i have enough free memory availabe so its a-ok^^
i just need to defragment my hard drive again... SSDs HATE free space fragmentation, i need to get rid of that fairly regularly or i notice pretty big speed drops >_> but once thats done its just as fast as it was on the first day^^


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 24, 2010)

I think Windows (whether they want to admit it or not) is drifting back more to a Unix-like model in the way they're doing things.  I'd not be surprised if they're trying to spawn processes more separate again rather than a ton of sub-processes under a single process's ownership.  Also, as newer versions of Windows come out, it's not uncommon for there being more processes.  Even XP has more until you tweak and tune it, shutting down the unnecessary ones.

And ouch with the SSD fragmentation - some of them have their own software to try and intelligently limit fragmentation on the writes and maximize the life of the memory, but many don't. :/  Hopefully it's not too bad - constant defrags are really hard on SSDs.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 24, 2010)

ToeClaws said:


> I think Windows (whether they want to admit it or not) is drifting back more to a Unix-like model in the way they're doing things.  I'd not be surprised if they're trying to spawn processes more separate again rather than a ton of sub-processes under a single process's ownership.  Also, as newer versions of Windows come out, it's not uncommon for there being more processes.  Even XP has more until you tweak and tune it, shutting down the unnecessary ones.
> 
> And ouch with the SSD fragmentation - some of them have their own software to try and intelligently limit fragmentation on the writes and maximize the life of the memory, but many don't. :/  Hopefully it's not too bad - constant defrags are really hard on SSDs.


 
yeah, i think you are right. it kinda does look like it! and id really prefer that. it looks a little more crowded that way but at least i know exactly whats going on with my system^^

and its not too bad with my SSD. with 32gb its a very small drive so it never takes THAT long to defragment it. and i have a pretty good tool to defragment my drives, perfect disc 10 is doing a great job!
i just forgot to do it since august 9th so the drive map looks... colorful^^;


----------



## Runefox (Aug 24, 2010)

I had the feeling that fragmentation on SSD's wasn't a big deal; Defrags will eventually wreak havoc over time, so one would expect an instant "seek" time would mitigate the need for it. And yeah, usually wear-leveling software is included (or firmware-based) to spread out the writes to mitigate early wear.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 24, 2010)

Runefox said:


> I had the feeling that fragmentation on SSD's wasn't a big deal; Defrags will eventually wreak havoc over time, so one would expect an instant "seek" time would mitigate the need for it. And yeah, usually wear-leveling software is included (or firmware-based) to spread out the writes to mitigate early wear.


 
SSDs really dont like free space fragmentation. random reads basically kill the fast readings they are known for and make them crawl...
i never had the experience that defragmenting would wreak havoc over time, like i said, my system is still as fast as it was on the first day^^ at least it feels like it 
and the main reason why i use my defragmenting software is because it can get rid of free-space fragmentation really well. it consolidates free space pretty efficiently. usually i just defragment about once per week and my system is good to go again


----------



## Riley (Aug 24, 2010)

52 processes, 2%-10% CPU usage.  Currently running AIM, 2 Skype windows, Windows Media Player, Steam, and Firefox with 5 tabs.  Those usually stay up when I'm running games as well (minus Firefox and WMP), but my computer only ever reaches around 75-80% CPU usage, not counting spikes for loading times and whatnot.


----------



## LizardKing (Aug 24, 2010)

With Firefox, mIRC and winamp running.


----------



## jayhusky (Aug 24, 2010)

As of this moment.
OS: Windows 7 Home Premium
Processes: 50
CPU Usage: 0-5%
Physical Memory: 57%


----------



## Runefox (Aug 24, 2010)

CaptainCool said:


> i never had the experience that defragmenting would wreak havoc over time, like i said, my system is still as fast as it was on the first day^^ at least it feels like it



Ahh, speed isn't what I'm referring to - Eventually sectors shut down because there's a finite number of write cycles that a flash drive can handle (write operations on flash media are destructive - They damage the media slightly every time. Usually this is in the order of millions of writes, but heavy use, particularly when repeated in the same sectors, can accelerate this - Hence why most SSD's come with wear-leveling software/firmware to spread this out). You'll eventually start to gradually lose usable disk space the more you write to it, and defragmentation is all about the writing.


----------



## Velystord (Aug 24, 2010)

i have seen a few ddr2 drives with up to 64gb of storage but they around 5k but will boot xp in 4 seconds flat
im also apparently a resource whore as i have 4 gb ram and cant seem to get below 39% mem usage and proc sits at around 0%to 3% when idling
55 processes


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 24, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Ahh, speed isn't what I'm referring to - Eventually sectors shut down because there's a finite number of write cycles that a flash drive can handle (write operations on flash media are destructive - They damage the media slightly every time. Usually this is in the order of millions of writes, but heavy use, particularly when repeated in the same sectors, can accelerate this - Hence why most SSD's come with wear-leveling software/firmware to spread this out). You'll eventually start to gradually lose usable disk space the more you write to it, and defragmentation is all about the writing.


 
ohh i see what you mean^^ yeah, that should be a problem. but i had it for less that a year now, i dont think i will have problems any time soon.
its weird though... people say that defragmenting a SSD has no effect at all and only harms it. however, if i defrag my SSD i get a significant speed boost! why is that?


----------



## Velystord (Aug 24, 2010)

CaptainCool said:


> ohh i see what you mean^^ yeah, that should be a problem. but i had it for less that a year now, i dont think i will have problems any time soon.
> its weird though... people say that defragmenting a SSD has no effect at all and only harms it. however, if i defrag my SSD i get a significant speed boost! why is that?


 because its just a bunch of idiots thinking they know something and if you you have ever organized something imagine that like defraging  
it just makes it so it doesnt have to jump from a to c to m and back to a


----------



## SnowFox (Aug 24, 2010)

35 on my windows xp work computer, that's with avg, apache, mysql, openssh server & tightvnc server running (with me currently logged in)

183 on my home computer, with firefox and opera using about 350MB each. And another 150MB if you include the plugin wrapper  :shock:


I used to be really picky with how many processes I had running back when I had a crappy computer. The most I got it down to was about 10, but that was turning off absolutely everything.

I'm not so fussy these days, but I always make a point of checking and clearing out any startup entries whenever I install anything. I even used to make the HK(LM/CU)\software\microsoft\windows\currentversion\run keys read only, but it really pissed me off how many installations report that as being a fatal error, just because it couldn't add it's stupid shit startup processes.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 24, 2010)

Velystord said:


> because its just a bunch of idiots thinking they know something and if you you have ever organized something imagine that like defraging
> it just makes it so it doesnt have to jump from a to c to m and back to a


 
Actually, SSD's are solid state - There's no "jumping" from any point to any point, and the access time is near-instantaneous. In theory, those idiots are correct. My guess is that in this case, the drive controller for the SSD is probably not exactly state of the art, and has issues with addressing non-contiguous files. Which is a big problem when fragmentation happens.



> 183 on my home computer


Jesus.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 24, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Actually, SSD's are solid state - There's no "jumping" from any point to any point, and the access time is near-instantaneous. In theory, those idiots are correct. My guess is that in this case, the drive controller for the SSD is probably not exactly state of the art, and has issues with addressing non-contiguous files. Which is a big problem when fragmentation happens.


 
thats probably the reason. it wasnt that expensive afterall.
i dont really care though. i dont have important files on it, if it dies ill get a new one (probably a regular HDD though, i wont pay a lot for a small drive again that just boots windows in under a minute ). ill try free space consolidation only from now on though, that should limit the amount of writes while maintaining it to a minimum


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 24, 2010)

Hmmm - 145 on the home laptop w/Mint 9, including Firefox and Pidgin.


----------



## Tao (Aug 24, 2010)

52
Google Chrome takes up like 5, then Yahoo, Skype, Punkbuster takes up 2 , my camera's memory card thing, my webcam, steam, and DropBox. And random stuff I don't dare end =\


----------



## Mordin_Solus (Aug 24, 2010)

Management of threads inefficient; current outcome laughable. Quantum entanglement would allow theoretically instantaneous instruction cycle time, multiplying computing power to infinity. Actual electronics manufacturing methods require revision.


----------



## Waffles (Aug 24, 2010)

69....
MEEP.


----------



## Velystord (Aug 24, 2010)

Mordin_Solus said:


> Management of threads inefficient; current outcome laughable. Quantum entanglement would allow theoretically instantaneous instruction cycle time, multiplying computing power to infinity. Actual electronics manufacturing methods require revision.


 lol nice job sounds just like him

also why would defragin damage a ssd out of normal use intel rates theres for over 1 million writes so it seem if all defraging is doing is moving all the data closer to its other files then with an ssd is would just organize the data and use up some of those writes


----------



## Nineteen-TwentySeven (Aug 25, 2010)

Total: 78 Processes, not a hitch. 
Here, let's start up all my adobe applications, 94 processes not a problem. 
Microsoft office: 101 process, breezing right through. 
iTunes and System Preferences: 103 processes and still no problem. 
Fire up Steam and my entire dock is running with 107 processes and power to spare.
Went and fired up a bunch of random shit and got to 122 processes, and then ran out of shit to start.

That, my fuzzy friends, is the power of a Macintosh.


----------



## Velystord (Aug 25, 2010)

started everything on my desktop including all games and running about 80% cpu and 80% mem   and stuff like winrar
its fun to tax a system sometimes   im gonna run prime 95


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 25, 2010)

Velystord said:


> lol nice job sounds just like him
> 
> also why would defragin damage a ssd out of normal use intel rates theres for over 1 million writes so it seem if all defraging is doing is moving all the data closer to its other files then with an ssd is would just organize the data and use up some of those writes


 
defragmenting your drive needs a LOT of writes. it really is a bad idea if you think about it. i just didnt know that before >_> thats why ill just consolidate free space from now on, that shouldnt be as intense


----------



## LLiz (Aug 25, 2010)

Wow... looks like I win with all my 116 processes currently running 
Also, with Pidgin and Firefox as the only applications currently running. I think that it I always sleep my computer... never shut it down, so that might explain the high process count.


----------



## Leafblower29 (Aug 25, 2010)

CaptainCool said:


> yeah, i think you are right. it kinda does look like it! and id really prefer that. it looks a little more crowded that way but at least i know exactly whats going on with my system^^
> 
> and its not too bad with my SSD. with 32gb its a very small drive so it never takes THAT long to defragment it. and i have a pretty good tool to defragment my drives, perfect disc 10 is doing a great job!
> i just forgot to do it since august 9th so the drive map looks... colorful^^;


 
You aren't supposed to defrag SSDs.


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 25, 2010)

Californian_Calico said:


> ...That, my fuzzy friends, is the power of a Macintosh.



Technically, the power of good hardware paired with an OS that has a BSD Unix core - not surprising.


----------



## LLiz (Aug 25, 2010)

ToeClaws said:


> Technically, the power of good hardware paired with an OS that has a BSD Unix core - not surprising.


 
Yeah, although all filesystems become fragmented eventually, even those who claim not to fragment... I think Windows is still worst though


----------



## TreacleFox (Aug 25, 2010)

Over 9000. :V


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 25, 2010)

LLiz said:


> Yeah, although all filesystems become fragmented eventually, even those who claim not to fragment... I think Windows is still worst though


 
*nods* Agreed.  And it's just the nature of the design - NTFS is a not a journaling file system.  The more the file system is designed to "think before acting", the less it will fragment.  NTFS is a fast file system, but it really doesn't think much about the placement of things in on-going operation.   It'd be like having a secretary in an office who circles the area on a Segway at full speed and launches your paperwork at your desk with a mounted potato gun.


----------



## Leafblower29 (Aug 25, 2010)

This was as low as I could go.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 25, 2010)

Leafblower29 said:


> You aren't supposed to defrag SSDs.


 
well yeah, i know that now, too :V thanks anyway^^

man, i always thought im pretty tech-savvy... but ever since i registered here i feel like a total noob again! XD


----------



## CyberFoxx (Aug 25, 2010)

Machine: sally
OS: Server 2008
Role: Desktop
Processes: 62
CPU Usage: 4%
Swap usage: 1460MB/5208MB
Physical RAM used: 801MB/2048MB

Machine: shinobu
OS: Gentoo Linux
Role: Secondary Desktop
Processes: 107
Load average: 0.43, 0.41, 0.27
Swap used: 65MB/1025MB
Physical RAM used: 717MB/755MB

Machine: shodan
OS: Gentoo Linux
Role: General Server
Processes: 119
Load average: 0.00, 0.02, 0.07
Swap used: 0MB/1025MB
Physical RAM used: 955MB/1009MB

Machine: oni
OS: Gentoo Linux
Role: Firewall/Gateway/Proxy
Processes: 94
Load avg: 0.00, 0.02, 0.00
Swap used: 50MB/1045MB
Physical RAM used: 224MB/240MB


----------



## SnowFox (Aug 25, 2010)

Runefox said:


> SnowFox said:
> 
> 
> > 183 on my home computer
> ...


 
That one was on linux!


----------



## LLiz (Aug 27, 2010)

ToeClaws said:


> *nods* Agreed.  And it's just the nature of the design - NTFS is a not a journaling file system.  The more the file system is designed to "think before acting", the less it will fragment.  NTFS is a fast file system, but it really doesn't think much about the placement of things in on-going operation.   It'd be like having a secretary in an office who circles the area on a Segway at full speed and launches your paperwork at your desk with a mounted potato gun.


 
This thread combined with an email promoting a Ultimate Defrag made me decide to download and try it. 
I've had this computer for 4 months, I've installed / uninstalled and done a lot of filesystem stuff and I have never defraged C:\ yet it was only 7.6% fragmented. 

I was really surprised, I expected at least 50% fragmentation.


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 27, 2010)

LLiz said:


> This thread combined with an email promoting a Ultimate Defrag made me decide to download and try it.
> I've had this computer for 4 months, I've installed / uninstalled and done a lot of filesystem stuff and I have never defraged C:\ yet it was only 7.6% fragmented.
> 
> I was really surprised, I expected at least 50% fragmentation.



Actually, 7.6% is pretty bad.  Remember that the seriousness of fragmentation directly corresponds to which files are fragmented.  Often, the files that get the most broken up are the ones that are the most used.  For example, let's say you got a 250g  drive.  So you got say 200g of that full, and the bulk of that are videos and music.  Well, 7.6% of the whole is 19 gigs of fragmented files!  Those files aren't going to be the video and music stuff - it's going to be the files that are being pulled and written back to the drive all the time, like those used by the OS, games, and your favourite applications.  If those applications are what you use most of the time, then the fragmentation of your drive is always going to be affecting performance.  

Given the immense size of today's drives, anything over 1% is actually quite fragmented, since the fragmentation is nearly always affecting the files on the drive that you utilize the most.  Defragging your drives is a great habit to get into - just once a week will keep most systems very organized.


----------



## Velystord (Aug 27, 2010)

I didn't know but apparently mine is set to defrag every week on Wednesday at 1:00am


----------



## Nineteen-TwentySeven (Aug 27, 2010)

Most often my PCs don't have the same OS on them long enough to significantly fragment. And contrary to popular belief, Macs do get fragmented. Which reminds me, it's probably time to do that again.

Apparently I have 4,505 processes running on this Linux Netbook. I think I'm doing it wrong...


----------



## Velystord (Aug 27, 2010)

Californian_Calico said:


> Most often my PCs don't have the same OS on them long enough to significantly fragment. And contrary to popular belief, Macs do get fragmented. Which reminds me, it's probably time to do that again.
> 
> Apparently I have 4,505 processes running on this Linux Netbook. I think I'm doing it wrong...


 Some sore of sub process group?


----------



## Tao (Aug 27, 2010)

Steam is suddenly taking up 99,000K of memory. Anyone else getting it? :I


----------



## Runefox (Aug 27, 2010)

Tao said:


> Steam is suddenly taking up 99,000K of memory. Anyone else getting it? :I


 
Steam regularly sucks up a lot of memory for me when it's in Large Mode (>100MB). When it's in Small Mode, it sips a cool 24MB. Good thing I prefer Small Mode.


----------



## Nineteen-TwentySeven (Aug 27, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Steam regularly sucks up a lot of memory for me when it's in Large Mode (>100MB). When it's in Small Mode, it sips a cool 24MB. Good thing I prefer Small Mode.


 
IMO large mode is just intrusive. I usually leave mine in small mode and launch stuff from the start menu. (We're talking about the same thing I assume)


----------



## Runefox (Aug 27, 2010)

Californian_Calico said:


> IMO large mode is just intrusive. I usually leave mine in small mode and launch stuff from the start menu. (We're talking about the same thing I assume)


 
Yeah, though in Small Mode I just tuck it in the far side of my desktop and use it for all my game-launching needs.


----------



## Riv (Aug 27, 2010)

I'm running OSX.

Right now... about 70 processes and 350 threads. All of them together are using less than %10 of a 2.40 gHz i5.

At least 8 of the processes are custom installed, and then there are four apps open right now. I presume that most of the others are default at startup.

Edit: Steam runs about 140 mb here, but I never leave it open unless I'm actually playing a game... I can open them much faster through spotlight anyway.


----------



## Leafblower29 (Aug 27, 2010)

Hmm I rely heavily on Steam and it only uses 35Mb.


----------



## Lapdog (Aug 28, 2010)

My steam is open ALL the time, and it sucks up about 13 MB when i'm not doing anything with it, however, when i'm in a chat with someone it chews up about 34 MB, and when i'm in-game, about 100 MB, but then there is the game overlay, another 30 MB down, and then the actual game... so yeah. I need more than 2 GB of RAM.


----------



## Nineteen-TwentySeven (Aug 28, 2010)

Lapdog said:


> so yeah. I need more than 2 GB of RAM.


 
Since the advent of DDR3, DDR2s gotten really cheap. I picked up two used kits of 2x1GB DDR2-1066 for less than $100, one kit retailed new for $120.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 28, 2010)

Californian_Calico: Sure you don't mean 2x2GB? Because the 2x1GB kits are half that, even in Canadian dollars.


----------



## Nineteen-TwentySeven (Aug 28, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Californian_Calico: Sure you don't mean 2x2GB? Because the 2x1GB kits are half that, even in Canadian dollars.


 
 No, I actually did mean 2x1GB. 2x2GB are still quite expensive for me.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 28, 2010)

Californian_Calico said:


> No, I actually did mean 2x1GB. 2x2GB are still quite expensive for me.


 
Don't shop at Best Buy. They aren't a computer store.

EDIT: Actually, Best Buy has them for $90, too. They also price match against online retailers - Or, at least, the Canadian Best Buys do.


----------



## Nineteen-TwentySeven (Aug 28, 2010)

I actually got them used on Amazon. $40 per kit. I was on a fairly limited budget.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 28, 2010)

Californian_Calico said:


> I actually got them used on Amazon. $40 per kit. I was on a fairly limited budget.



Amazon seems to have a number of options in new memory kits in around that range. >_> ... When did you buy that?

Though I think I misunderstood what you meant - You meant under $100 total, not each. That makes a lot more sense.  You meant that they retailed, in total, $120, not each. Right? XD Still, the 2x2GB kits are around that much.


----------



## Bundi (Aug 29, 2010)

Processes:39
CPU Usage: Right now isn't going much higher than 15%. I have a virus scan, Firefox, and Steam running.
I'm using Windows XP.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Aug 29, 2010)

Running 84 processes.  :3

About 15% CPU usage.


----------



## greg-the-fox (Aug 29, 2010)

I have no fucking clue how to check this on a Mac. I only have Firefox and iTunes open though


----------



## CynicalCirno (Aug 29, 2010)

greg-the-fox said:


> I have no fucking clue how to check this on a Mac. I only have Firefox and iTunes open though


 
Only fgts run Mac computers with Mac OS.

Get a Mac with windows, seriously, Mac OS can't run anything anyway, especially not exe.

At the moment I have 59 running, but usually I have either more or less.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 29, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> Only fgts run Mac computers with Mac OS.
> 
> Get a Mac with windows, seriously, Mac OS can't run anything anyway, especially not exe.
> 
> At the moment I have 59 running, but usually I have either more or less.


 
ya know, i think he knows why he wants to run mac OS :B


----------



## Nineteen-TwentySeven (Aug 29, 2010)

When was the last time you touched a Mac? 1997?


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 29, 2010)

Californian_Calico said:


> When was the last time you touched a Mac? 1997?


 
nope, about a week ago


----------



## Sam (Aug 29, 2010)

I'm running 42 atm. :O


http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i57/Adamchiz1/Untitled-6.png


----------



## Sabre_Kodi (Aug 29, 2010)

Total processes: 75
CPU Usage: 15%
Physical Memory: 35%
Highest Process: chrome.exe 8%.


----------



## Leafblower29 (Aug 29, 2010)

Californian_Calico said:


> When was the last time you touched a Mac? 1997?


 
I must say modern Macs are terrible but back in the day Macs were freaking sweet.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 30, 2010)

reformated my PC today and got myself a samsung spinpoint F3 for my system (made a 100gb partition for windows).
i have 52 tasks running now, including firefox, the KMPlayer and the taskmanager itself


----------



## Draconas (Sep 9, 2010)

normally firefox uses 30% cpu and my western digital drive 80%


----------



## Kivaari (Sep 9, 2010)

Processes: 45 (With 14 Google Chrome tabs open)
CPU Usage: 20% (Usually a bit higher)
Memory: 35.7%

Running Xubuntu 9.10 on a netbook.


----------



## Runefox (Sep 9, 2010)

Draconas said:


> normally firefox uses 30% cpu and *my western digital drive 80%*


 
... What? o__O;


----------



## Nineteen-TwentySeven (Sep 9, 2010)

Draconas said:


> normally firefox uses 30% cpu and my western digital drive 80%


 
Solution: Stop using failfox.


----------



## Fenrir Lupus (Sep 9, 2010)

Well, on my macbook pro with Safari, iChat, openoffice, mail, activity monitor, steam, dashboard, system preferences, firefox, quicktime, chess, ventrilo, iphoto, itunes, ical, sixtyforce, seashore and gimp running...  that'll be a grand total of 85 processes, 357 threads, and I still have some free memory...

Yeah, I just went into my applications folder and opened a bunch of crap.  CPU usage is lower than 10 percent.


You must be doing something wrong to get over 90 processes.


----------



## Saintversa (Sep 9, 2010)

57

=P


----------



## Draconas (Sep 9, 2010)

Runefox said:


> ... What? o__O;


 
external drive.... meaning special drivers, and it comes with "smartware" supposed to backup shit, it'll spike when it copies stuff over


----------



## Draconas (Sep 9, 2010)

Californian_Calico said:


> Solution: Stop using failfox.


 
opera: not compatable with xmarks
chrome: 1 process per tab, and really sucks with live feeds and bookmarks.


----------



## Saintversa (Sep 9, 2010)

chrome is grand.

i <3 chrome. :3


----------



## Runefox (Sep 9, 2010)

Draconas said:


> chrome: 1 process per tab, and really sucks with live feeds and bookmarks.



One process per tab is actually a very good thing both for security and for stability - One tab can't easily access another's data, and if one crashes, it doesn't destroy the whole browsing session. Firefox is headed in this direction as well, and Safari I believe has already followed suit.

As for live feeds as bookmarks: Foxish live RSS seeks to fix that. Also, Xmarks is supported as well.

Also, if the CPU usage of that WD software is high when you plug the drive in, I'd be concerned.


----------



## Draconas (Sep 10, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Also, if the CPU usage of that WD software is high when you plug the drive in, I'd be concerned.


 
file manager, shadow copy, file retriever, drive diagnostics, drive security manager. all runs on the smartware process, not suprised it spikes when it does anything


----------



## Fenrir Lupus (Sep 13, 2010)

Saintversa said:


> chrome is grand.
> 
> i <3 chrome. :3


 
Chrome is made with apple's webkit.

It's google's safari 
[whichever one is currently the fastest browser doesn't really matter much...  they're around the same speed, so just use the one that works better for you.]


----------



## Runefox (Sep 13, 2010)

Fenrir Lupus said:


> Chrome is made with apple's webkit.
> 
> It's google's safari



And Webkit was forked from KHTML. So really, Safari is Apple's Konqueror.


----------



## Riley (Sep 14, 2010)

Californian_Calico said:


> Total: 78 Processes, not a hitch.
> Here, let's start up all my adobe applications, 94 processes not a problem.
> Microsoft office: 101 process, breezing right through.
> iTunes and System Preferences: 103 processes and still no problem.
> ...



This prompted me to do a test to see how many memory-intensive programs I could have running.

In no particular order:
Photoshop
After Effects
Flash
Blender
Minecraft
Minecraft Server
Unreal Tournament
Unreal Tournament 2004
Unreal Tournament 2004 Editor
Call of Duty 4
City of Heroes (connected to a full server, even)
A Windows Media Player that's been open for a few days

 I've also got Skype, AIM, Steam, FF, IE, notepad (hurr), Sculptris, OpenOffice, Jazz Jackrabbit 2, Stair Dismount, VLC media player, Textpad, and Solitaire running.

Those plus other things that were already running give me 92 processes with 95% CPU usage.  I could probably shove Doom 3 and at least 2 other games on top of that, or just toss Crysis on top of the heap.  That'd just give me even more stuff to eventually quit, so I'm not going to bother.


----------



## LizardKing (Sep 14, 2010)

You know what would be more fun?

Search for *.exe, Select all, Enter

See how long it takes for the OS to give up


----------



## Vo (Sep 14, 2010)

http://gizmodo.com/5166798/24-solid-state-drives-open-all-of-microsoft-office-in-5-seconds


----------



## Ibuuyk (Sep 14, 2010)

73.


----------



## Sauvignon (Sep 14, 2010)

bitches don't know about my processes


----------

