[fredg]

Hello,
A person asked this question at another question/answer websie:
Sometimes my toshiba laptop slows down at any program I'm using. I go into Task Mangager and then under the Processes tab it shows 100% usage at the bottom of it so I have to reboot the PC to run normal. Why does it do this?

This was my answer:
What is your windows version, like 98, xp, etc.
How much RAM do you have?
You are running out of memory; trying to run too many things in the background.
Go to Start/Run, then type in MSCONFIG.
Click on the StartUp tab.
Look to the left to see all the programs that start up when you boot up the computer.
You probably don't need all of them.
Things like "auto update" isn't really needed; you can do those manually.
Look to see if programs start up that you don't need.
Left click on one to uncheck it... if you need it, then you can place a checkmark by it later.
Merry Christmas,
fredg

This was another volunteer's (who shall remain nameless) rating of my answer. He gave me a rating of 2, using this reason:
He's not running out of memory, just processing cycles.

The asker gave a rating of 5 for my answer. The other volunteer gave a rating of 2, calling it "running out of processing cycles".

In my opinion, and many computer experts, the words "running out of processing cycles" and "RAM" are directly related; so much so, that they are used many times interchangeably.

QUESTION:
In your opinion, do you think the other volunteer should have rated me a 2, based on the above?
(The above are copied and pasted exactly word-for-word).
I will appreciate all opinions/answers.
Thank you,
And I wish you all a very Happy Holidays,
fredg

[psi42]

From what you said, I'd say "the other volunteer" was a self-worshipping fool looking to rule his local "turf." I'd love to see the day when he needs to ask for help.
These kind of people are everywhere, the best thing to do is just ignore them and move on.

I'm looking at the windows task manager as I write this, and I notice it displays both CPU usage and memory usage, and the original poster was unclear as to which one was maxed out.

I also know from experience that running out of available RAM will cause the system to use swapspace excessively, slowing down the system. So your answer not only addressed this possible cause, but also gave instructions that would also have helped to decrease the load on the CPU. And, as you mentioned, sometimes a few massive applications will eat both large amounts of memory and processor power.

Did this guy even give any kind of answer at all?


So, I agree with you; he didn't have any real reason to flame you or give you a bad rating.


Happy holidays,
~psi42

[urmod4u]

Technically: in the task manager (at least, WIN2K's and WINXP's - the others probably too, I don't have WIN9X around here to check), both usages are shown: CPU in percentage, and memory in KBytes. As the usage was given as a percentage, CPU usage is assumed. Interesting details that were not provided by the asker are a) which process is taking up the ressources, b) what was indicated for the memory usage and c) wich version of Windows he's running. Normally those were required to answer the question correctly. Fred is right when he says that full memory usage will cause swapping that will eat CPU time, still keeping in mind that memory and CPU usage are indeed two different things.
Now about the bad ratings, *sigh*. Don't let it spoil your day :-)

[labman]

I don't miss the silly, much abused rating game here at all. If you don't like somebody else's answer here, you are free to point out what is wrong with it. The asker can then try to figure out who is worth listening to or to try both ways and see what works.

Fred doesn't even know that it was Scott that dinged him on the other site. Likely so, but Fred takes ratings too seriously.

[fredg]

Hi, labman,
YES, I do know who "dinged" me at the other site; but as a professional, will not use his ID or name here.
All I am asking of you is an opinion.
And no, I don't take ratings that seriously. I do feel that if any other volunteer is going to tell me something, it should have merit; and be of a learning nature... NOT done out of spite, ego-centeredness, or other.
Thank you, anyway, for your opinion... don't misjudge anyone's intelligence.
fredg

[ScottGem]

I'm posting an answer here because you posted this here. This is basically a copy of my reply to you on Answerway and PointAsk.

First, there is no matter of "opinion" here. It is established fact that CPU Usage and Ram Usage are different things. I saw your post on 2 sites (Answerway and Pointask) I don't know what other 2 sites you posted on. Those 2 only had 4 responses. Of those 4, 1 had an opinion that we should "knock off your silly games". The other (from an expert I respect) said; "Strictly speaking, Scott's comment was correct. There's a clear distinction between memory usage and processing cycles and it's very sloppy to use the two terms as if they were interchangeable." I suspect you may not have seen that response when you did your count. As to the other sites you claim to have posted this on, I don't know what they are so I cannot comment on your alleged responses.

I can point to other comments I got that from talking to people who I know are knowledgeable who all agreed with me that the terms are not interchangeable. CPU Usage occurs when a program issues an instruction to the processor. Processors can handle many instructions at once, but when the processor is being bombarded, instructions are queued up to wait for the current processes to clear. When that happens CPU Usage spikes to 100%. Programs and/or Processes that are loaded at Startup tend to use very few processing cycles. They are usually designed to run idly in the background using the CPU when its free on a low priority. Those are facts, not opinion. Therefore my comments and rating were correct and justified.

What I found most amusing in your direct note to me was this comment; "I will tell you this: Any ratings of my answers will be looked at. IF they are reasonable, I will learn from them. IF they are strictly "out of spite", I will laugh at our "insaneness", and forget it." This from the person who rated one of my answers with this comment; "You are assuming the questioner can actually work with computer hardware....bad answer. fredg
PS; I can play "tit for tat" as long as you can, ego maniac."

As for being able to "learn from them", this is a specific example that belies that. You obviously didn't learn from the fact that mistook CPU Usage for being out of memory.

Who is really giving poor ratings out of spite Fred?? It seems this is something YOU do! I can point to other ratings from you here that were not justified.

I have NEVER rated anyone strictly from spite. Any time I rate a response its based on the quality of the response and I can justify my rating as I have done here.

My only concern, on these Q & A sites, has been and will always be the quality of the help being offered. When I see someone who frequently gives answers that are not quality answers I will comment on it. You have a respectable amount of knowledge, but its not as great as you seem to think it is. Your diagnostic ability, especially, is lacking. This has caused you to sometimes give answer that are misleading, unhelpful or just plain incorrect. I have documented these several times. On balance you help much more than not. But the bad answers are a significant percentage.

I bear you no ill will Fred. I do not resort to the name calling, insulting, personal attacks as you have done. I simply deal in facts. Facts that I have proven time and time again.

But I am really getting sick and tired of your harassment of me. This all started when you sent me some unsolcitited comments on Pointask a long time back. I responded to those comments politely but with disagreement. Apparently that got your nose out of joint since you have been nipping at my heels ever since. So stop this harassment!

Scott<>

[ScottGem]

Did this guy even give any kind of answer at all?

So, I agree with you; he didn't have any real reason to flame you or give you a bad rating.

Happy holidays,
~psi42

Hi PSI,
I think you were rather harsh in your estimation. I suspect you empathized with Fred and reacted to that. Unfortunately Fred took this out of context (see my reply to here) and context has a distinct bearing here.

By the way here is the answer I gave to the question:
"If its CPU usage. It just means that your CPU is being used 100% to process all the requests its getting. A reboot will help. so will closing running apps."

I wasn't "flaming" Fred. His answer dealt with the problem as if it was only a memory issue, when it was only a CPU usage issue. While the two are indirectly related, they are not directly related.

Fred made a point that the asker rated him 5 stars. What he doesn't say was that the asker also rated my answer 5 stars and in his comments reported that the problem went away on reboot. Which makes my response the more probable solution.

If you want to see real flaming I suggest you look at some of the garbage Fred has posted about me in the past. I think when you look the true history here, you will empathize with Fred less.

Scott<>

[psi42]

Hi PSI,
I think you were rather harsh in your estimation. I suspect you empathized with Fred and reacted to that. Unfortunately Fred took this out of context (see my reply to here) and context has a distinct bearing here.

Scott,

I apologize for being hasty in my response. You are right, I did not understand the context of this issue, and acted without due consideration.

It seems this has been going on for a while. Can we have a link to the original question, to see exactly what happened?

Thanks,
Psi

[ScottGem]

I don't miss the silly, much abused rating game here at all. If you don't like somebody else's answer here, you are free to point out what is wrong with it. The asker can then try to figure out who is worth listening to or to try both ways and see what works.

Fred doesn't even know that it was Scott that dinged him on the other site. Likely so, but Fred takes ratings too seriously.

Just to clarify, Fred did know it was me. On Answerway, ratings cannot be done anonymously. Plus the rater has the opportunity to explain their ratings. Both of these features are ones that I fought for when Answerway was being developed. This is because I don't believe that ratings can be effective unless they exist. I would never rate anyone frivilously. If I give a lower rating, I will justify it.