New UsageMonitor plugin

[SilverAzide]

Is it normal for processes to "dissapear" (i.e. not have a process name) in both the visual Rainmeter log and my skin, when the numerical value of the counter is 0?

Yes. Processes with values less than 0.1% do not appear. This was also the case with the old AdvancedCPU plugin.

[Yincognito]

Thank you both. I guess I expected to have that space 'filled' somehow with applications, especially knowing that it is almost impossible to have only 2 or 3 Windows processes using more than 0% CPU. I had the code to substitute the empty space with 'Unknown Process' already, from my previous version of the skin, but I still believe it's really odd to have just a pair of CPU consuming processes on Windows, no matter how improved is Win10 in the memory management aspect.

This was also the case with the old AdvancedCPU plugin.

I'm not sure anymore, but it might have not been the case with NomFerp. But of course, I might be mistaken about that...

[jsmorley]

Thank you both. I guess I expected to have that space 'filled' somehow with applications, especially knowing that it is almost impossible to have only 2 or 3 Windows processes using more than 0% CPU. I had the code to substitute the empty space with 'Unknown Process' already, from my previous version of the skin, but I still believe it's really odd to have just a pair of CPU consuming processes on Windows, no matter how improved is Win10 in the memory management aspect.



I'm not sure anymore, but it might have not been the case with NomFerp. But of course, I might be mistaken about that...

Which process that is using 0% CPU would be displayed? The "index" functionality is not about alphabetical, it's about highest to lowest.

It most certainly is not impossible for only 2 or 3 processes to be using 1%+ of the CPU at any give second. That is very common.

[Yincognito]

It most certainly is not impossible for only 2 or 3 processes to be using 1%+ of the CPU at any give second. That is very common.

I agree with you on that, but I this is not what I meant (see below).

Which process that is using 0% CPU would be displayed? The "index" functionality is not about alphabetical, it's about highest to lowest.

Well, they are displayed in both perfmon.msc and Task Manager, aren't they?

[jsmorley]

I agree with you on that, but I this is not what I meant (see below).



Well, they are displayed in both perfmon.msc and Task Manager, aren't they?

Sure, but both PerfMon.exe and TaskManager (and Process Explorer and, and...) are all showing "all" running processes, irregardless of how much CPU they are using. That isn't the job of "index" with UsageMonitor. It is a sorted list of processes that are using CPU, sorted by usage, highest to lowest.

I mean, I get your point, but this was a decision we made in the course of writing UsageMonitor. If you ask for a specific process name, and it is using 0% CPU, it will display the name and 0%. If you ask for index=5 and only the first 4 indexes are using CPU, index=5 will return an empty string and 0%.

BTW, I can't put my finger on it exactly, and we will have to have tjhrulz weigh in, but it seems to treat anything less than 0.1% as "zero" for this purpose. So if a process is using 0.09%, it appears to be ignored. We might want to tweak that, I'm not sure.

[Yincognito]

I guess we agree to disagree here - no offense. It's not like those 0% processes are missing or not loaded into the CPU stack/RAM/whatever. They are running processes, after all, it just happens that they don't use the CPU at a given moment. If you're asked to order 5 things based on how much money you spent on them, you include those you didn't spent anything on, since they are 5 on the list.

EDIT: Just saw your edit. I understand the decision, no problem about that. It just feels awkward to have that empty space in place of actual running processes (that just happen to use 0% CPU), that's all. I guess the Substitute option will come handy with this, maybe with some '-----------' string or something.

EDIT 2: By the way, great work with the performance of the plugin - I noticed it right away. Congratulations on that!

[jsmorley]

I guess we agree to disagree here - no offense. It's not like those 0% processes are missing or not loaded into the CPU stack/RAM/whatever. They are running processes, after all, it just happens that they don't use the CPU at a given moment. If you're asked to order 5 things based on how much money you spent on them, you include those you didn't spent anything on, since they are 5 on the list.

EDIT: Just saw your edit. I understand the decision, no problem about that. It just feels awkward to have that empty space in place of actual running processes (that just happen to use 0% CPU), that's all. I guess the Substitute option will come handy with this, maybe with some '-----------' string or something.

Right. Thing is, if we sort all the hundreds of processes using 0% CPU at any given time, the first one that is listed that is using 0% CPU will always be Aardvark.exe...

[Yincognito]

Yeah, because it belongs to the Tubulidentata order... (I know, I didn't exactly get the joke, but you're unique with those jokes that no one understands, haha!)

Opps, I now got it. My bad, I almost forgot how the alphabet looks, with these computers and stuff...

[jsmorley]

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+the+first+word+in+the+dictionary

[Yincognito]

Well, in the dictionary of my language, it is https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Aalenian#Adjective - so I have an excuse

Thinking about it, the plugin should not sort those hundreds of 0% CPU processses (as it could impact its performance), but you're right that it should include at least the 0.0[1-9]% processes. The plugin developer will decide on that though.