Problem with XP scheduler?
in [Win32 Kernel]
|
From: Hector Santos on 13 Jan 2010 12:55 Paul Baker [MVP, Windows Desktop Experience] wrote: > I don't think you're talking about the screen buffer. I think you're talking > about the desktop window being invalidated and therefore receiving a > WM_PAINT message, and possibly a WM_ERASEBKGND message. Then it has to > redraw itself. I have never seen this happen when you click the "+" in the > folders pane in Windows Explorer. Certainly, it is not the usual case. There > is some other condition causing it, almost certainly unrelated to the OS. Well, I don't recall if its the "+" but I must admit I have seen many times where "out of the blue" for some apparent reason, there is a desktop refresh where all the desktop ICON go blank and and refresh themselves. It can be 1 to 2 seconds and yes, at times, it appears to take a lot longer and everything stops until it is finished. Why? I have my ideas of course, but I have not spent the time to pin-point it down to any particular action. I'm not defending or condone the direction this thread has taken, but no doubt, it happens and you can't help but have that momentary thought to wonder what you just do or what did the system do that cause it. If any thought was put into it, was the idea that Windows is just getting more overhead, doing more and it when it comes to refreshing the desktop, there is some contention somewhere that slows it down. I will say that after upgrading to XP SP3 in the last week of December, I thought I noticed things were slower but it appears to be ok "back to normal" again. I am one that don't like anything slow. I should note, I have 50% or more of my desktop filled with ICONS :) And I pretty good/fast (not cheap) graphic cards. -- HLS
From: tanix on 13 Jan 2010 15:19 In article <uKJVYUFlKHA.5020(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, "Paul Baker [MVP, Windows Desktop Experience]" <paulrichardbaker(a)community.nospam> wrote: >>"tanix" <tanix(a)mongo.net> wrote >> Why does windows redraws the desktop to begin with >> which may take seconds to complete and you have to wait till it >> completes and can not do anything meanwhile? And in some cases, >> just as it redrew the whole desktop and you click on some + >> in directory tree, it redraws it again. > >You are now mentioning this in every post, so I will give you it from my >perspective. > >Most of your posts have been very vague along the lines of "Can't you see >that Windows is terrible and all kinds of bad things happen?". Not really. > So I will >have to guess what you mean. You don't have to guess. It is all there. I am not inventing some abstract theoretical case. I am stating what I actually see. And my version of windows is as good as yours. >I don't think you're talking about the screen buffer. I could care less if it is some buffer or anything else. What I DO care is that my desktop should not be redrawn. Because there has been no change to that desktop as a result of ANYTHING I do. Period. > I think you're talking >about the desktop window being invalidated and therefore receiving a >WM_PAINT message, and possibly a WM_ERASEBKGND message. I could care less about underlying mechanics. I do not want to see my desktop redrawring when I do not do ANYTHING even remotely related to desktop. Sorry, I have no time to waste on this. Enough. > Then it has to >redraw itself. I have never seen this happen when you click the "+" in the >folders pane in Windows Explorer. Certainly, it is not the usual case. There >is some other condition causing it, almost certainly unrelated to the OS. > >> And it has been doing it since the day one of windows. > >This cannot be true, because Windows did not even have Windows Explorer for >thousands of days since its inception. I think we are all growing tired of >blanket statements like this. > >More likely, ut has been doing it since the day after you installed some >random software from the Internet and expected that the OS would behave >according to the extreme and ill thought out standards you expect, >regardless of what you throw at it. > >You may have a point about message-based UI and I will let others respond to >that. > >Paul > > -- Programmer's Goldmine collections: http://preciseinfo.org Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript, PHP, organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.
From: tanix on 13 Jan 2010 15:21 In article <e11KsmHlKHA.5604(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, Hector Santos <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote: >Paul Baker [MVP, Windows Desktop Experience] wrote: > >> I don't think you're talking about the screen buffer. I think you're talking >> about the desktop window being invalidated and therefore receiving a >> WM_PAINT message, and possibly a WM_ERASEBKGND message. Then it has to >> redraw itself. I have never seen this happen when you click the "+" in the >> folders pane in Windows Explorer. Certainly, it is not the usual case. There >> is some other condition causing it, almost certainly unrelated to the OS. > > >Well, I don't recall if its the "+" but I must admit I have seen many >times where "out of the blue" for some apparent reason, there is a >desktop refresh where all the desktop ICON go blank and and refresh >themselves. Correct. > It can be 1 to 2 seconds and yes, at times, it appears to >take a lot longer and everything stops until it is finished. Correct. >Why? Correct. Sorry, I am busy here. Can not follow on this one. It is as clear to me as a bell. To even argue otherwise, you have to have ... >I have my ideas of course, but I have not spent the time to pin-point >it down to any particular action. I'm not defending or condone the >direction this thread has taken, but no doubt, it happens and you >can't help but have that momentary thought to wonder what you just do >or what did the system do that cause it. If any thought was put into >it, was the idea that Windows is just getting more overhead, doing >more and it when it comes to refreshing the desktop, there is some >contention somewhere that slows it down. I will say that after >upgrading to XP SP3 in the last week of December, I thought I noticed >things were slower but it appears to be ok "back to normal" again. I >am one that don't like anything slow. > >I should note, I have 50% or more of my desktop filled with ICONS :) >And I pretty good/fast (not cheap) graphic cards. > -- Programmer's Goldmine collections: http://preciseinfo.org Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript, PHP, organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.
From: Paul Baker [MVP, Windows Desktop Experience] on 13 Jan 2010 15:40 Hector, Agreed. I have seen a handful of cases ever in which the entire desktop repaints, apparently unecessarily. In all such cases, I can tell by the way it paints in stages that it is not a "screen" thing, it is a painting thing. The fact that it happened is no indication of a problem with the OS, just a curiosity that we could investigate if it were reproducible. It could be any process that is invalidating or redrawing the desktop window. I think we are on the same page. Paul "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message news:e11KsmHlKHA.5604(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Paul Baker [MVP, Windows Desktop Experience] wrote: > >> I don't think you're talking about the screen buffer. I think you're >> talking about the desktop window being invalidated and therefore >> receiving a WM_PAINT message, and possibly a WM_ERASEBKGND message. Then >> it has to redraw itself. I have never seen this happen when you click the >> "+" in the folders pane in Windows Explorer. Certainly, it is not the >> usual case. There is some other condition causing it, almost certainly >> unrelated to the OS. > > > Well, I don't recall if its the "+" but I must admit I have seen many > times where "out of the blue" for some apparent reason, there is a desktop > refresh where all the desktop ICON go blank and and refresh themselves. > It can be 1 to 2 seconds and yes, at times, it appears to take a lot > longer and everything stops until it is finished. > > Why?
From: Paul Baker [MVP, Windows Desktop Experience] on 13 Jan 2010 15:50
Tanix, Forgive me if this post seems out of context. I don't want to quote pages and pages of information that we have all seen in previous posts. It can just get a little silly after a while. When you say "SendMessage bypasses the message queue", it is true that the message is not added to the message queue, but I did quote documentation that explains a relationship between SendMessage and the message queue, so be careful. The new information I see here is "I do not have these kinds of problems with Java, which is my preferred language for quite a while now". I really am not trying to be antagonistic here, but you make it very difficult not to be. I can't help but to point out that if your preferred language is Java, which is designed to be platform independant, and you're not writing native code, then how do you expect to have a good enough understanding on OS internals to carry on a debate about it and, more than that, disagree strongly with several experts I believe to be correct. Also, Java is not an OS. It's dependant on the a virtual machine running on the OS. Windows is still in play here. It's as if you're saying "If I use Windows, I have a problem but if I use Windows, I do not". So the fact that you do not see a problem when using Java could be explained by a defect in your Java application that masks these "problems", which are actually not problems at all but rather intended and reasonable behaviour, as explained by others. Paul |