Problem with XP scheduler?
in [Win32 Kernel]
|
From: tanix on 14 Jan 2010 03:48 In article <ezF98PPlKHA.1536(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, Hector Santos <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote: > >tanix wrote: > >> No matter what I do in ANY of my explorer windows, and I typically >> have 4 to 6 of them opened at the same time so I can quickly move >> things around and open files in those directories, >> it should NOT cause the entire desktop redrawing. > >Explorer is just another application. Try replacing it with something > else at least to compare. I've seen clones out there. Explorer is just fine with me and i doubt someone can create something that beans MS on its own lands. >> And I bet MS knows about this situation for years. >> But, for some strange reason, it is not getting fixed, >> which means to me that this issue is so fundamental, that they >> can not even fix it, no matter what they do. >Tanix. I still say that you might have something going on in your >system. >Why? > >Precisely for the reason you stated - its so fundamental there would >be millions of reports. No one would like to see their system behave >as you describe. No one, and IMO, this would not be something MS would >ignore. Well, this has been an issue for me on quite a few boxes i had I can not even imagine there is some "evil" program that does this kind of thing, and if it does, it should NOT be able to do that. No funky program should affect the OS "internal" programs such as explorer. The last thing I'd want to see is some kind of funky gadget trying to beat the explorer. Sorry, not interested in this kind of thing. >But I have not seen or heard of the severe annoying level you are >describing. Therefore IMO, I think it is machine related or you have >some explorer registered hook that is interfering. Not a chance I think. Especially seeing the other people seeing the same issue. Not sure what kind of things YOU are doing, but it is a 100% issue to me, and one of possible "reasons" MS is not addressing it is because "they could care less". >I recall several years back I found an interested DLL hook at >CodeProject that registered a hook into explorer. If I remember, it >allowed you to see the REGISTRY in the Explorer window. I don't >recall if it did things with the DESKTOP ICONS but it was so annoying >and it was differently changing the behavior of system, slow if I >remember that I had to get rid of it. It was hard to remove but >finally did. I am not aware of ANY piece of code that hooks into explorer on my box. -- 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: Leo Davidson on 14 Jan 2010 08:51 On Jan 14, 7:05 am, ta...(a)mongo.net (tanix) wrote: > Correct. And that is EXACLY the reason you don't want to use it > as a matter of practice. No one prohibits you from using it, but > not as a general practice. LOL, that is so wonderfully wrong and misinformed. You should stop making statements about Win32 when you clearly know nothing about it. You're making a fool of yourself. SendMessage is used all the time and as a matter of general practice. It will have been called thousands of times in programs running on your own desktop in the time it took you to read this far in this message. There are just as many cases where using PostMessage instead of SendMessage will break your program as using SendMessage instead of PostMessage will. In fact, I'd say that SendMessage is *more* often the correct thing to use, not less. Having to understand when to use different things doesn't mean you shouldn't use those things; it's called PROGRAMMING. I believe the late, great Bill Hicks once said: "...And if you don't think SendMessage has done some good things for us, do me a favor: Go home tonight and take all your applications, all your exes, and all your DLLs and recycle-bin 'em. Because, you know what? All the programmers who made all this great software that's enhanced our lives through the years?... Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreal ****ing high on SendMessage."
From: Alexander Grigoriev on 14 Jan 2010 10:29 "tanix" <tanix(a)mongo.net> wrote in message news:himg88$jsn$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... > In article <OlI#ogMlKHA.5020(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, "Alexander Grigoriev" > <alegr(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>I think explorer doesn't keep the icons preloaded. Every time it needs to >>redraw the desktop, it scans the desktop folder and reads all the icons. >>If >>the files fell out of cache, that will cause disk access. Win9x used to >>have >>shell icon cache file, but it was getting corrupted often, supposedly >>because of lack of proper synchronization in the code. > > The point is that desktop needs to be managed by the OS. > No matter what some app does, it should not affect the OS managed > things, such as desktop. > Desktop is an application (explorer.exe), no worse no better than other apps.
From: tanix on 14 Jan 2010 14:50 In article <#lKYp5SlKHA.4408(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, "Alexander Grigoriev" <alegr(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >"tanix" <tanix(a)mongo.net> wrote in message >news:himg88$jsn$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> In article <OlI#ogMlKHA.5020(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, "Alexander Grigoriev" >> <alegr(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>>I think explorer doesn't keep the icons preloaded. Every time it needs to >>>redraw the desktop, it scans the desktop folder and reads all the icons. >>>If >>>the files fell out of cache, that will cause disk access. Win9x used to >>>have >>>shell icon cache file, but it was getting corrupted often, supposedly >>>because of lack of proper synchronization in the code. >> >> The point is that desktop needs to be managed by the OS. >> No matter what some app does, it should not affect the OS managed >> things, such as desktop. >> > >Desktop is an application (explorer.exe), no worse no better than other >apps. True. With one exception, which is applicable to this specific case. Explorer is a part of the OS package. Yes, it is a user app, just like any other and not a part of kernel proper. But... If there are some issues with explorer, then there are more than enough reasons to suspect the issue is much more profound than it looks on the surface. I do think that because of not stricltly async nature of event processing as a result of optimization, we do observe such unpleasant behavior of clicking on something and getting a totally inappropriate event processed as far are what user would expect to happen. How many times task switch occurs per second or per anything is irrelevant. What is relevant that there seems to be a forced synchronization with the mouse click events. That is what I see in terms of user interaction while using the standard OS programs. And to me it looks like a bad design/optimization. Looks to me if things were not artificially synchronized, this problem would be orders of magnitude less severe. There seems to be an issue with event routing under certain circumstances. -- 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 14 Jan 2010 14:57
In article <c3b0e277-dc80-4242-98c7-dbb0668a0b76(a)26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, Leo Davidson <leonudeldavidson(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >On Jan 14, 7:05=A0am, ta...(a)mongo.net (tanix) wrote: >> Correct. And that is EXACLY the reason you don't want to use it >> as a matter of practice. No one prohibits you from using it, but >> not as a general practice. > >LOL, that is so wonderfully wrong and misinformed. I do like that one. :--} > You should stop >making statements about Win32 Seigh hail mine Fuehrer! > when you clearly know nothing about it. What hole did you crawl out of? :--} >You're making a fool of yourself. > >SendMessage is used all the time and as a matter of general practice. >It will have been called thousands of times in programs running on >your own desktop in the time it took you to read this far in this >message. > >There are just as many cases where using PostMessage instead of >SendMessage will break your program as using SendMessage instead of >PostMessage will. In fact, I'd say that SendMessage is *more* often >the correct thing to use, not less. Having to understand when to use >different things doesn't mean you shouldn't use those things; it's >called PROGRAMMING. > >I believe the late, great Bill Hicks once said: GREAT Bill Hicks? :--} >"...And if you don't think SendMessage has done some good things for >us, do me a favor: Go home tonight and take all your applications, all >your exes, and all your DLLs and recycle-bin 'em. Because, you know >what? All the programmers who made all this great software that's >enhanced our lives through the years?... >Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreal ****ing high on SendMessage." What a bozo. -- 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. |