Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Aug 2007 00:28 UTC, submitted by diegocg
Permalink for comment 266417
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-22
When Adrian Kingley-Hughes measured transfer (tracing back blog links lead to http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=702 ), he was using Windows Task Manager. However, as Mark Russinovich showed at TechEd, Windows Task Manager isn't really that good of a tool for measuring these things. While the audience watched, Mark ran a demo using a stress-testing program on Vista. Windows Task Manager showed that task as using nearly no memory and processor time, but was revealed to be nearly completely locking the system in his tool (and in the horribly jerky control while the stress test was running).
I'm not saying the problem's not there -- for all we know, it could be much worse -- but I'd like to see the results tried out on something a little better.
Edited 2007-08-29 04:35 UTC