Am I the only one? 6.0 DOMINATES my machine to the point of uselessness!

[hardtaill]

Update,

Larry and MLP,

I'm sitting at my Compaq 1.1ghz and have loaded the test workspace with 395 symbols into both 6.0 and 5.1, all of them being securities and no options. I'm having to wait about 5 seconds for charts to fill, but since there are 12 charts and 10 porfolios and streaming news, that's not too suprising. When I close 5.1, 6.0, of course, becomes faster. If you're running one or two portfolios and one, two or three charts, maybe your times will be quicker. If there are still problems, maybe we could look at some of the things discussed earlier. Also, a couple of other questions: How many items are loaded into your system trays? Are your antivirus programs interfering? Open ports communicating? Other than these, and maybe a few other ideas, I don't know what else to do. The following screen shot is a widescreen version from my 4x3 laptop.

Thanks,

'Tail.

[Larry Marchman]

'Tail,

Sorry good buddy, but you're still missing the point. The issue I'm concerned about is not your box and your workspace.

You ask..."I don't what else to do".

1. Submit a report on the "relative" resource consumption of 6.0 vs 5.1. showing a somewhat sustained sample, and not a Task Manager single shot "at this moment" report which can be misleading.
(and posting images that are not "reduced" to a blurred state would be helpful)

2. I would appreciate you not implying that I and other's either can't tell or have not checked previously whether or not ports and/or other programs running are a problem. I assure you I can tell how my system is being impacted regarding other processes. They are not an issue, are not problematic, and not relevant to 6.0 vs 5.1 comparisons.

I suspect you may be running with a cpu pegged at or near 100%. I can do that also, and get 6.0 to gimme a chart even in that state due to it's being spread over two processes and receiving data from multiple servers. In my multi-monitor desktop environment, other programs I have running break down, become sluggish and perform poorly what with being cycle starved in a pegged state and that's unacceptable to me. But whether you're pegged or not, that's still irrelevant to the issue I'm concerned with.

Once again, my issue is with 6.0 and it's consuming not a few % more cpu, but rather 100's of % more than 5.1 given the same workspace and tick loads.

LAM

[hardtaill]

<<"I would appreciate you not implying that I and other's either can't tell or have not checked previously whether or not ports and/or other programs running are a problem. I assure you I can tell how my system is being impacted regarding other processes. They are not an issue, are not problematic, and not relevant to 6.0 vs 5.1 comparisons.">>
.............................
...................................

Larry,

I really didn't think I implied anything. I know full well that you know what you're doing and I know full well that others know what's in their system tray. Knowing how the system tray impacts overall computer performance may be another matter. And are you saying that every 6.0 user, everyone of them, has complete control over all thousands of ports?

<<"I suspect you may be running with a cpu pegged at or near 100%.">>
...........................
.................................

As stated before, my machines are "off-the-shelf", untinkered with and the same as everyone else has purchased. 6.0 takes between 25% and 40% of my processor at peak times. 5.1, as you say, requires much less at about 17%. Their low consumption rate is why I can also run Adobe, Publisher and Word simulataneously, not to mention my daytrading platforms and up/downloads of large files.

Watching Task Manager over a 10 minute period during market hours is sufficient to obtain a grasp over computer loads and available recources. The real question should be: "How can we get 6.0 to run as well as, or better than, 5.1." Now, obviously, I'm able to run both, even on an "outdated" computer as well as my super duper 3.2ghz. Seriously, my Compaq is so old that the USB ports are 1.0 and the thing has a floppy drive. I can probably, truthfully, say that my Compaq is the oldest, slowest, smallest, dirtiest, ricketiest and dimmest computer running 6.0 on the face of the planet. It has the face only a mother could love.

Larry, I appreciate what you and others have taught me and I've gleaned much from your input. But, I'm using 6.0 and 5.1 together and making a good living outside of my other businesses as well. How do we get 6.0 to "fly" on EVERYONE's computers? 6.0 and 6.1 are, and are going to be, the greatest internet trading experience that anyone could buy if Esignal can work this out.

Looking forward to more ideas and input from you and the board, and also from the Esignal team.

To Esignal, first of all, again, I want to say that your QCharts program is the best available today. The amount of work, time, effort and financial recourses that have been extended and spent on the 5.0 and 6.0 series of programs is understood by me and all who have looked around at other programs. All the others are mere shells of what we have at our fingertips on a daily basis.


Thank you,

'Tail.

[Larry Marchman]

'Tail,

I really didn't think I implied anything. I know full well that you know what you're doing and I know full well that others know what's in their system tray. Knowing how the system tray impacts overall computer performance may be another matter. And are you saying that every 6.0 user, everyone of them, has complete control over all thousands of ports? ~ 'Tail
I don't know what you are referring to regarding "system tray" and overall computer performance. If you look at task manager, or preferably TaskInfo, the total %cpu hit is the %cpu of all the processes added together. If their were a systemic general "port" issue causing %cpu issues, that would manifest as some kind of hit on a process and would show in the % hit of some process. If you see no hit in any process without QCharts running, and then start copies of QCharts, then by definition this concern you have over ports is moot. If 6.0 has a port issue, then it's developments task to uncover that in 6.0. There is nothing us users can do about that, and it's not something that should be suggested as a possible problem in other user's boxes, but not yours, as you keep implying by the fact you keep bringing it up.

6.0 takes between 25% and 40% of my processor at peak times. 5.1, as you say, requires much less at about 17%. ~'Tail
I think you will find a greater difference were you to more accurately measure it with TaskInfo, for example. Nevertheless, at last you have confirmed the issue at hand...relative differences in QCharts 6.0 vs 5.1.

The real question should be: "How can we get 6.0 to run as well as, or better than, 5.1." ~'Tail
Of course that's the question. That's what I've been saying all along, from the get go.

Your computer and workspace, and mine and Fred's and Charlie's and Heather's computers and workspaces are not the same, and it doesn't matter regarding this subject....6.0 vs 5.1 processing efficiencies. Box and workspace comparisons belong in a separate "My setup is better than your setup" forum.

I don't know how long you have been with QCharts, or how long you monitored the YahooGroups QCharts forum. But I've been with QCharts from the get go, and I think, he said with no modesty, that I have been one of the hardest working cheerleaders for the product over these many years.

It's because I want QCharts to thrive that I'm simply trying to shine a little light on a very real problem that 6.0 has regarding processing efficiencies, hoping that the PTB will address it in the most vigorous way.

LAM

[hardtaill]

<<"Your computer and workspace, and mine and Fred's and Charlie's and Heather's computers and workspaces are not the same">>
...................
........................

Larry, I'll have to completely agree with you on this one. Fred's, Heather's and 'Tail's computers are not the same; that is correct. The reason I know this to be true is that I'm running 6.0 and 5.1 with no problems.


<<"this concern you have over ports is moot">>
................
.......................

Maybe not. I'll bet you a box of Wheaties that there are some folks out there in QCharts land who have processes running that they don't even know are there, watching Task Manager or not. And don't forget that pesky system tray. If it's loaded, in other words, maxed out, --forget having a nice experience.


<<"I don't know how long you have been with QCharts">>
................
.......................

I've been with QCharts since the first computer came out with something more powerful than 16mgs of ram. I used to run QCharts
on a laptop with 8mgs of FSB. I've been around since trading on line was first employed.


<<"It's because I want QCharts to thrive that I'm simply trying to shine a little light on a very real problem that 6.0 has regarding processing efficiencies">>
....................
............................

I completely agree. We all know that 6.0 is not as efficient yet. The real question is why I'm able to run it?


Thank you,


'Tail.

P.S.

I like my Wheaties without sugar.

'Tail.

[Larry Marchman]

I'll have to completely agree with you on this one. Fred's, Heather's and 'Tail's computers are not the same; that is correct. The reason I know this to be true is that I'm running 6.0 and 5.1 with no problems. ~'Tail

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Myself and Fred and Heather can also run 6.0 and 5.1 without problems. Well, of course there are the bugs and functions as yet to be implemented in play that anyone can run into, and that's a separate subject.

"this concern you have over ports is moot. ~LAM"

Maybe not. I'll bet you a box of Wheaties that there are some folks out there in QCharts land who have processes running that they don't even know are there, watching Task Manager or not. And don't forget that pesky system tray. If it's loaded, in other words, maxed out, --forget having a nice experience. ~'Tail

and also isn't relevant to the issue of 5.1 vs 6.0 relative %cpu consumption. There's nothing special about the stuff in systray, they are just programs and are reflected in the processes as viewed in task manager. System services that are in the svchosts.exe processes may not show in detail, but their %cpu is included. Ports are data paths used by programs and in and of themselves consume no cpu. Total %cpu, as mentioned before, is the total of the processes %cpu. And it's all beside the point. Whether or not one has available cycles to run another application, whether it's QCharts or any other program is a different subject.

We all know that 6.0 is not as efficient yet. The real question is why I'm able to run it? ~'Tail

And the answer is....the same reason I and other's are also able to run it. I dunno, but it seems that maybe somehow you got the notion that you're the only one that can run 6.0? Well, that's not the case at all.

To restate the issue yet again. Sorry for having to be tediously repetitive.
Take a user has been running a 5.1 built workspace that normally consumes 50% of his or her cpu. It's been demonstrated and confirmed that 6.0 can take three times(if on IP4) or much more(if on IP2) the cycles to process the same workspace. Do the math. 3x50%=150%, and that's more than the 100% available. That user can't run that 5.1 workspace in 6.0 without significant processing issues either in QCharts or other programs running. How much resource QCharts consumes is a function of the complexity and size of the workspace. My 5.1 production workspace that I have built over time will frequently run, by design and intent, at 50% on my box on IP4, often spiking to 80%, depending on the time of day and market trade rates. I had to construct workspaces for 6.0 that are far less demanding. What I'm having to live with if I choose to run 6.0 is having a diminished universe of information available. Same goes for other folks that have substantial 5.1 workspaces that normally take a large % of cycles. Gotta slim 'em down to run on 6.0. And then those that have been running 5.1 workspaces that normally consume low amounts of cpu might not have to make changes. Each user has to determine this stuff for themselves in their unique environments.

Stick a fork in me.
I'm done.

LAM

[hardtaill]

<<"the same reason I and other's are also able to run it. I dunno, but it seems that maybe somehow you got the notion that you're the only one that can run 6.0? ">>
......
..................

Who said that I was the only one to run it? I don't remember saying it, and I don't remember anyone else saying it. What I do remember is that you said that trying to run it with a normal workspace, I guess your 5.1, brought your system "to it's knees". Neither of my computers have ever been brought to their knees even with a full load of charts, portfolios and symbols.


<<"There's nothing special about the stuff in systray, they are just programs and are reflected in the processes as viewed in task manager.">>
..................
............................

Exactly my point, Larry. Many of our friends have enormous amounts of programs running in their system trays, and you are correct, "they are reflected in the processes as viewed in task manager". Those programs demand system resources and will hog them to the ends of their capabilities as long as permitted and will impact 6.0, believe it or not.

<<"Ports are data paths used by programs and in and of themselves consume no cpu.">>
..........................
...................................

Right you are, again. Ports don't consume much, but the programs flowing through them do. Close those ports and quit running useless programs like dumb timers, toobars, game programs, music sharing programs and a whole host of others. Just close them.

<<"That user can't run that 5.1 workspace in 6.0 without significant processing issues either in QCharts or other programs running.">>
..............................
........................................

Yes, they can. Both of my programs, 5.1 and 6.0 are running at the same time with near maximum symbol limits. 12 charts, and now 15 portfolios, along with streaming news, all come in snappy. I really can see no reason why you are having to limit your 6.0 workspace.

<<"Gotta slim 'em down to run on 6.0. And then those that have been running 5.1 workspaces that normally consume low amounts of cpu might not have to make changes. Each user has to determine this stuff for themselves in their unique environments.">>
..........................
........................................

Why? Why change your workspace layouts just to run 6.0? The ONLY limitations, and I mean the ONLY limitations I'm finding on my end are from the fact that Esignal does not currently allow more than 500 symbols. You may correct me if I'm wrong. When Esignal does allow 1,000 symbols in the Data Manager, I'll be taking that to the limit as well in 6.0.

But, I'll tell you what, Larry. Since I'm a really nice guy, if you'll send me a laptop I'll return it to you in pristine condition. And you know what else? You'll be able to run 5.1, 6.0 and any other sweet little program you'd like, and all at the same time. And, Larry, unless your 5.1 is using more than 500 symbols, you'll be able to run your current 5.1 duplicated in 6.0. How would you like that? Now, you might want to take me up on this offer. Really. Oh, and by the way, I can already start to taste them Wheaties.

Thank you,

'Tail.