cpu usage and task manager on vista

I can't seem to get the cpu usage for a particlar process from the task
manager in vista. The cpu usage column only shows a one or a two (im
guessing this is which core is active). Any idea how to get a percentage out
of this thing? It would be *much* more useful!

Thanks

Have you looked to see what columns are available to you?

View, Select Columns...

Alternatively you could try the Performance and Reliability Monitor.

Start/Orb, type performance and it will appear on the list

"Frank" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I can't seem to get the cpu usage for a particlar process from the task
>manager in vista. The cpu usage column only shows a one or a two (im
>guessing this is which core is active). Any idea how to get a percentage
>out of this thing? It would be *much* more useful!
>
> Thanks

Hmm... Well the select columns option only gives me "cpu usage", which as
I've mentioned is really "active cpu/core" or "cpu time" which is more or
less the time the process has been active for. I'm playing with the
Perfrormance monitor you mention, but I do miss some features of windows xp
task manager...

"Mac" <> wrote in message
news:C85FE7E6-5FDE-4F37-A4EA-...
> Have you looked to see what columns are available to you?
>
> View, Select Columns...
>
> Alternatively you could try the Performance and Reliability Monitor.
>
> Start/Orb, type performance and it will appear on the list
>
> "Frank" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>>I can't seem to get the cpu usage for a particlar process from the task
>>manager in vista. The cpu usage column only shows a one or a two (im
>>guessing this is which core is active). Any idea how to get a percentage
>>out of this thing? It would be *much* more useful!
>>
>> Thanks
>

Oh! I get it... It's not showing me the most active processes because I'm
not administrator. I've course UAC won't work when I'm booting so its
difficult to work out why its taking so long after login to get going. Oh
well!


"Frank" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Hmm... Well the select columns option only gives me "cpu usage", which as
> I've mentioned is really "active cpu/core" or "cpu time" which is more or
> less the time the process has been active for. I'm playing with the
> Perfrormance monitor you mention, but I do miss some features of windows
> xp task manager...
>
> "Mac" <> wrote in message
> news:C85FE7E6-5FDE-4F37-A4EA-...
>> Have you looked to see what columns are available to you?
>>
>> View, Select Columns...
>>
>> Alternatively you could try the Performance and Reliability Monitor.
>>
>> Start/Orb, type performance and it will appear on the list
>>
>> "Frank" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>>I can't seem to get the cpu usage for a particlar process from the task
>>>manager in vista. The cpu usage column only shows a one or a two (im
>>>guessing this is which core is active). Any idea how to get a percentage
>>>out of this thing? It would be *much* more useful!
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>
>

Hi Frank--

Take some of these Vista Hygeine steps; they should help:

Speed PC and Control CPU Tips/Steps
SPEED AND CPU:
_______________
1) Trim processes you don't need in TM. Google them or "search engine of
your choice them" if you have to.

2) Go to

services.msc in run box and turn off services not needed and there are some.

3) Run System File Checker.

SFC: http://www.updatexp.com/scannow-sfc.html

In Vista run it from an elevated command prompt. Right click command on
start and run as administrator.

4) Run 3 or so spyware scans Windows Defender, , Adaware, and Spybot

5) Probably the most important for speed consistently and efficient resource
use DEFRAG with www.raxco.com or www.diskeeeper.com with 15% free space on
drive if DK and or >5% if Raxco's Perfect Disk.
http://groups.msn.com/windowsxpcentral/spyware.msnw Download Adaware and

Spybot from here.
GOOD Overall Review for Defending Your PC:
http://defendingyourmachine.blogspot.com/
MSFT Defense Site MSFT Security:
http://www.microsoft.com/security/default.mspx
Protect Your PC from MSFT Security:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...t/default.mspx
MSFT Windows Defender
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...e/default.mspx
MSFT MSRT: (Malicious Software Removal Tool)
http://www.microsoft.com/security/ma...e/default.mspx
MSFT "Windows One Care" in Wings (AV and Spyware Scans)
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/p...OneCarePR.mspx


6) Unck items from msconfig start tab you don't need starting and some
won't start--peoiple who think just uncking for many are naive because there
are 12 places things can be started including several reg keys like Run Once
keys and there are serveral.

7) Turn off Messaging service--it's a security vulnerability and it slows
you

8) Defrag very often every other day actually.

9) Turn off indexing.

10) Clear TIF and %temp% files (delete) and go to safe mode to get as many
as u can.

10) Do troubleshooting with msconfig.

11) Do Clean boot with msconfig utility and search for the directions here:

SERVICE CONFIGURATION REFERENCES*

*Vista Services*

Part One
http://www.tweakvista.com/article38662.aspx

Part Two
http://www.tweakvista.com/article38664.aspx

Windows Vista Services Tweak Guide v1.0
http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=87443

Vista RTM Tweak Guide (Tweaks to Improve Performances)
http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...tm+tweak+guide

1) Task Manager lists the services on the services tab in Vista.

2) Type services.msc in run box and using the list of services, click the
service and you'll get a description of services.

3) There is a list here of the default services and a description>>click
"default settings for services" in the left pane.
http://technet2.microsoft.com/Window....mspx?mfr=true

4) To view service dependencies
1.
Open Services.

2.
In the details pane, right-click the service that you want to view
dependencies for, and then click Properties.

3.
Click the Dependencies tab.

4.
To view services that are associated dependencies of the selected service,
in the list on the Dependencies tab, click the plus sign next to the
service.

Many of the services but not all in Vista are the same as in XP, so in that
context:

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/services.htm

Also see the extremely helpful site:
Black Viper's Service List

http://www.dead-eye.net/WinXP%20Services.htm


Black Viper's Site (Many of the same services in Vista)
http://www.dead-eye.net/WinXP%20Services.htm

http://www.z123.org/techsupport/xpservices.htm
http://www.geocities.com/ziyadhosein/xpserv1.htm
http://www.pacs-portal.co.uk/startup_content.php
This will be helpful
http://web.archive.org/web/200411280...servicecfg.htm
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________
How to troubleshoot by using the System Configuration utility in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310560/
Resources for troubleshooting startup problems in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/308041/
How to perform advanced clean-boot troubleshooting in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;316434
How to perform a clean boot in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310353/
How to Disable a Service or Device that Prevents Windows from Starting
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310602/

Also ck out these references:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,5155,00.asp
http://www.speedupyourcomputer.windo....com/index.htm and
http://www.extremetech.com/search_re...app=&site=4P.S.

Defragging with a decent defrag every day will make a huge dent inefficient
resource/CPU use.Good luck,CH
Perfect Disk has a 5 month full functionality trial on now for Windows
Vista.

Good luck,

CH


BONUS:

FRANK RICH: Scooter's Sopranos Go to the Mattresses
AS a weary nation awaited the fade-out of "The Sopranos" last Sunday, the
widow of the actual Mafia don John Gotti visited his tomb in Queens to
observe the fifth anniversary of his death. Victoria Gotti was not pleased
to find reporters lying in wait.



"It's disgusting that people are still obsessed with Gotti and the mob," she
told The Daily News. "They should be obsessed with that mob in Washington.
They have 3,000 deaths on their hands." She demanded to know if the
president and vice president have relatives on the front lines. "Every time
I watch the news and I hear of another death," she said, "it sickens me."


Far be it from me to cross any member of the Gotti family, but there's
nothing wrong with being obsessed with both mobs. Now that the approval
rating for the entire Washington franchise, the president and Congress
alike, has plummeted into the 20s, we need any distraction we can get; the
Mafia is a welcome nostalgic escape from a gridlocked government at home and
epic violence abroad.


But unlikely moral arbiter that Mrs. Gotti may be, she does have a point. As
the Iraq war careens toward a denouement as black, unresolved and terrifying
as David Chase's inspired "Sopranos" finale, the mob in the capital deserves
at least equal attention. John Gotti, the last don, is dead. Mr. Chase's
series is over. But the deaths on the nightly news are coming as fast as
ever.


True, the Washington mob isn't as sexy as the Gotti or Soprano clans, but
there is now a gripping nonfiction dramatization of its machinations
available gratis on the Internet, no HBO subscription required. For this we
can thank U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, who presided over the Scooter
Libby trial. Judge Walton's greatest move was not the 30-month sentence he
gave Mr. Libby, a fall guy for higher-ups (and certain to be pardoned to
protect their secrets). It was instead the judge's decision to make public
the testimonials written to the court by members of the Washington
establishment pleading that a criminal convicted on four felony counts be
set free.



Mr. Libby's lawyers argued that these letters should remain locked away on
the hilarious grounds that they might be "discussed, even mocked, by
bloggers." And apparently many of the correspondents assumed that their
missives would remain private, just like all other documents pertaining to
Mr. Libby's former boss, Dick Cheney. The result is very little
self-censorship among the authors and an epistolary gold mine for readers.


Among those contributing to the 373 pages of what thesmokinggun.com calls
"Scooter Libby Love Letters" are self-identified liberals and Democrats, a
few journalists (including a contributing writer to The New York Times
Magazine) and a goodly sample of those who presided over the Iraq
catastrophe or cheered it on. This is a documentary snapshot of the elite
Washington mob of our time.


Like the scripts for "The Sopranos," the letters are not without mordant
laughs. Henry Kissinger writes a perfunctory two paragraphs, of which the
one about Mr. Libby rather than himself seems an afterthought. James
Carville co-signs a letter by Mary Matalin tediously detailing Mr. Libby's
devotion to organizing trick-or-treat festivities for administration
children spending a post-9/11 Halloween at an "undisclosed location." One
correspondent writes in astonishment that Mr. Libby once helped "a neighbor
who is a staunch Democrat" dig his car out of the snow, and another is in
awe that Mr. Libby would "personally buy his son a gift rather than passing
the task on to his wife." Many praise Mr. Libby's novel, "The Apprentice,"
apparently on the principle that an overwritten slab of published fiction
might legitimize the short stories he fabricated freelance for a grand jury.


But what makes these letters rise above inanity is the portrait they provide
of a wartime capital cut adrift from moral bearings. As the political
historian Rick Perlstein has written, one of the recurrent themes of these
pleas for mercy is that Mr. Libby perjured himself "only because he was so
busy protecting us from Armageddon." Has there ever been a government leader
convicted of a crime - and I don't mean only Americans - who didn't see
himself as saving the world from the enemy?



The Libby supporters never acknowledge the undisputed fact that their hero,
a lawyer by profession, leaked classified information about a covert C.I.A.
officer. And that he did so not accidentally but to try to silence an
administration critic who called attention to the White House's prewar lies
about W.M.D. intelligence. And that he compounded the original lies by lying
repeatedly to investigators pursuing an inquiry that without his
interference might have nailed others now known to have also leaked Valerie
Wilson's identity (Richard Armitage, Karl Rove, Ari Fleischer).


Much has been said about the hypocrisy of those on the right, champions both
of Bill Clinton's impeachment and of unflinching immigration enforcement,
who call for legal amnesty in Mr. Libby's case. To thicken their exquisite
bind, these selective sticklers for strict justice have been foiled in their
usual drill of attacking the judge in the case as "liberal." Judge Walton
was initially appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan and was elevated to
his present job by the current President Bush; he was assigned as well to
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court by the Bush-appointed chief
justice, John Roberts. Such credentials notwithstanding, Judge Walton told
the court on Thursday that he was alarmed by new correspondence and phone
calls from the Libby mob since the sentencing "wishing bad things" on him
and his family.


In Washington, however, hypocrisy is a perennial crime in both parties; if
all the city's hypocrites were put in jail, there would be no one left to
run the government. What is more striking about the Libby love letters is
how nearly all of them ignore the reality that the crime of lying under oath
is at the heart of the case. That issue simply isn't on these letter
writers' radar screen; the criminal act of perjury isn't addressed (unless
it's ascribed to memory loss because Mr. Libby was so darn busy saving the
world). Given that Mr. Libby expressed no contrition in court after being
convicted, you'd think some of his defenders might step into that moral
vacuum to speak for him. But there's been so much lying surrounding this war
from the start that everyone is inured to it by now. In Washington, lying no
longer registers as an offense against the rule of law.


Instead the letter writers repeat tirelessly that Mr. Libby is a victim,
suffering "permanent damage" to his reputation, family and career in the
typical judgment of Kenneth Adelman, the foreign-policy thinker who
predicted a "cakewalk" for America in Iraq. There's a whole lot of
projection going on, because to judge from these letters, those who drummed
up this war think of themselves as victims too. In his letter, the disgraced
Paul Wolfowitz sees his friend's case as an excuse to deflect his own
culpability for the fiasco. He writes that "during the spring and summer of
2003, when some others were envisioning a prolonged American occupation,"
Mr. Libby "was a strong advocate for a more rapid build-up of the Iraqi Army
and a more rapid transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis, points on which
history will prove him to have been prescient."


History will prove no such thing; a "rapid" buildup of the Iraqi Army was
and is a mirage, and the neocons' chosen leader for an instant sovereign
Iraq, Ahmad Chalabi, had no political following. But Mr. Wolfowitz's real
point is to pin his own catastrophic blundering on L. Paul Bremer, the
neocons' chosen scapegoat for a policy that was doomed with or without Mr.
Bremer's incompetent execution of the American occupation.



Of all the Libby worshipers, the one most mocked in the blogosphere and
beyond is Fouad Ajami, the Lebanese-American academic and war proponent who
fantasized that a liberated Iraq would have a (positive) "contagion effect"
on the region and that Americans would be greeted "in Baghdad and Basra with
kites and boom boxes." (I guess it all depends on your definition of "boom
boxes.") In an open letter to President Bush for The Wall Street Journal
op-ed page on June 8, he embroidered his initial letter to Judge Walton,
likening Mr. Libby to a "fallen soldier" in the Iraq war. In Mr. Ajami's
view, Tim Russert (whose testimony contradicted Mr. Libby's) and the
American system of justice are untrustworthy, and "the 'covertness' of Mrs.
Wilson was never convincingly and fully established." (The C.I.A. confirmed
her covert status in court documents filed in May.)


Mr. Ajami notes, accurately, that the trial was "about the Iraq war and its
legitimacy" - an argument that could also be mustered by defenders of Alger
Hiss who felt his perjury trial was about the cold war. But it's even more
revealing that the only "casualty of a war" Mr. Ajami's conscience prompts
him to mention is Mr. Libby, a figurative casualty rather than a literal
one.


No wonder Victoria Gotti denigrated "that mob in Washington." When the
godfathers of this war speak of never leaving "a fallen comrade" on the
battlefield in Iraq, as Mr. Ajami writes of Mr. Libby, they are speaking
first and foremost of one another. The soldiers still making the ultimate
sacrifice for this gang's hubristic folly will just have to fend for
themselves.
_____________________________________


MAUREEN DOWD: Can He Crush Hillary?
WASHINGTON

The busty brunette wriggles around in her pink bikini beside a picture of
Barack Obama frolicking in the Hawaiian surf. She continues undulating in
red underwear emblazoned with the word "Obama." And, next to a picture of
the senator in a suit, she stands proudly, wearing her own dark suit and a
political-helpmate smile.

"Does Barack Obama's wife have something to worry about?" John Gibson teased
on Fox News.

Michelle doesn't have to worry about "Obama Girl," the model Amber Lee
Ettinger, who stars in the music video sweeping the Web, in which she
lip-syncs a song called "I Got a Crush on Obama." The sultry-catchy lyrics
include "You're into border security/let's break this border between you and
me/universal health care reform/it makes me warm."

But Obama may have to worry about Obama Girl. For one thing, Amber - whose
résumé boasts that she was a "featured cage dancer" in the movie "Uptown
Girls" - isn't even sure she's going to vote for her video dreamboy. "We'll
see," she told ABC's Jake Tapper. "Maybe."

And for another, Obama has been trying to beef up his image for months -
including writing a platitudinous manifesto in the new Foreign Affairs - but
the buzz is still about his beefcake side. The Democrat who's so afraid of
looking like a pretty boy is once more drawing attention for his more
superficial charms.

When I stopped in a Ralph Lauren shop the other day, the sales staff had
just sent off some clothes for an Obama photo shoot for a GQ cover.

At his first news conference after he announced last February, Obama
chastised reporters for writing about how good he looked in a swimsuit, and
he defended hiring oppo-researchers, saying that it was "essential to
democracy" to compare and contrast the candidates on the issues.

So why would his aides send two sneering memos about the Clintons' finances
to reporters this week, on a not-for-attribution condition?

That's not sleazy so much as stupid.

First of all, they didn't need to do anything. Other Democratic campaigns
were already pelting reporters with e-mail pointing out the possible juicy
conflicts in the Clinton filings.

If the Obama Boys were determined to whack the Clintons on greed, they
should have done so openly. Their clumsy attempt at cloak-and-dagger was
bound to fail.

A reporter gave their "classified" memos to the Clinton camp, and the
Clinton camp gleefully spread them around to other reporters.

The Obama Boys' inept leaking was compounded by over-the-top writing. They
angered Indian-Americans, who accused them of stereotyping, and the campaign
had to apologize. Under a flippant headline referring to "Hillary Clinton
(D-Punjab)," one memo reported that Bill Clinton collected $300,000 for two
speeches from Cisco in 2006 and Hillary accepted almost $60,000 in
contributions from Cisco employees, even though the company was outsourcing
jobs to India.

The critique also stressed how rich Bill Clinton has grown from his
friendship with the California supermarket mogul Ron Burkle. Ron lets his
pal Bill fly on his plane and brought him into his Yucaipa fund, which, the
Obama memo tut-tuts, has investments in astrological software and the
distribution of Playboy.

One question I'd like to ask the Leo who would be First Lad: When you rake
in $10 million a year from speeches, do you really need that $150,000 for
speaking to the Boys and Girls Club of L.A.?

Hillaryland was panting for an opportunity to paint Obama as a hypocrite for
saying he was different and above it all, while acting the same. And its
best ally in undermining Obama is Obama, who hoists his pedestal so high he's
bound to fall off. He seems more intent on proving he's pure than proving he's
tough.

The Clintons act high-minded and do-gooding, while employing a staff of hit
men. Obama is tangled in contradictions of high and low, saint and killer,
while Hillary moves like a shark.

"She'd lean over and bite his ear off if that's what it takes," says Charlie
Cook, the political analyst. "The question is, will he do what it takes to
win? This is a guy who did not have to deal with a single negative ad being
run against him in the primary and general campaigns for the Senate. It was
almost an immaculate conception."

Obama is too busy modeling to make this point, but the Clinton financial
disclosures raise a big question: Do we want the country run again by a
couple who get so easily wrapped around the fingers of anyone who is rich?
As long as a guy was willing to give them millions, would it matter if his
name were Al Capone?
___________________________




"Frank" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Oh! I get it... It's not showing me the most active processes because I'm
> not administrator. I've course UAC won't work when I'm booting so its
> difficult to work out why its taking so long after login to get going. Oh
> well!
>
>
> "Frank" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Hmm... Well the select columns option only gives me "cpu usage", which as
>> I've mentioned is really "active cpu/core" or "cpu time" which is more or
>> less the time the process has been active for. I'm playing with the
>> Perfrormance monitor you mention, but I do miss some features of windows
>> xp task manager...
>>
>> "Mac" <> wrote in message
>> news:C85FE7E6-5FDE-4F37-A4EA-...
>>> Have you looked to see what columns are available to you?
>>>
>>> View, Select Columns...
>>>
>>> Alternatively you could try the Performance and Reliability Monitor.
>>>
>>> Start/Orb, type performance and it will appear on the list
>>>
>>> "Frank" <> wrote in message
>>> news:...
>>>>I can't seem to get the cpu usage for a particlar process from the task
>>>>manager in vista. The cpu usage column only shows a one or a two (im
>>>>guessing this is which core is active). Any idea how to get a percentage
>>>>out of this thing? It would be *much* more useful!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>
>>
>

Also, do you have show processes for all users enabled? Maybe that what you
are referring to?

"Frank" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Oh! I get it... It's not showing me the most active processes because I'm
> not administrator. I've course UAC won't work when I'm booting so its
> difficult to work out why its taking so long after login to get going. Oh
> well!
>
>
> "Frank" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Hmm... Well the select columns option only gives me "cpu usage", which as
>> I've mentioned is really "active cpu/core" or "cpu time" which is more or
>> less the time the process has been active for. I'm playing with the
>> Perfrormance monitor you mention, but I do miss some features of windows
>> xp task manager...
>>
>> "Mac" <> wrote in message
>> news:C85FE7E6-5FDE-4F37-A4EA-...
>>> Have you looked to see what columns are available to you?
>>>
>>> View, Select Columns...
>>>
>>> Alternatively you could try the Performance and Reliability Monitor.
>>>
>>> Start/Orb, type performance and it will appear on the list
>>>
>>> "Frank" <> wrote in message
>>> news:...
>>>>I can't seem to get the cpu usage for a particlar process from the task
>>>>manager in vista. The cpu usage column only shows a one or a two (im
>>>>guessing this is which core is active). Any idea how to get a percentage
>>>>out of this thing? It would be *much* more useful!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>
>>
>

Yeah "show processes for all users" was what I was referring to. The task
manager was showing the percentages all along it just wasn't showing the
processes that were taking up the most time. I was looking for the cause of
it taking so long for me to log in after boot up. I had to turn UAC off to
actually
see all the processes while I was logging in (presumably this is before UAC
is fully turned on). The strange thing was that my machine was spending
about a minute 98% idle leaving the network interfaces and antivirus down. I
tried turning dhcp off (in case the network stuff was slowing it down) but
that didn't help.
After uninstalling vmware things suddenly worked as they should!
I wish I understood more about how windows decides the order in which
services start. Is it inferred automatically from the service dependancies
or something? What if there's a bit of 'play' in the service dependancies
(that's to say there's more than one valid boot up order)? Can you override
the default choice of service startup order? Also, I'm guessing that windows
starts some services in parrallel but is there anyway to varify this?

I'm afraid I haven't found much documentation on the net about system
startup (apart from stuff about msconfig, but that didnt really help me
much). Also I'm sorry if I'm diverging from the original topic .

Cheers!


"Mac" <> wrote in message
news:F73176A3-0C40-4DE6-82E8-...
> Also, do you have show processes for all users enabled? Maybe that what
> you are referring to?
>
> "Frank" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Oh! I get it... It's not showing me the most active processes because I'm
>> not administrator. I've course UAC won't work when I'm booting so its
>> difficult to work out why its taking so long after login to get going. Oh
>> well!
>>
>>
>> "Frank" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> Hmm... Well the select columns option only gives me "cpu usage", which
>>> as I've mentioned is really "active cpu/core" or "cpu time" which is
>>> more or less the time the process has been active for. I'm playing with
>>> the Perfrormance monitor you mention, but I do miss some features of
>>> windows xp task manager...
>>>
>>> "Mac" <> wrote in message
>>> news:C85FE7E6-5FDE-4F37-A4EA-...
>>>> Have you looked to see what columns are available to you?
>>>>
>>>> View, Select Columns...
>>>>
>>>> Alternatively you could try the Performance and Reliability Monitor.
>>>>
>>>> Start/Orb, type performance and it will appear on the list
>>>>
>>>> "Frank" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:...
>>>>>I can't seem to get the cpu usage for a particlar process from the task
>>>>>manager in vista. The cpu usage column only shows a one or a two (im
>>>>>guessing this is which core is active). Any idea how to get a
>>>>>percentage out of this thing? It would be *much* more useful!
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>
>>

Have a look here - http://www.blackviper.com/WinVista/servicecfg.htm

"Frank" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Yeah "show processes for all users" was what I was referring to. The task
> manager was showing the percentages all along it just wasn't showing the
> processes that were taking up the most time. I was looking for the cause
> of it taking so long for me to log in after boot up. I had to turn UAC off
> to actually
> see all the processes while I was logging in (presumably this is before
> UAC is fully turned on). The strange thing was that my machine was
> spending about a minute 98% idle leaving the network interfaces and
> antivirus down. I tried turning dhcp off (in case the network stuff was
> slowing it down) but that didn't help.
> After uninstalling vmware things suddenly worked as they should!
> I wish I understood more about how windows decides the order in which
> services start. Is it inferred automatically from the service dependancies
> or something? What if there's a bit of 'play' in the service dependancies
> (that's to say there's more than one valid boot up order)? Can you
> override the default choice of service startup order? Also, I'm guessing
> that windows starts some services in parrallel but is there anyway to
> varify this?
>
> I'm afraid I haven't found much documentation on the net about system
> startup (apart from stuff about msconfig, but that didnt really help me
> much). Also I'm sorry if I'm diverging from the original topic .
>
> Cheers!
>
>
> "Mac" <> wrote in message
> news:F73176A3-0C40-4DE6-82E8-...
>> Also, do you have show processes for all users enabled? Maybe that what
>> you are referring to?
>>
>> "Frank" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> Oh! I get it... It's not showing me the most active processes because
>>> I'm not administrator. I've course UAC won't work when I'm booting so
>>> its difficult to work out why its taking so long after login to get
>>> going. Oh well!
>>>
>>>
>>> "Frank" <> wrote in message
>>> news:...
>>>> Hmm... Well the select columns option only gives me "cpu usage", which
>>>> as I've mentioned is really "active cpu/core" or "cpu time" which is
>>>> more or less the time the process has been active for. I'm playing with
>>>> the Perfrormance monitor you mention, but I do miss some features of
>>>> windows xp task manager...
>>>>
>>>> "Mac" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:C85FE7E6-5FDE-4F37-A4EA-...
>>>>> Have you looked to see what columns are available to you?
>>>>>
>>>>> View, Select Columns...
>>>>>
>>>>> Alternatively you could try the Performance and Reliability Monitor.
>>>>>
>>>>> Start/Orb, type performance and it will appear on the list
>>>>>
>>>>> "Frank" <> wrote in message
>>>>> news:...
>>>>>>I can't seem to get the cpu usage for a particlar process from the
>>>>>>task manager in vista. The cpu usage column only shows a one or a two
>>>>>>(im guessing this is which core is active). Any idea how to get a
>>>>>>percentage out of this thing? It would be *much* more useful!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>