From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

@echo off
setlocal
REM 20250901 cpu.bat rev 1.5 - what's slowing things down & how to kill it

:: ---- Config ----
set "EDITOR_PATH=C:\app\editor\txt\vim\vim82\gvim.exe"

:: ---- Elevation check ----
net session >nul 2>&1
if %errorlevel% neq 0 (
echo Requesting administrator privileges...
powershell -NoProfile -Command "Start-Process -FilePath '%~f0' -Verb RunAs"
exit /b
)

:: ---- Timestamp and log file ----
for /f %%I in ('powershell -NoProfile -Command "(Get-Date).ToString('yyyy-MM-dd_HHmmss')"') do set "TS=%%I"
set "LOGFILE=%TEMP%\cpu_diag_%TS%.log"

:: ---- Header ----

"%LOGFILE%" echo === Diagnostic Run: %DATE% %TIME% on %COMPUTERNAME% ===
"%LOGFILE%" echo.

:: ---- CPU usage (filtered) ----

"%LOGFILE%" echo === CPU Usage (WMIC snapshot) ===

wmic path Win32_PerfFormattedData_PerfProc_Process get Name,PercentProcessorTime /format:csv | more >> "%LOGFILE%"

:: ---- Memory usage (raw) ----

"%LOGFILE%" echo.
"%LOGFILE%" echo === Memory Usage (WMIC snapshot) ===

wmic process get Name,ProcessId,WorkingSetSize /format:csv | more >> "%LOGFILE%"

:: ---- Unresponsive apps ----

"%LOGFILE%" echo.
"%LOGFILE%" echo === Unresponsive Apps ===

tasklist /v | findstr /i "Not Responding" >> "%LOGFILE%"

:: ---- Top CPU consumers (excluding Idle/System/_Total) ----

"%LOGFILE%" echo.
"%LOGFILE%" echo === Top 10 CPU Consumers (excluding Idle/System/_Total) ===

powershell -NoProfile -Command ^
"Get-Process | Where-Object { $_.Name -notin @('Idle','System','_Total') } | Sort-Object CPU -Descending | Select-Object -First 10 Name,Id,@{N='CPU';E={[math]::Round($_.CPU,2)}} | Format-Table -AutoSize | Out-String -Width 500" ^
>> "%LOGFILE%"

:: ---- Top Memory consumers ----

"%LOGFILE%" echo.
"%LOGFILE%" echo === Top 10 Memory Consumers ===

powershell -NoProfile -Command ^
"Get-Process | Sort-Object WorkingSet -Descending | Select-Object -First 10 Name,Id,@{N='Memory(MB)';E={[int]($_.WorkingSet/1MB)}} | Format-Table -AutoSize | Out-String -Width 500" ^
>> "%LOGFILE%"

:: ---- Resource hogs (CPU > 10 or Memory > 500MB) ----

"%LOGFILE%" echo.
"%LOGFILE%" echo === Potential Resource Hogs (CPU > 10 or Memory > 500MB) ===

powershell -NoProfile -Command ^
"$procs = Get-Process | Where-Object { $_.CPU -gt 10 -or $_.WorkingSet -gt 500MB }; $procs | Select-Object Name,Id,@{N='CPU';E={[math]::Round($_.CPU,2)}},@{N='Memory(MB)';E={[int]($_.WorkingSet/1MB)}} | Format-Table -AutoSize | Out-String -Width 500" ^
>> "%LOGFILE%"

:: ---- Suggested kill commands ----

"%LOGFILE%" echo.
"%LOGFILE%" echo === Suggested Manual Kill Commands ===

powershell -NoProfile -Command ^
"$procs = Get-Process | Where-Object { $_.CPU -gt 10 -or $_.WorkingSet -gt 500MB }; $procs | ForEach-Object { \"taskkill /PID $_.Id /F :: $_.Name (CPU=$($_.CPU), Mem=$([int]($_.WorkingSet/1MB))MB)\" }" ^
>> "%LOGFILE%"

:: ---- Open log in editor or fallback to console ----
if exist "%EDITOR_PATH%" (
start "" "%EDITOR_PATH%" "%LOGFILE%"
) else (
echo Editor not found at %EDITOR_PATH%. Viewing in console...
type "%LOGFILE%" | more
)

endlocal


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On 9/1/25 11:56 AM, Marion wrote:

@echo off
setlocal
REM 20250901 cpu.bat rev 1.5 - what's slowing things down & how to kill it

:: ---- Config ----
set "EDITOR_PATH=C:\app\editor\txt\vim\vim82\gvim.exe"

:: ---- Elevation check ----
net session >nul 2>&1
if %errorlevel% neq 0 (
echo Requesting administrator privileges...
powershell -NoProfile -Command "Start-Process -FilePath '%~f0' -Verb RunAs"
exit /b
)

:: ---- Timestamp and log file ----
for /f %%I in ('powershell -NoProfile -Command "(Get-Date).ToString('yyyy-MM-dd_HHmmss')"') do set "TS=%%I"
set "LOGFILE=%TEMP%\cpu_diag_%TS%.log"

:: ---- Header ----
>> "%LOGFILE%" echo === Diagnostic Run: %DATE% %TIME% on %COMPUTERNAME% ===
>> "%LOGFILE%" echo.

:: ---- CPU usage (filtered) ----
>> "%LOGFILE%" echo === CPU Usage (WMIC snapshot) ===
wmic path Win32_PerfFormattedData_PerfProc_Process get Name,PercentProcessorTime /format:csv | more >> "%LOGFILE%"

:: ---- Memory usage (raw) ----
>> "%LOGFILE%" echo.
>> "%LOGFILE%" echo === Memory Usage (WMIC snapshot) ===
wmic process get Name,ProcessId,WorkingSetSize /format:csv | more >> "%LOGFILE%"

:: ---- Unresponsive apps ----
>> "%LOGFILE%" echo.
>> "%LOGFILE%" echo === Unresponsive Apps ===
tasklist /v | findstr /i "Not Responding" >> "%LOGFILE%"

:: ---- Top CPU consumers (excluding Idle/System/_Total) ----
>> "%LOGFILE%" echo.
>> "%LOGFILE%" echo === Top 10 CPU Consumers (excluding Idle/System/_Total) ===
powershell -NoProfile -Command ^
"Get-Process | Where-Object { $_.Name -notin @('Idle','System','_Total') } | Sort-Object CPU -Descending | Select-Object -First 10 Name,Id,@{N='CPU';E={[math]::Round($_.CPU,2)}} | Format-Table -AutoSize | Out-String -Width 500" ^
>> "%LOGFILE%"

:: ---- Top Memory consumers ----
>> "%LOGFILE%" echo.
>> "%LOGFILE%" echo === Top 10 Memory Consumers ===
powershell -NoProfile -Command ^
"Get-Process | Sort-Object WorkingSet -Descending | Select-Object -First 10 Name,Id,@{N='Memory(MB)';E={[int]($_.WorkingSet/1MB)}} | Format-Table -AutoSize | Out-String -Width 500" ^
>> "%LOGFILE%"

:: ---- Resource hogs (CPU > 10 or Memory > 500MB) ----
>> "%LOGFILE%" echo.
>> "%LOGFILE%" echo === Potential Resource Hogs (CPU > 10 or Memory > 500MB) ===
powershell -NoProfile -Command ^
"$procs = Get-Process | Where-Object { $_.CPU -gt 10 -or $_.WorkingSet -gt 500MB }; $procs | Select-Object Name,Id,@{N='CPU';E={[math]::Round($_.CPU,2)}},@{N='Memory(MB)';E={[int]($_.WorkingSet/1MB)}} | Format-Table -AutoSize | Out-String -Width 500" ^
>> "%LOGFILE%"

:: ---- Suggested kill commands ----
>> "%LOGFILE%" echo.
>> "%LOGFILE%" echo === Suggested Manual Kill Commands ===
powershell -NoProfile -Command ^
"$procs = Get-Process | Where-Object { $_.CPU -gt 10 -or $_.WorkingSet -gt 500MB }; $procs | ForEach-Object { \"taskkill /PID $_.Id /F :: $_.Name (CPU=$($_.CPU), Mem=$([int]($_.WorkingSet/1MB))MB)\" }" ^
>> "%LOGFILE%"

:: ---- Open log in editor or fallback to console ----
if exist "%EDITOR_PATH%" (
start "" "%EDITOR_PATH%" "%LOGFILE%"
) else (
echo Editor not found at %EDITOR_PATH%. Viewing in console...
type "%LOGFILE%" | more
)

endlocal

I don't know enough. Is this a batch file or powershell?
I find some of it interesting. Can't test till I boot up Windows.
--
Linux Mint 22.1, Thunderbird 128.14.0esr, Mozilla Firefox 142.0
Alan K.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On Mon, 1 Sep 2025 12:53:26 -0400, Alan K. wrote :

I don't know enough. Is this a batch file or powershell?
I find some of it interesting. Can't test till I boot up Windows.

Thanks for asking. I was a bit brief. I apologize. I was in a rush.

It's a batch file. And powershell. It's designed to help you kill what's hurting you. It's like taking two aspirins and calling back in the morning.

This morning my Windows 10 computer was suddenly slower than a lame dog.

Nothing was working.
I couldn't get the process-explorer three-fingered salute to come up.

I couldn't even get "whatishang" or "whocrashed" or anything to come up.
<https://i.postimg.cc/PxyN9RtS/hardwaremenu.jpg>

So I force rebooted the damn PC & hacked out that script for next time.
Then I figured others could use (and improve) the script, so I posted it.

I keep a runbox pinned to my taskbar so I can run it from there.
But anyone can run it from anywhere, as long as it's in your path.

a. You can run it from the runbox (Win+R)
b. You can run it from the command line
c. You can run it from the Windows File Explorer GUI

It will ask you for an elevated prompt.
It will switch over to powershell when it needs to.
You can set your editor to anything (e.g., to Notepad++).

In summary, I hacked it out expressly to debug why the PC is slow.
And then to kill whatever it is that was mostly slowing down the PC.

I posted it only so that others would benefit from the work that I did.
And maybe they improve it so everyone benefits from every action we take.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

Arlen,

This morning my Windows 10 computer was suddenly slower than
a lame dog.

Nothing was working. I couldn't get the process-explorer
three-fingered salute to come up.

...

I couldn't even get "whatishang" or "whocrashed" or anything
to come up.

...

So I ... hacked out that script for next time.

If the three-finger salute isn't coming up and neither do those programs
than you can bet your life on it that script won't run either.

So I force rebooted the damn PC & hacked out that script
for next time.

And that shows you that it won't be easy to find out which program/process causes the slow-down: You either can't run anything (including your batch script), or you can but than the processes causing the slow-down are not running (duh) and you therefore can't find them.

Yup, a classic catch-22 :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On Mon, 1 Sep 2025 22:30:24 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 9/1/2025 2:09 PM, R.Wieser wrote:

Arlen,

This morning my Windows 10 computer was suddenly slower than
a lame dog.

Nothing was working. I couldn't get the process-explorer
three-fingered salute to come up.

...

I couldn't even get "whatishang" or "whocrashed" or anything
to come up.

...

So I ... hacked out that script for next time.

If the three-finger salute isn't coming up and neither do those programs
than you can bet your life on it that script won't run either.

So I force rebooted the damn PC & hacked out that script
for next time.

And that shows you that it won't be easy to find out which program/process >> causes the slow-down: You either can't run anything (including your batch >> script), or you can but than the processes causing the slow-down are not
running (duh) and you therefore can't find them.

Yup, a classic catch-22 :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

I'm not convinced you can necessarily measure everything on this OS.
It makes significant usage of virtualization. Yes, we get some cyclic
counts for things that use virtualization, but on occasion they
"don't look reasonable or meaningful". The Memory Compressor is not
reported in Task Manager, yet it is visible in Process Explorer.
That's how I measure that one, if I need to know.

I don't think this is necessarily a job for scripts. Maybe back in
the WinXP era, when things were still sane and rational, a script would
have been perfect for summarizing a situation. Today, we have the
Intel performance counters as an absolute -- if you can figure out
what to do with them in a given situation. They measure "something" at
the hardware level. But if a containerized NVidia video driver
starts doing "GeForce Experience Things", how would you know ? It's
in another Ring. Similarly, the RealTek NIC driver, the file names
and release notes kinda hint that Microsoft made them containerize as
well. These might be officially part of the kernel, and reported
as a component of System.

When VirtualBox is "stuck" during the boot process, what is that ?
At one time, it really was "stuck". Well, I figured out what was
happening there, and if you set your VM to 6144MB of RAM (6GB),
as the OS boots, it is doing a malloc that runs at 300MB/sec (implies
a malloc running a 4KB page-at-a-time). And while that malloc is
slowly running, the screen animation stops until it is complete.
What broke there ? Is the malloc running through layers of virtualization ? >Who really knows ?

I've looked at Task Manager before, something is going on, and the CPU numbers >all read zero. If I use Process Explorer, the extended precision readout >there shows the activity level is not 0, it's finite and makes sense.
But just adding two more zeros on the end of the Task Manager readout,
may still not provide a satisfying answer. There are still going to be
things where you can't be sure.

What I use these days, for "honest weights and measures", is the power
meter connected to the cord of this PC. When it measures 33 watts, nobody
is fooling around in that box. If it reads 57 watts and Task Manager
reads "0" for everything, then we know someone has their finger
on the scale. You can hide from me in software, you can't hide from
my power meter.

Paul

I hope I'm not highjacking the thread if I start asking about wattage measurements? I'll start another thread if that's needed. I'd never
checked wattage on my i6 chip Asus Z790 motherboard before so this
thread got me started.

I have 53 background processes running in my Win11 Taskmanager. I
don't know how to safely turn off the ones running to make
measurements. Just idling along the KWMeter is reading watts from 53.3
to 136. CoreTemp reading watts from 7.9 to 19.8

On the boot I see 119 to 214 watts.

Machine shut down, reads 1.3 to 1.4 watts.

Can you tell me a safe way to stop those processes in Taskmaster that
aren't needed without crashing the machine?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On Tue, 9/2/2025 3:55 PM, John B. Smith wrote:

I hope I'm not highjacking the thread if I start asking about wattage measurements? I'll start another thread if that's needed. I'd never
checked wattage on my i6 chip Asus Z790 motherboard before so this
thread got me started.

I have 53 background processes running in my Win11 Taskmanager. I
don't know how to safely turn off the ones running to make
measurements. Just idling along the KWMeter is reading watts from 53.3
to 136. CoreTemp reading watts from 7.9 to 19.8

On the boot I see 119 to 214 watts.

Machine shut down, reads 1.3 to 1.4 watts.

Can you tell me a safe way to stop those processes in Taskmaster that
aren't needed without crashing the machine?

The SVCHOST, most of them use *zero* cycles. They're not
scheduled to run and they don't run. They are "on-demand"
services.

Running Sysinternals Process Explorer as administrator, there is
an interface that gives a cycle count per process. That's how you
can check at that level.

A few are hopefuls. WUAUSERV for Windows Update, it would run
several times a day, and it can run for a bit, preparing
WinSxS for maintenance. That's a fairly expensive one, in
terms of KwH.

The SysMain has likely been renamed a number of times. It
positions materials on a HDD for faster loading (.pf prefetch files).
On an SSD, this is likely a waste of a service. During a Windows
update, I run services.msc and I shut that one down. I
also try to kill SearchIndexer (a separate process, not
a SVCHOST), but that one is the undead and it keeps starting
itself.

But for the most part, the consumption in the OS is going to
consist of other maintenance things. These would be forked,
run for a while, and close on their own. These like to start
when you're trying to benchmark and stuff.

When you ask for a compute job to be done, the job has
"a fixed number of watt-hours" in a sense. Stretching the
job out, doesn't make a lot of sense, so for the
following, it's better to "rush the job, then turn
the PC OFF". But if the machine must run all day, you
can try and crank it down a bit. It depends on how
"overpowered" the resources are, how much room there is
to do this.

Some motherboards have an "eco mode". My 5950X, that mode
is simple -- turn one of the two silicon die off. My other
processors have a single-die, and an "eco mode" consists of
running reduced frequency (and reduced VCore voltage) on the processor.

CPUs have closed loop controls, like the video cards got. If
you set the BIOS CPU power limiter to "100W", then it starts to
throttle when the power gets that high, and that is an
automatic way of capping top power. The Intel one goes to 4095
watts, which means "unlimited" in a sense. That might help
if your cooler isn't very good.

You can turn the core count down in the BIOS, on some boards.
Some CPUs may not have such controls. A Phenom II from AMD,
the six die were in two groups, and you could shut one group
off (even though they shared a common die).

One very expensive processor ($1000), if you shut it down to 1 core
in the BIOS, right after you save settings... the CPU is
destroyed. That's an example of a CPU where you *never* drop
to 1 core (setting not blocked in BIOS!). 2 cores would be OK
(of six perhaps). These probably aren't power modulated, just
a clock thing (reducing clock to a processor, reduces consumption
to DC leakage). When the BIOS detects one of your attempts to
save power, it still tries to arrange things so the die is as
"power balanced" as possible. The ECL designer in my group at
work used to do that for the chips he worked on, power-balance
the corners so the die heats evenly and doesn't crack at
extremely high temps (ECL loves heat).

But messing with things at that level, ECO modes, power capping,
that makes more of an impact than doing a lot of tweaking
at individual process levels, especially when a lot of the
SVCHOST are drawing zero cycles anyway.

Microsoft has done a lot already, to optimize things. They have
had studies running on machines, to find things they can turn down.

On some motherboards, it is the *chipset* which is a pig. The
CPU gets blamed, but the Idle CPU actually draws less than a
Northbridge with 42 PCIe lanes on it. While you can turn
chipset voltage down, on those pig chips, fiddle too much
and you get memory errors, so it's not really worth
chasing that. As it is, the pig chip across the way has
a boost of a tenth of a volt to keep it "honest". My X48,
that was a badly binned chip, and that needed a boost its
whole life and it probably should never have been put in
the "good" bin at Intel. That chipset is dead now. The X79
is still going strong (and drinking the power like crazy).

Buying a modern computer can save power, but the payback
period would be longer than you will be alive. Like using
my 33W computer, instead of the 100W idle computer, that
saves money. Pennies a day. It's because of this, the 33W
computer tends to run all day, the higher end machines
stay OFF. But if I wanted to compress a 3TB Macrium MRIMG,
I wouldn't do that on this machine (would take too long).

On the 5950X, railing one core uses half the CPU power
and ramping up all the cores and threads, doubles that...

200W ____
___/
___/
100W ___/
/
/
33W /
0 1 N

That is why saving power is so hard, as vampire tasks
that use a fraction of a core, they tend to climb the
steep part of the curve near the "one core railed" end.
An ECO setting with an artificially capped Fmax, will
likely scale the whole graph. At least some of the load
at the low end, is ATX supply inefficiency, chipset
static power (power that does not change with usage),
you charging your iPhone and so on.

100W ____
___/
___/
50W ___/
/
/
33W /
0 1 N

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On 2025/9/3 0:16:4, Paul wrote:

On Tue, 9/2/2025 3:55 PM, John B. Smith wrote:

[]

Can you tell me a safe way to stop those processes in Taskmaster that
aren't needed without crashing the machine?

Ah, a plaintive question which has been around for a Very Long Time, and
to which no _simple_ answer has ever been given!

[]

Microsoft has done a lot already, to optimize things. They have
had studies running on machines, to find things they can turn down.

Because of who is saying it I have to believe that, but for anyone who
has been using the various Windows versions for a lot of years, it's
very _hard_ to believe: the number of background tasks which anyone with
less than Paul's (or possibly VanguardLH's, or one other) level of
knowledge just has to, for practical purposes, _accept_ running, has
risen significantly with each version, from about 9x on. (I'm not sure
if 3.1 had any.)
[]

What's snipped in my two []s in this post is _very_ knowledgeable. But
beyond my capability to understand now. This is no criticism, just an acceptance that _my_ processing power is declining!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On Tue, 9/2/2025 8:25 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/9/3 0:16:4, Paul wrote:

On Tue, 9/2/2025 3:55 PM, John B. Smith wrote:

[]

Can you tell me a safe way to stop those processes in Taskmaster that
aren't needed without crashing the machine?

Ah, a plaintive question which has been around for a Very Long Time, and
to which no _simple_ answer has ever been given!

[]

Microsoft has done a lot already, to optimize things. They have
had studies running on machines, to find things they can turn down.

Because of who is saying it I have to believe that, but for anyone who
has been using the various Windows versions for a lot of years, it's
very _hard_ to believe: the number of background tasks which anyone with
less than Paul's (or possibly VanguardLH's, or one other) level of
knowledge just has to, for practical purposes, _accept_ running, has
risen significantly with each version, from about 9x on. (I'm not sure
if 3.1 had any.)
[]

What's snipped in my two []s in this post is _very_ knowledgeable. But
beyond my capability to understand now. This is no criticism, just an acceptance that _my_ processing power is declining!

I'm suggesting it isn't particularly practical to get stressed about this.

If you're off the grid, you would shop for a low power machine in the
first place, and then most of the work is already done for you.
Like one of those $250 mini-PC that are making the rounds right
now, and have a quad core "6 watt" CPU inside. There are probably
a few tablets that would make good candidates for the same reason.

All I can suggest for the carefulness of the power consumption,
is run Linux and do some reproducible stuff, then run Windows and
compare, and you might find windows is a bit better. I haven't
tried this, so I have no numbers to offer. I can tell you, that
for some performance tests, Linux can be a few percent better
(I did a head-to-head video transcode test once, and Linux was
a few percent better, using mostly the same hardware path).

You can also see Linux perform better, when running a browser,
as the browser does not "bog" like it does for javascript adware on Windows.

But the power issue, is a bit orthogonal to the performance testing,
and you will find small mistakes make a big difference (running
Nouveau for the video driver versus NVidia). On a recent distro,
with the Nouveau driver, in the "top" display I watched as the
desktop rendering used 400% CPU (four railed CPU cores) to replace
what the graphics card should have been doing. This is one reason
you have to hand-tune the box a bit, before you have your
"head-to-head efficiency test". Don't assume Linux has made
the absolutely best choices, and some things you do may need
a "firm hand on the tiller". Part of what they do, is
"they want the box to start". Which is fine. Additional work
may be required.

The 400% doesn't happen everywhere. There are 500 distros, and
whatever I was using at the time, that's what it decided to do.
I was just shocked (jaw dropped) when I was seeing this. There have
been cases before of one core (100%) railing, it was more than a bit strange
to see it using 400% (almost like it was using OpenMP for some purpose).
It wasn't any application I was running at the time, doing it.
I wasn't running the "3D Pipes Screen Saver" :-) I would be a bit
concerned if the $250 mini-PC had that OS on it (4C 4T processor).

You *might* be able to save some power on Windows, by disabling
all the security features. I don't know if I could manage that
on my own, or not. Like the Virtualization Based Security,
maybe just one setting in bcdedit could smother that.

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On Wed, 3 Sep 2025 09:18:24 +0100
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2025/9/3 8:41:2, Paul wrote:

On Tue, 9/2/2025 8:25 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/9/3 0:16:4, Paul wrote:

On Tue, 9/2/2025 3:55 PM, John B. Smith wrote:

[]

Can you tell me a safe way to stop those processes in Taskmaster that >>>> aren't needed without crashing the machine?

Ah, a plaintive question which has been around for a Very Long Time, and >> to which no _simple_ answer has ever been given!

[]

Microsoft has done a lot already, to optimize things. They have
had studies running on machines, to find things they can turn down.

Because of who is saying it I have to believe that, but for anyone who
has been using the various Windows versions for a lot of years, it's
very _hard_ to believe: the number of background tasks which anyone with >> less than Paul's (or possibly VanguardLH's, or one other) level of
knowledge just has to, for practical purposes, _accept_ running, has
risen significantly with each version, from about 9x on. (I'm not sure
if 3.1 had any.)

My [XP] box:

Image Name PID Session Name Session# Mem Usage ========================= ====== ================ ======== ============
System Idle Process 0 0 16 K
System 4 0 36 K smss.exe 728 0 48 K csrss.exe 784 0 2,852 K winlogon.exe 808 0 1,044 K services.exe 852 0 1,924 K lsass.exe 864 0 1,300 K svchost.exe 1020 0 1,268 K svchost.exe 1068 0 1,600 K svchost.exe 1264 0 9,404 K explorer.exe 1568 0 34,916 K PERSFW.exe 1644 0 572 K svchost.exe 1696 0 2,176 K sylpheed.exe 1760 0 4,040 K wmiprvse.exe 1984 0 5,060 K
cmd.exe 2236 0 2,892 K ntvdm.exe 984 0 2,392 K wmiprvse.exe 3904 0 5,980 K tasklist.exe 2872 0 4,408 K

[]

sylpheed.exe because I'm looking at usenet right now
wmiprvse snuck in whilst I was looking,
cmd.exe and ntvdm.exe are because I ran tasklist in a command box, tasklist.exe is because it is reporting on itself!

but otherwise it's as minimal as I can get it.
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On Wed, 9/3/2025 5:06 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

On Wed, 3 Sep 2025 09:18:24 +0100
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2025/9/3 8:41:2, Paul wrote:

On Tue, 9/2/2025 8:25 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/9/3 0:16:4, Paul wrote:

On Tue, 9/2/2025 3:55 PM, John B. Smith wrote:

[]

Can you tell me a safe way to stop those processes in Taskmaster that >>>>>> aren't needed without crashing the machine?

Ah, a plaintive question which has been around for a Very Long Time, and >>>> to which no _simple_ answer has ever been given!

[]

Microsoft has done a lot already, to optimize things. They have
had studies running on machines, to find things they can turn down.

Because of who is saying it I have to believe that, but for anyone who >>>> has been using the various Windows versions for a lot of years, it's
very _hard_ to believe: the number of background tasks which anyone with >>>> less than Paul's (or possibly VanguardLH's, or one other) level of
knowledge just has to, for practical purposes, _accept_ running, has
risen significantly with each version, from about 9x on. (I'm not sure >>>> if 3.1 had any.)

My [XP] box:

Image Name PID Session Name Session# Mem Usage ========================= ====== ================ ======== ============ System Idle Process 0 0 16 K System 4 0 36 K smss.exe 728 0 48 K csrss.exe 784 0 2,852 K winlogon.exe 808 0 1,044 K services.exe 852 0 1,924 K lsass.exe 864 0 1,300 K svchost.exe 1020 0 1,268 K svchost.exe 1068 0 1,600 K svchost.exe 1264 0 9,404 K explorer.exe 1568 0 34,916 K PERSFW.exe 1644 0 572 K svchost.exe 1696 0 2,176 K sylpheed.exe 1760 0 4,040 K wmiprvse.exe 1984 0 5,060 K cmd.exe 2236 0 2,892 K ntvdm.exe 984 0 2,392 K wmiprvse.exe 3904 0 5,980 K tasklist.exe 2872 0 4,408 K

[]

sylpheed.exe because I'm looking at usenet right now
wmiprvse snuck in whilst I was looking,
cmd.exe and ntvdm.exe are because I ran tasklist in a command box, tasklist.exe is because it is reporting on itself!

but otherwise it's as minimal as I can get it.

But if John is using a modern game with an anticheat, some of those games require Secure Boot. And then you have the baggage of the newer OS.

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On 2025/9/3 8:41:2, Paul wrote:

On Tue, 9/2/2025 8:25 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/9/3 0:16:4, Paul wrote:

On Tue, 9/2/2025 3:55 PM, John B. Smith wrote:

[]

Can you tell me a safe way to stop those processes in Taskmaster that
aren't needed without crashing the machine?

Ah, a plaintive question which has been around for a Very Long Time, and
to which no _simple_ answer has ever been given!

[]

Microsoft has done a lot already, to optimize things. They have
had studies running on machines, to find things they can turn down.

Because of who is saying it I have to believe that, but for anyone who
has been using the various Windows versions for a lot of years, it's
very _hard_ to believe: the number of background tasks which anyone with
less than Paul's (or possibly VanguardLH's, or one other) level of
knowledge just has to, for practical purposes, _accept_ running, has
risen significantly with each version, from about 9x on. (I'm not sure
if 3.1 had any.)

[]

I'm suggesting it isn't particularly practical to get stressed about this.

Oh, I realised that long ago; basically, that's a flavour of the
Kool-aid that we all (OK, most) have just accepted we've got to drink,
to remain sane.>

If you're off the grid, you would shop for a low power machine in the
first place, and then most of the work is already done for you.
Like one of those $250 mini-PC that are making the rounds right
now, and have a quad core "6 watt" CPU inside. There are probably
a few tablets that would make good candidates for the same reason.

I assumed from the subject line (and the original post, I think) that
the concern was more with unnecessary processes impacting performance,
rather than concerns about power consumption - though of course
overheating concerns do remain.

[]

Nouveau for the video driver versus NVidia). On a recent distro,
with the Nouveau driver, in the "top" display I watched as the
desktop rendering used 400% CPU (four railed CPU cores) to replace

Interesting: does Linux show CPU usage in percentage of one-core usage?
I've always assumed that Windows - probably in Task Manager, though I
may have seen CPU usage figures elsewhere, can't remember - was showing
usage as a percentage of the total CPU capability you have. I don't
think I've ever seen above ninetysomething per cent, even on machines
with more than one core (do such still exist? IIRR, Windows above 7 - or
maybe 8 - won't install on a one-core machine).

[]

You *might* be able to save some power on Windows, by disabling
all the security features. I don't know if I could manage that
on my own, or not. Like the Virtualization Based Security,
maybe just one setting in bcdedit could smother that.

Paul

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"The wish of the lazy to allow unsupervised access [to the internet] to
their children should not reduce all adults browsing to the level of suitability for a five-year-old."
Yaman Akdeniz, quoted in Inter//face (The Times, 1999-2-10): p12
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

I rather like your the Subject line:

What is slowing down my WIndows PC & what can I do to kill it now

What, indeed, can you do to kill your Winodows PC :-?
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 02:10:28 +0300, Anton Shepelev wrote:

I rather like your the Subject line:

What is slowing down my WIndows PC & what can I do to kill it now

What, indeed, can you do to kill your Winodows PC :-?

Throw it out from the second or higher floor.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

JJ to Anton Sheplelev:

I rather like your the Subject line:

What is slowing down my WIndows PC & what can I do to kill it now

What, indeed, can you do to kill your Winodows PC :-?

Throw it out from the second or higher floor.

That's the standard method, if it supports the drag'n'drop technology.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On 2025/10/8 9:35:15, Anton Shepelev wrote:

JJ to Anton Sheplelev:

I rather like your the Subject line:

What is slowing down my WIndows PC & what can I do to kill it now

What, indeed, can you do to kill your Winodows PC :-?

Throw it out from the second or higher floor.

Is that a UK second or a US second?>

That's the standard method, if it supports the drag'n'drop technology.

Chuckle!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 02:10:28 +0300, Anton Shepelev wrote:

I rather like your the Subject line:

What is slowing down my WIndows PC & what can I do to kill it now

What, indeed, can you do to kill your Winodows PC :-?

That's funny. My most common typo is Widows, for which a spell
checker is no help at all.
--
"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by
those who don't have it." --George Bernard Shaw
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On 2025-10-08 17:41, Stan Brown wrote:

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 02:10:28 +0300, Anton Shepelev wrote:

I rather like your the Subject line:

What is slowing down my WIndows PC & what can I do to kill it now

What, indeed, can you do to kill your Winodows PC :-?

That's funny. My most common typo is Widows, for which a spell
checker is no help at all.

Defn: 'Widow' - A Windows PC that didn't come up after a reboot.
--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: www.macfh.co.uk

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

Stan Brown:

My most common typo is Widows

Same here, also: `starndads', and `GoggleGropus`.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On Wed, 10/8/2025 6:48 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/8 9:35:15, Anton Shepelev wrote:

JJ to Anton Sheplelev:

I rather like your the Subject line:

What is slowing down my WIndows PC & what can I do to kill it now

What, indeed, can you do to kill your Winodows PC :-?

Throw it out from the second or higher floor.

Is that a UK second or a US second?>

+--------------+
|
+---+ ii
|CPU|>--//
|RAM| \\
+---+| /\
+--------------+
14 |
foot |
drop |
|
|
^^^^^ +--------------+
<crashing sound>

Paul (meat-powered-ascii-art-incorporated)
(I'm still working on my people skills)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On 2025/10/8 23:53:11, Anton Shepelev wrote:

Stan Brown:

My most common typo is Widows

Same here, also: `starndads', and `GoggleGropus`.

Mine Thunderbord. And there's a word with ie in it - I think it's field
- that gets transposed.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 01:53:11 +0300, Anton Shepelev wrote:

Stan Brown:

My most common typo is Widows

Same here, also: `starndads', and `GoggleGropus`.

When I first got a home computer, I often made the mistake of entering
"LUST" when it was supposed to be "LIST".
--
77 days until the winter celebration (Thursday, December 25, 2025 12:00
AM for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"If there is a God, atheism must strike Him as less of an insult than religion." [Edmond and Jules de Goncourt]
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On 09 Oct 2025 17:12:48 GMT
Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 01:53:11 +0300, Anton Shepelev wrote:

Stan Brown:

My most common typo is Widows

Same here, also: `starndads', and `GoggleGropus`.

When I first got a home computer, I often made the mistake of entering "LUST" when it was supposed to be "LIST".

MAKE LOVE
Not War

[retained sig]

--
77 days until the winter celebration (Thursday, December 25, 2025 12:00
AM for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"If there is a God, atheism must strike Him as less of an insult than religion." [Edmond and Jules de Goncourt]

*My* Winter Celebration is 4 days earlier, on the Solstice.
[Full disclosure, I've not been at Stonehenge to greet the dawn on that
day]
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 11:48:06 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/8 9:35:15, Anton Shepelev wrote:

Throw it out from the second or higher floor.

Is that a UK second or a US second?>

Wait, what? Aren't both the same?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On 2025/10/10 0:34:47, JJ wrote:

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 11:48:06 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/8 9:35:15, Anton Shepelev wrote:

Throw it out from the second or higher floor.

Is that a UK second or a US second?>

Wait, what? Aren't both the same?

Not when it comes to floors (storeys)! In British English, the ground
floor is called the ground floor, and the first floor is upstairs (with
the second floor, if there is one, above that, and so on); in American
English, the ground floor is the first floor, upstairs is the second
floor, and so on.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/10 0:34:47, JJ wrote:

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 11:48:06 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/8 9:35:15, Anton Shepelev wrote:

Throw it out from the second or higher floor.

Is that a UK second or a US second?>

Wait, what? Aren't both the same?

Not when it comes to floors (storeys)! In British English, the ground
floor is called the ground floor, and the first floor is upstairs (with
the second floor, if there is one, above that, and so on); in American English, the ground floor is the first floor, upstairs is the second
floor, and so on.

Don't beat about the bush!

The language spoken in England is English. Variants of it are spoken in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

The language spoken in America is American. It is virtually
incomprehensible to an English speaker. Many words have different meanings.
--
Graham J
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2025/10/10 0:34:47, JJ wrote:

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 11:48:06 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/8 9:35:15, Anton Shepelev wrote:

Throw it out from the second or higher floor.

Is that a UK second or a US second?>

Wait, what? Aren't both the same?

Not when it comes to floors (storeys)! In British English, the ground
floor is called the ground floor, and the first floor is upstairs (with
the second floor, if there is one, above that, and so on); in American English, the ground floor is the first floor, upstairs is the second
floor, and so on.

I think it's not so much a question of British English versus American English, but about the US versus (most of?) the rest of the world.

And you'll be pleased to know that Google Translate said 'ground
floor' when I asked to translate the Dutch 'begane grond'! :-) (My
'Windows display language' is 'English (United Kingdom)' so hopefully
Google Translate takes that into account.)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2025/10/10 0:34:47, JJ wrote:

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 11:48:06 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/8 9:35:15, Anton Shepelev wrote:

Throw it out from the second or higher floor.

Is that a UK second or a US second?>

Wait, what? Aren't both the same?

Not when it comes to floors (storeys)! In British English, the ground
floor is called the ground floor, and the first floor is upstairs (with
the second floor, if there is one, above that, and so on); in American English, the ground floor is the first floor, upstairs is the second
floor, and so on.

dragging ourselves a little more on-topic; in computing terms this is the difference between 0-based and 1-based indexing. C-based languages always
use 0-based indexing whereas others (like R, S) use 1-based.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On 2025/10/10 13:14:25, Chris wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2025/10/10 0:34:47, JJ wrote:

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 11:48:06 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/8 9:35:15, Anton Shepelev wrote:

Throw it out from the second or higher floor.

Is that a UK second or a US second?>

Wait, what? Aren't both the same?

Not when it comes to floors (storeys)! In British English, the ground
floor is called the ground floor, and the first floor is upstairs (with
the second floor, if there is one, above that, and so on); in American>> English, the ground floor is the first floor, upstairs is the second
floor, and so on.

dragging ourselves a little more on-topic; in computing terms this is the difference between 0-based and 1-based indexing. C-based languages always
use 0-based indexing whereas others (like R, S) use 1-based.

Yes, I've occasionally found lifts (elevators) where the ground floor
button is labelled with a 0. (More often it's a G, especially if there's
a basement [usually labelled B].)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:40:02 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/10 0:34:47, JJ wrote:

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 11:48:06 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/8 9:35:15, Anton Shepelev wrote:

Throw it out from the second or higher floor.

Is that a UK second or a US second?>

Wait, what? Aren't both the same?

Not when it comes to floors (storeys)! In British English, the ground
floor is called the ground floor, and the first floor is upstairs (with
the second floor, if there is one, above that, and so on); in American English, the ground floor is the first floor, upstairs is the second
floor, and so on.

Didn't know that, since I'm in Asia. So, thanks.

Which one or do both still superstitious on having 13th floor?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

JJ <jj4public@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:40:02 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/10 0:34:47, JJ wrote:

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 11:48:06 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/8 9:35:15, Anton Shepelev wrote:

Throw it out from the second or higher floor.

Is that a UK second or a US second?>

Wait, what? Aren't both the same?

Not when it comes to floors (storeys)! In British English, the ground
floor is called the ground floor, and the first floor is upstairs (with
the second floor, if there is one, above that, and so on); in American
English, the ground floor is the first floor, upstairs is the second
floor, and so on.

Didn't know that, since I'm in Asia. So, thanks.

Which one or do both still superstitious on having 13th floor?

Both. It's a common western phobia.

I've not seen it in buildings - in the UK buildings with more than 13
floors aren't that common - but many airlines don't have a row 13.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:40:02 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/10 0:34:47, JJ wrote:

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 11:48:06 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/8 9:35:15, Anton Shepelev wrote:

Throw it out from the second or higher floor.

Is that a UK second or a US second?>

Wait, what? Aren't both the same?

Not when it comes to floors (storeys)! In British English, the ground
floor is called the ground floor, and the first floor is upstairs (with
the second floor, if there is one, above that, and so on); in American English, the ground floor is the first floor, upstairs is the second
floor, and so on.

In this as in s many things, the US is out of step. In both French
and Spanish classes, we learned translations of floor numbers that
match what the British do.
--
"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by
those who don't have it." --George Bernard Shaw
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

In alt.comp.os.windows-11 Stan Brown <someone@example.com> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:40:02 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/10 0:34:47, JJ wrote:

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 11:48:06 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/8 9:35:15, Anton Shepelev wrote:

Throw it out from the second or higher floor.

Is that a UK second or a US second?>

Wait, what? Aren't both the same?

Not when it comes to floors (storeys)! In British English, the ground
floor is called the ground floor, and the first floor is upstairs (with
the second floor, if there is one, above that, and so on); in American English, the ground floor is the first floor, upstairs is the second
floor, and so on.

In this as in s many things, the US is out of step. In both French
and Spanish classes, we learned translations of floor numbers that
match what the British do.

That's what I indicated in my response. In Dutch and German, it's also
(the equivalent of) the ground floor.

So we probably should have a poll on whether there is *any* country
*other* than the US, which calls the ground floor the first floor.
--
Frank Slootweg, living on the 7th floor, so 7 (pairs of) stairs, not 6.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On Sat, 10/11/2025 2:09 AM, JJ wrote:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:40:02 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/10 0:34:47, JJ wrote:

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 11:48:06 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/8 9:35:15, Anton Shepelev wrote:

Throw it out from the second or higher floor.

Is that a UK second or a US second?>

Wait, what? Aren't both the same?

Not when it comes to floors (storeys)! In British English, the ground
floor is called the ground floor, and the first floor is upstairs (with
the second floor, if there is one, above that, and so on); in American
English, the ground floor is the first floor, upstairs is the second
floor, and so on.

Didn't know that, since I'm in Asia. So, thanks.

Which one or do both still superstitious on having 13th floor?

There are actually *multiple* phobias

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraphobia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triskaidekaphobia

Somewhere, an elevator is missing both 4 and 13.

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On 11 Oct 2025 17:20:39 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

So we probably should have a poll on whether there is *any* country
*other* than the US, which calls the ground floor the first floor.

Reminds me of a 1981 Isaac Asimov essay, where in a footnote he said
that the two most powerful countries not on the metric system were
the United States and Liberia. And I believe Liberia has gone metric
since then.
--
"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by
those who don't have it." --George Bernard Shaw
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On Sat, 10/11/2025 3:06 PM, Stan Brown wrote:

On 11 Oct 2025 17:20:39 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

So we probably should have a poll on whether there is *any* country
*other* than the US, which calls the ground floor the first floor.

Reminds me of a 1981 Isaac Asimov essay, where in a footnote he said
that the two most powerful countries not on the metric system were
the United States and Liberia. And I believe Liberia has gone metric
since then.

But then we'd have to use metric toilet paper.

That would never work :-)

Paul

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On Sat, 10/11/2025 12:36 PM, Stan Brown wrote:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:40:02 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/10 0:34:47, JJ wrote:

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 11:48:06 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/8 9:35:15, Anton Shepelev wrote:

Throw it out from the second or higher floor.

Is that a UK second or a US second?>

Wait, what? Aren't both the same?

Not when it comes to floors (storeys)! In British English, the ground
floor is called the ground floor, and the first floor is upstairs (with
the second floor, if there is one, above that, and so on); in American
English, the ground floor is the first floor, upstairs is the second
floor, and so on.

In this as in s many things, the US is out of step. In both French
and Spanish classes, we learned translations of floor numbers that
match what the British do.

"Where we're going, we don't need floors"

https://www2.isye.gatech.edu/~jjb/misc/elevators/elevators.html

I like the use of the Asterisk, to indicate exit at grade level.

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On 12/10/2025 12:04 am, Chris wrote:

JJ <jj4public@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:40:02 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/10 0:34:47, JJ wrote:

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 11:48:06 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/8 9:35:15, Anton Shepelev wrote:

Throw it out from the second or higher floor.

Is that a UK second or a US second?>

Wait, what? Aren't both the same?

Not when it comes to floors (storeys)! In British English, the ground
floor is called the ground floor, and the first floor is upstairs (with
the second floor, if there is one, above that, and so on); in American
English, the ground floor is the first floor, upstairs is the second
floor, and so on.

Didn't know that, since I'm in Asia. So, thanks.

Which one or do both still superstitious on having 13th floor?

Both. It's a common western phobia.

I've not seen it in buildings - in the UK buildings with more than 13
floors aren't that common - but many airlines don't have a row 13.

I can't say I've ever noticed it but I have heard that some tall
buildings don't actually have a 13th Floor .... they just have a gap ...
to allow the Wind to blow THROUGH rather than causing the building to
sway from side to side.

Hmm! One of my Brothers-in-Law is/was an Architect ... prehaps I should discuss this with him. ;-)
--
Daniel70
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On 12/10/2025 7:58 pm, Daniel70 wrote:

On 12/10/2025 12:04 am, Chris wrote:

JJ <jj4public@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:40:02 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/10 0:34:47, JJ wrote:

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 11:48:06 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/8 9:35:15, Anton Shepelev wrote:

Throw it out from the second or higher floor.

Is that a UK second or a US second?>

Wait, what? Aren't both the same?

Not when it comes to floors (storeys)! In British English, the ground
floor is called the ground floor, and the first floor is upstairs (with >>>> the second floor, if there is one, above that, and so on); in American >>>> English, the ground floor is the first floor, upstairs is the second
floor, and so on.

Didn't know that, since I'm in Asia. So, thanks.

Which one or do both still superstitious on having 13th floor?

Both. It's a common western phobia.

I've not seen it in buildings - in the UK buildings with more than 13
floors aren't that common - but many airlines don't have a row 13.

I can't say I've ever noticed it but I have heard that some tall
buildings don't actually have a 13th Floor .... they just have a gap ...
to allow the Wind to blow THROUGH rather than causing the building to
sway from side to side.

Hmm! One of my Brothers-in-Law is/was an Architect ... prehaps I should discuss this with him. ;-)

s/prehaps/perhaps
--
Daniel70
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On 10/10/2025 11:14 pm, Chris wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2025/10/10 0:34:47, JJ wrote:

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 11:48:06 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/8 9:35:15, Anton Shepelev wrote:

Throw it out from the second or higher floor.

Is that a UK second or a US second?>

Wait, what? Aren't both the same?

Not when it comes to floors (storeys)! In British English, the ground
floor is called the ground floor, and the first floor is upstairs (with
the second floor, if there is one, above that, and so on); in American
English, the ground floor is the first floor, upstairs is the second
floor, and so on.

dragging ourselves a little more on-topic; in computing terms this is the difference between 0-based and 1-based indexing. C-based languages always
use 0-based indexing whereas others (like R, S) use 1-based.

"C-based languages" I can live with, although I've never studies it/them
... but "0-based" and "1-based"??
--
Daniel70
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On 12/10/2025 11:57, Daniel70 wrote:

On 10/10/2025 11:14 pm, Chris wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2025/10/10 0:34:47, JJ wrote:

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 11:48:06 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/8 9:35:15, Anton Shepelev wrote:

Throw it out from the second or higher floor.

Is that a UK second or a US second?>

Wait, what? Aren't both the same?

Not when it comes to floors (storeys)! In British English, the ground
floor is called the ground floor, and the first floor is upstairs (with
the second floor, if there is one, above that, and so on); in American
English, the ground floor is the first floor, upstairs is the second
floor, and so on.

dragging ourselves a little more on-topic; in computing terms this is the
difference between 0-based and 1-based indexing. C-based languages always
use 0-based indexing whereas others (like R, S) use 1-based.

"C-based languages" I can live with, although I've never studies it/them
... but "0-based" and "1-based"??

Think of fields in an array. The first field may be given the index 0 or 1.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On 12/10/2025 10:38 pm, MikeS wrote:

On 12/10/2025 11:57, Daniel70 wrote:

On 10/10/2025 11:14 pm, Chris wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2025/10/10 0:34:47, JJ wrote:

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 11:48:06 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/8 9:35:15, Anton Shepelev wrote:

Throw it out from the second or higher floor.

Is that a UK second or a US second?>

Wait, what? Aren't both the same?

Not when it comes to floors (storeys)! In British English, the
ground floor is called the ground floor, and the first floor is
upstairs (with the second floor, if there is one, above that,
and so on); in American English, the ground floor is the first
floor, upstairs is the second floor, and so on.

dragging ourselves a little more on-topic; in computing terms
this is the difference between 0-based and 1-based indexing.
C-based languages always use 0-based indexing whereas others
(like R, S) use 1-based.

"C-based languages" I can live with, although I've never studies
it/them ... but "0-based" and "1-based"??

Think of fields in an array. The first field may be given the index 0
or 1.

Oh!! Are you talking about 2^0, 2^1, 2^2, etc?? Is that all?? Just never
heard of it expressed that way.
--
Daniel70
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

On 12/10/2025 10:38 pm, MikeS wrote:

On 12/10/2025 11:57, Daniel70 wrote:

On 10/10/2025 11:14 pm, Chris wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2025/10/10 0:34:47, JJ wrote:

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 11:48:06 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/8 9:35:15, Anton Shepelev wrote:

Throw it out from the second or higher floor.

Is that a UK second or a US second?>

Wait, what? Aren't both the same?

Not when it comes to floors (storeys)! In British English, the
ground floor is called the ground floor, and the first floor is
upstairs (with the second floor, if there is one, above that,
and so on); in American English, the ground floor is the first
floor, upstairs is the second floor, and so on.

dragging ourselves a little more on-topic; in computing terms
this is the difference between 0-based and 1-based indexing.
C-based languages always use 0-based indexing whereas others
(like R, S) use 1-based.

"C-based languages" I can live with, although I've never studies
it/them ... but "0-based" and "1-based"??

Think of fields in an array. The first field may be given the index 0
or 1.

Oh!! Are you talking about 2^0, 2^1, 2^2, etc?? Is that all?? Just never heard of it expressed that way.

No. An array is a structure used in programming to manage a list of
variables. The list is indexed by an integer which either starts at 0 or 1 depending on the programming language.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

[snip]

Think of fields in an array. The first field may be given the index 0
or 1.

Oh!! Are you talking about 2^0, 2^1, 2^2, etc?? Is that all?? Just never heard of it expressed that way.

For a 4-element array, are the indices 0, 1, 2, 3 or are they 1, 2, 3, 4?
--
74 days until the winter celebration (Thursday, December 25, 2025 12:00
AM for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"No matter how long a log stays in the water, it doesn't become a
crocodile." -- (Bambara Proverb)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On Sun, 10/12/2025 11:56 AM, Chris wrote:

Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

On 12/10/2025 10:38 pm, MikeS wrote:

On 12/10/2025 11:57, Daniel70 wrote:

On 10/10/2025 11:14 pm, Chris wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2025/10/10 0:34:47, JJ wrote:

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 11:48:06 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/8 9:35:15, Anton Shepelev wrote:

Throw it out from the second or higher floor.

Is that a UK second or a US second?>

Wait, what? Aren't both the same?

Not when it comes to floors (storeys)! In British English, the
ground floor is called the ground floor, and the first floor is
upstairs (with the second floor, if there is one, above that,
and so on); in American English, the ground floor is the first
floor, upstairs is the second floor, and so on.

dragging ourselves a little more on-topic; in computing terms
this is the difference between 0-based and 1-based indexing.
C-based languages always use 0-based indexing whereas others
(like R, S) use 1-based.

"C-based languages" I can live with, although I've never studies
it/them ... but "0-based" and "1-based"??

Think of fields in an array. The first field may be given the index 0
or 1.

Oh!! Are you talking about 2^0, 2^1, 2^2, etc?? Is that all?? Just never
heard of it expressed that way.

No. An array is a structure used in programming to manage a list of variables. The list is indexed by an integer which either starts at 0 or 1 depending on the programming language.

A[0] Offset 0 (32 bit integer equals 4 bytes)
A[1] Offset 4
A[2] Offset 8

Some languages start the index of the array at 1 instead. Maybe Pascal ?

A[1] Offset 0 (32 bit integer equals 4 bytes)
A[2] Offset 4
A[3] Offset 8

Both setups happen to be 12 bytes total. The first one at least,
is likely to be declared as having a size of three elements,
but their index enumeration is 0,1,2 .

Paul

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On 13/10/2025 2:56 am, Chris wrote:

Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

On 12/10/2025 10:38 pm, MikeS wrote:

On 12/10/2025 11:57, Daniel70 wrote:

On 10/10/2025 11:14 pm, Chris wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2025/10/10 0:34:47, JJ wrote:

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 11:48:06 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/8 9:35:15, Anton Shepelev wrote:

Throw it out from the second or higher floor.

Is that a UK second or a US second?>

Wait, what? Aren't both the same?

Not when it comes to floors (storeys)! In British English, the
ground floor is called the ground floor, and the first floor is
upstairs (with the second floor, if there is one, above that,
and so on); in American English, the ground floor is the first
floor, upstairs is the second floor, and so on.

dragging ourselves a little more on-topic; in computing terms
this is the difference between 0-based and 1-based indexing.
C-based languages always use 0-based indexing whereas others
(like R, S) use 1-based.

"C-based languages" I can live with, although I've never studies
it/them ... but "0-based" and "1-based"??

Think of fields in an array. The first field may be given the index 0
or 1.

Oh!! Are you talking about 2^0, 2^1, 2^2, etc?? Is that all?? Just never
heard of it expressed that way.

No. An array is a structure used in programming to manage a list of variables. The list is indexed by an integer which either starts at 0 or 1 depending on the programming language.

Ah!! O.K., beyond my knowledge .... so I'll try to pull my head in!! ;-(
--
Daniel70
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On Sun, 12 Oct 2025 15:48:51 -0400, Paul wrote:

Some languages start the index of the array at 1 instead. Maybe Pascal ?

Pascal's 1-based index is for Pascal String (ShortString), where index 1 is
the first character. But physically it's 0-based, where index 0 is the
string length. Pascal simply doesn't allow direct reference to index 0 of ShortString.

The one I know which use 1-based index is AutoHotkey. Both the original v1,
and the newer v2 (which is supposed to have better syntax).
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

JJ <jj4public@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2025 15:48:51 -0400, Paul wrote:

Some languages start the index of the array at 1 instead. Maybe Pascal ?

Pascal's 1-based index is for Pascal String (ShortString), where index 1 is the first character. But physically it's 0-based, where index 0 is the
string length. Pascal simply doesn't allow direct reference to index 0 of ShortString.

The one I know which use 1-based index is AutoHotkey. Both the original v1, and the newer v2 (which is supposed to have better syntax).

R uses 1-base indexing.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2