Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!mips!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!sm.luth.se!d88-psm
From: d88-psm@sm.luth.se
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Xoper 2.2
Message-ID: <9104252229.AAsigma06183@sigma.sm.luth.se>
Date: 25 Apr 91 22:30:14 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: d88-psm@sm.luth.se
Lines: 28
X-Unparsable-Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 0:29:29 MET DST


In article <1991Apr21.223326.46280@vaxb.acs.unt.edu>, wright@etsuv2.etsu.edu 

>Yes, two of them.  Amiga Real-Time monitor and Xoper.  I believe they are 
>both written by the same person.  ARTM is a more point and click type thing 
>and Xoper is more CLI (typing) type.  Both are good, but I think Xoper has 

	A few weeks ago I posted a question about Xoper. I got a mail answer
from Finland, amongst others. Can't remember his name, but he told me Xoper
measures the number of times a program/task starts and not how much CPU-time
it uses. This was the explanation for input.device taking 47% of CPU-time
when running 100% load. If I run MandFXP (for example) it is interrupted
by input.device and then started again. Xoper then tells me both take about
47 %. 

	But running AIBB2 (Fish I think) I can tell that the system takes 3% 
CPU-time under 100% CPU-load. If I move my mouse around, it takes another
10% giving the running program only 87%. Still it shows Xoper (2.2) is 
useless for measuring each tasks amount of CPU-time.

		/Peter

                              ---===***===---
Peter Sjostrom	 INTERNET:  d88-psm@sm.luth.se	      PHONE:  +46 920 67653
Vanortsv 5:13	     UUCP:  {uunet,mcvax}!sunic.se!sigma.sm.luth.se!d88-psm
S-951 65 Lulea		"It will be a relief to become old. To be young was too
Sweden			disgusting." - Hjalmar Soderberg (Swedish writer/poet)
			      ---===***===---