Okay, we're getting there.

Since Seem doesn't work, try downloading Process Explorer:

http://technet.microsoft.com/e ... ysinternals/bb896653.aspx

Install that, open it, agree to the license thingy. Once you're in there, scroll to the svchost processes, and double click on one of them. It'll show a propriety window. Click on the Services tab, and you'll see there what services are being controlled by this particular instances of svchost.

Do this with all of the svchost instances, especially the one using the most ressources, and tell us what's running under those svchost!

Edit: SIGH! All of this seems to be pretty useless: Vista has a much easier way to see what we're looking for. You can just open the task manager, go to the process tab. Right-click on the svchost processes, and click 'go to services'. You'll see what services are running under the instances of svchost then.

Last edited by boosterfire, Tue, 7 Apr 2009 23:40.

Quote from Riders Motion :

I just unticket EVERYTHING from the startup tab in msconfig and after restarting I still have 63 processes running! The svchosts are REALLY my problem ,they're all firing up on computer start up.

I'll need to take back my words. I've read some more about multiple instances of svchost running, and it seems it can be caused by a lot of things. Svchost controls different windows processes, most of which are legitimate, but they can also prove to be useless. For instance, a particular instance of svchost might be a legitimate service you use daily, but it could also be something you very rarely use. I've also read about some people having unlegitimate instances of the process that are actually viruses or trojan/spyware.

Also, svchost's ressource usage can be affected by downloads (an example I've found is somebody downloading Windows updates with multiple instances of svchost instantly going wild).

They are all services that run from dlls.

The best probably is to use a program (seem?) to see what each svchost instance is, and then to see what you really need.

edit: That process showing 90+% CPU usage indeed is the System Idle Process. Basically, it shows the amount of CPU NOT being used. Therefore, a 99% System Idle Process tells you that only 1% of the CPU is being used.

edit 2: Another bit of information concerning the svchost process. If you go look at the proprieties of the svchost.exe actual file (fyi, which is located in windows/system32), the description of the file is as follows: "Generic Host Process for Win32 Services". Which really means what I was saying, but in one sentence only! svchost hosts services.

A good thing you could do to help us help you: download Seem, open it and take a screenshot of the processes there.

Last edited by boosterfire, Tue, 7 Apr 2009 23:24.

Quote from Riders Motion :

Hi,

For a couple of days my computer has been running slow. I checked the task list and saw something like 12 svschost.exe's running and some of them are taking over 150mb!

Is there was way to reduce their use of my CPU? LFS is running half the speed it usually does because of all those programs running for idk which reason in background.

svchost has a tendency to duplicate itself over time. A good rule of thumb is to say that the most svchost you have, the screwed up your computer is. For instance, the computer I currently am on runs with 7 instances of svchost.exe. The time to reinstall Windows is near! I admit that I don't recall any of my svchost instances leeching that much ressources, though.

It could also be a virus

Besides, 65 processes is way too much. There probably are other useless processes running on your system, leeching even more ressources. Try to limit the number of program/processes that start up with Windows (run msconfig, startup tab). I try to aim for something under 50, 40 at best. I currently have 43 processes running, and that include all my svchost zombie friends.

edit: Something else. In doubt, blame Vista ^^

Quote from Bob Smith :

Great for morale but must make a shit job.

Weird, I see it the other way. It's lucrative, but it must take little self esteem to do. I guess you could see it as being both bad for morale and arguably a shit job ^^

Anyway, there's no way this thread is going to work. Still on first page and it looks like this is already off the track.

The concept probably exists to occupy NASCAR fans when there's no crash on the circuit. :P

Quote from Woz :

More subtle than that. Some achievements might be

• Win a 10 lap race where you start at the back of the grid.
  
• Complete a 50lap race.
  
• Win a 50lap race.
  
• Qualify 1st for a race.
  

As you can see, not really stats based more goal based. They just get recorded in your profile when each is completed.

So the example achievements for 50lap races mean people will setup and race big races etc. The one for qualify encourages people to have qualify sessions etc.

Bit the the LX comp a while back that made people drive the LX more around the time. So achievements can also be used by devs to change community use of an app to stop things like the same old track and car combo running dau in day out on servers.

I think not a lot of people would start racing 50 laps just for the opportunity that have a 'check' by that particular achievement. I know I wouldn't.

Another thing to note is that some of these achievements wouldn't always be as difficult, depending on different things. For example, winning a qualification with 20 league racers on the track will be hard and you'd be happy to have completed that, but winning a qualification on an almost empty server at 3AM would also complete the achievement (unless the number of racers on track is precised in the achievement).

I'm all in favors of finding ways to get people to differ their game, but simply telling them that they can complete an objective for the whole point of completing an objective won't get them to do it. Didn't the LX comp have rewards for the winners?

So, as we're not gifted with comfortable European F1 viewing times, and that I didn't want to get up at 4AM to watch this, I recorded it, and watched it afterward. The race was pretty funny to watch until it was stopped. Then, for some reason, it took until the end of time for the stewards to take a decision. I mean, from the time the red flag was waved to the time the race was officially over, at least 45 minutes must have passed. That's just silly. There's only so much that can be said about the current situation.

"Let's see. It's pitch dark, there are whales on the track, and the drivers actually need a scuba because their cockpits are flooded. Shall we continue?"

Still, who do you fire first? The guy who'll get from 15th to point places every race, or the one that'll crash and/or end out of the points every race? Hmm...

Quote from ColeusRattus :

Additionally, I've never seen such a dual speedometer, but that may be due to the fact I live in a country where we use a proper system Metric FTW!

True dat, but if you go visit the Uncle Sam or the Queen, you'll have to resort to glue a post-it with conversions on your dashboard.

Most cars around here and in the US have both km/h and mp/h on them. The only difference is that in Canada (and I guess the rest of the countries in America) the bigger numbers are km/h, while in the USA the bigger ones are mp/h. It's handy, and it's one of those little things that would push the realism in LFS even further, but small steps like that aren't a priority. Do you really need to see how fast you go in both units? Most people are only familiar with one, so I don't see the point of them having to know how fast they're going in the other unit.

(I guess it would be an educational tool )

1. Fail at english
2. Fail at logic
3. Combine 1 and 2 in a post
4. ???
5. Pro- No hang on, I didn't understand anything

Quote from JasonJ :

Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there.

/me waves

It doesn't mean it's there either! It might or might not be watching us right now! OMG!

/paranoid

Quote from Woz :

They just get logged against your account. I don't care about bragging rights, you got it all wrong Makes you want to play more so you can see how many of them you can get.

Once you play games that have similar you might understand

So, it's only there to remind you that you have achieved such thing? It just looks like statistics to me, not achievements. The whole point of having achievements would be to get some kind of reward for achieving them. Without that, it's just a handy statistic function that tells you that you've completed that number of race, or driven that distance.

And what exactly would you get for those achievements? The power to smug your way around bragging about the achievements you've completed? Oh, this is very useful indeed.

Can't disagree with that suggestion! Horns shouldn't defy the laws of physics

Quote from Test Driver :

I think the speed limits should be removed completely. It's all virtual, no one can get hurt, where's the need for security measures. Formula 1 got along without speedlimits for a long time.

Ya, it's all virtual; let's also remove the damage altogether. No one gets hurt, aye? While we're at it, we could also remove the sandboxes or the grass. Oh, and why exactly do we have roll cages in the cars?

I won't elaborate too much because it's already been done elsewhere (I remember posting this), but this cannot be done with the current graphical engine.

Oh, new ones would definitely not be hard to implement in the game. However, customizing your own by editing an already existing one will not work very well. You'll see the custom sign, and so will others with the same file as you, but all the other people who've got the original sign will still see it the same.

I guess for cruise servers all around this would be a great addition.

"Eric is quiet because he is so busy working"...

Ha ha!

Oh, I believe it's real. There's just one thing that's weird, though. For the moment, the worm is only duplicating itself, and trying to stay on the infected machines. Blocking the use of anti-virus programs, their websites, being as stealthy as possible, copying itself on a network or via USB keys. All that stuff is only helping it spreading and surviving, but it doesn't have very big consequences. I've read somewhere that the worm hasn't actually been 'turned on' yet, meaning that the real consequences, whatever they might be, haven't been seen thus far.

I convinced the world that I didn't exist

Alternatively, you could /facepalm and buy something more powerful.

This feels like a Y2K 2.0. Seriously.

"Oh, yes, it'll be terrible, millions of computers will be infected, the whole thing will crash, then it'll start raining dishwashers, and the SUN WILL EXPLODE!!1111oneoneleven"

"Oh, yes, unless you have installed a Windows update available since october '08. And unless you have an up to date anti-virus. And unless you're a total idiot who clicks on malicious links every 2 minutes. Yes, it'll be terrible."

I really have a big problem with games that either require you to pay, or propose you to pay for upgrades. I guess it's out of order to wish LFS to become a pay-per-month type of game. As for the latter, I'm uneasy about it. I've played a few games like that in the past. They're very cheap to buy (or sometimes even free), but to be competitive, or have access to the stuff virtually everybody plays, you need to buy upgrades.

Now, this is not the case of LFS. LFS, in its final S3 version, will have cost 36 GBP, which is on par with an expected title coming out. It's enough. I don't think you'd need to buy upgrades to be competitive, as most likely they would just open new tracks and cars, but it's probably safe to say that if, for instance, the Nordschleife was available on a pay-to-play basis, a ton of servers would converge on being Nordschleife only servers, and those without access to it would be left behind, probably without anybody to play with.

Sounds like a good idea. Those broadcasts have been awful for my ears, but they're entertaining (ZOMG HE PASSED!!11)!

Quote from Furiously-Fast :

Golf Variant to be more precise.

o.O

I'm pretty damn sure that thing is called a jetta over here!

Okay, I definitely hadn't looked up for enough information concerning the Phenom II.

From what I've found, the Phenom II 940 Black Edition is doing quite good for its price, but the Core i7 920 is still a better bargain (assuming both processors are stock). This is would be a killer for the 940 BE, for the i7 920 shows better performance, for a price that's not so higher. However, it doesn't end there. The 940 BE is by default running at 3.0Ghz clock speed, but it is apparently very easy to overclock and the clock speed can be increased to 3.7Ghz with a custom heatsink and higher voltage. On benchmarks, the default 940 BE will not do better than the i7 920, but if you clock it to 3.7Ghz, the performances will be better, making it an obviously better deal.

Now, I need to consider a few things. The mobos for the Core i7 processors are quite expensive, because they need the new LGA1366 socket. On the other hand, the Phenom IIs can run on AM2+ socketed mobos, which are much more conventional and cheaper to buy. This, however, could change. The Phenom IIs, while AM2+ compatible, can also run on mobos equipped with the new AM3 socket, which integrates the use of DDR3 memory. In the long run, I could be better off with an AM3 mobo/cpu and stack up DDR3 memory (presumably on Win 7). This would definitely last longer than an AM2+ mobo/cpu combo. The question is, though, would it be better than the Core i7 920?

Let me assume for a minute that the two processors, with the 940 BE overclocked, have pretty much the same performances. To make things as similar as possible, here's what I could do:

With a quick search on tigerdirect, I can easily find parts which are basically equivalent LGA1366 and AM3. Then, the only difference would be the price. Let's see how it adds up. Prices are in Canadian Dollars.

AMD CPU / AM3 Socket Mobo

• Asus M4A79T Deluxe Motherboard: 303.99$
  
• AMD Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition CPU: 309.99$
  
• Zalman CPU Cooler (to overclock): 110.99$
  

Intel CPU / LGA1316 Socket Mobo

So for similar performance combos, the price is basically the same. Well, this isn't really any clearer now

Edit: Actually, the performance for the 940 BE overclocked to 3.7ghz (with custom heatsink) is actually greater than the i7 920's. To make things even more similar performance wise, you'd probably only need to overclock the 940 BE to 3.4ghz or so, at which point it would not require a custom heatsink, the default one being enough (you don't need to increase the voltage either). That would cut the price on the AMD bundle by 110.99. Speaking of the fan, I used the most expensive AM3 compatible fan I could find on tigerdirect. There was actually one available at 52$.

If all of that is true, and the performance of the OC 940 BE are greater or equal to those of the i7 920, then the best bargain is definitely the AMD.

Last edited by boosterfire, Sat, 28 Mar 2009 02:57.