Re: [Bug-gnubg] BUG: "Set priority belownormal" does not work

[Holger]

At 11:22 05.02.2004, Jon Kinsey wrote:
> Ian Shaw wrote:
> > What I do in practice is to go into windows task manager after launching 
> > and set the priority to LOW. This works very well. I am able to run all 
> > my normal apps with no noticeable performance impact, and gnubg.exe uses 
> > 99% CPU time for rollouts whenever I'm idle.
>
> This is the main use I can see people wanting, perhaps a set priority low 
> command is all that is needed.  I think most users will be confused by all 
> the different priorities (above normal, highest, idle etc) and I'm not 
> sure they're very useful.

I'm not sure whether you're aware of "set priority nice 1" or whether I've 
misunderstood something. Either with this command (can also be set in 
.gnubgautorc) or manually reducing the process priority in the task manager 
of Windows do the job. I think Jon mentioned this already: in the task 
manager the whole process gets a lower priority and as this gets reflected 
in the status when you right click a process. "set priority nice 1" does 
effectively do the same, but the right click menu in the task manager 
doesn't show it since SetThreadPriority() is used. You don't need to worry 
about the difference, Ian. Btw, you can test it simply by lowering the 
priority and starting another CPU intensive app. If this app gets (almost) 
all CPU time then gnubg does have a lower priority.

Regards,

        Holger