|
Are you wirelessly streaming your computer to the tv/monitor? I also have a Samsung 55", with a Dell Dock wired to it. No issues with it remembering the last source. I also have my Xbox connected as a separate source, and if it is the last source it comes up when I turn the tv on.
|
|
|
|
|
Is it a Smart TV? This only affects recent smart TVs, AFAIK
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
Yes it is. It even has that silly Samsung Channel, among other such streaming apps
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm, this started doing it *right after* a firmware update on the TV. I got notified of the update, and then it restarted my TV on the samsung channel. Ever since then it has ignored my last source setting in favor of samsung TV. It is possible the firmware update itself didn't make it that way directly, but knocked something loose somewhere else. someone else posted some ways to reset my TV. I have yet to try it, because I was having a terrible day yesterday and I didn't want to make it worse. meh.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
Understood. Don't mess with my settings, right? I detest when services that think they know better screw up what I have set up...
|
|
|
|
|
All my TV's are hooked up via HDMI. My UHD monitor runs TV via a TV app on the PC, which is a (full screen or windowed) browser app.
I assume your provider has a "TV app"?
(Yes ... I also find "smart" TV's can play dumb)
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have a cable provider. I use streaming only, but I like having my remote, and I want to keep it.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
I've been using various TVs as monitors for a number of years. The big drawback is that they think that they are TVs and often have some start page that they like to power up on. Not the HDMIn port that I only and always want to use.
When I enter my workroom and power up my desk a MCU with an IR LED attached sends out commands to power on the TV, waits a bit and sends commands to set the HDMI port.
The Samsung TV tends to switch itself off periodically (in spite of settings telling it not to) so the MCU sends an unused button press every half hour to keep the TV awake.
At the end of my session, the power goes off and in its dying throws the MCU sends a power off command to set the TV into standby.
If your TV has IR this is a possible. No damage to the TV, and independent of upgrades (maybe).
Andy
|
|
|
|
|
That's an interesting widget you made and a great potential IoT project for this site.
My TV doesn't go to sleep until my PC does. In fact, before the firmware update I had very little trouble with it aside from the inconvenience of navigating an on screen menu to switch sources, and the cheapo directional thing on the remote which is erratic about registering presses.
I'm not sure if the samsung smart TV remotes are IR. There is no visible IR transmitter on the widget, but I can control it over wifi, badly, with my phone, except powering it on, which makes it kind of useless.
I'm getting an LG probably. It has source buttons on the remote, and nobody I've talked to has had any problems with them (other than old, eventually defective units) that would prevent their use as a monitor.
Plus the 120Hz OLEDs are supposed to be visually fantastic, although that's almost certainly true of many other brands as well.
I found one for $1100USD on amazon in the 55" size I want/need for my mount. I'll buy locally though, even i pay a bit more due to me being averse to shipping those things more than necessary.
Thanks for your input!
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
Gold providing cold ? hole (7)
Gold: Or
providing: if
cold ?: ice
hole: Orifice
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
 I got hooked up on Gold ... Au and never thought of French.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I think OR is from the heraldic name ORO (also Italian for gold ) very commonly used in cryptics
Or
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
I had orifice, but I couldn't make "if" stick.
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Do you think the clue was poorly written Peter ? I did think of using may be for if ! but it didn't read well
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Probably a bit clumsy, but no worse than many of mine. 
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Edit: To be clear I'm talking about user facing machines rather than server or embedded, and a hypothetical ideal. In practice CPUs need about 10% off the top to keep their scheduler working, for example, and there are a lot of details I'm glossing over in this post, so it would be a good idea to read the comments before replying. There has been a lot of ground covered since.
When your CPU core(s) aren't performing tasks, they are idle hands.
When your RAM is not allocated, it's doing no useful work. (Still drawing power though!)
While your I/O was idle, it could have been preloading something for you.
I see people complain about resource utilization in modern applications, and I can't help but think of the above.
RAM does not work like non-volatile storage in that it's best to keep some free space available. Frankly, in an ideal world, your RAM allocation would always be 100%
Assuming your machine is performing any work at all (and not just idling) ideally it would do so utilizing the entire CPU, so it could complete quickly.
Assuming you're going to be using your machine in the near future, your I/O may be sitting idle, but ideally it would be preloading things you were planning to use, so it could launch faster.
My point is this:
Utilization is a good thing, in many if not most cases.
What's that old saw? Idle hands are the devil's playground. Your computer is like that.
I like to see my CPU work hard when it works at all. I like to see my RAM utilization be *at least* half even at idle. I like to see my storage ticking away a bit in the background, doing its lazy writes.
This means my computer isn't wasting my time.
Just sayin'
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
modified 8-Sep-23 9:15am.
|
|
|
|
|
I recall reading a short essay years ago by a senior OS engineer (Microsoft or Apple, not sure) that said much the same. It makes good sense IMO.
Thanks for the reminder.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you didn't think that to the end...
If any single software would take up all the resources it would kill any real productivity...
Let us say VS takes all memory just when opening a solution... Now I ask it to compile that solution... VS - by default IIRC - will compile 8 projects in parallel, so it will try and fire-up 8 instances of msbuild... But there is no memory, so before each and every of those 8 instances the OS will do a memory swap... And memory swap for the 4th instance of msbuild may take memory from the 1st instance as it may be in IO (blocked) and considered inactive... And memory swapping is very expensive...
I do agree that any app should utilize all resource when it needs it, but it also should release it the moment it needs it not...
"If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization." ― Gerald Weinberg
|
|
|
|
|
I did. I said in an ideal world RAM utilization would always be at 100%. That's a hypothetical. It's not intended to be real world, but rather illustrative of a point: RAM is always drawing power, even at idle. The most efficient way to use it is to allocate it for something, even if you do so ahead of time.
I did not say that it would or even should be utilized by one application.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
If I may interject: memory is always used at 100% by an app called "operating system". Parts that are not urgently needed are relinquished to other apps upon request.
In the scenario pointed by Peter, how is VS going to know how much memory MSBuild instances are gonna need? Should they ask VS pretty please to release the memory? Is VS going to act as some type of surrogate OS?
Memory hogging is not a disease of VS only; it's a virus that has spread to browsers and many others.
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not necessarily endorsing this approach so much as observing it, since I haven't run any performance metrics on alternatives but:
It seems to me that the OS effectively has the information it needs due to paging. It doesn't play out directly to where an app knows how much memory is free, *but* firstly there are plenty of ways to get an idea of general "memory pressure" in windows, and paging allows for an app to preallocate and let the OS manage which parts are actually in RAM at a given period.
Does it work? Well, I mean if it worked perfectly, people wouldn't keep needing new computers every 5 years I suppose. (I'm half kidding here, there's a lot that goes in to that)
I don't know. But that seems to be how things operate now, say with VS, Chrome and Windows for example.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: I said in an ideal world RAM utilization would always be at 100%.
A perfectly balanced system has bottlenecks everywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
I think the "ideal world" you imagine ceased to exist with the invention of multitasking. To me, the ideal world is one in which the demands of the 200 processes running on a PC for memory, I/O bandwidth, and other resources are balanced by the operating system to achieve the best overall performance. Run one memory-hogging program on a PC and you get 100% memory utilization. Run two such programs and what you get is virtual memory page thrashing and a thousandfold decrease in performance. I remember early Java programs that were like this.
|
|
|
|
|
SeattleC++ wrote: Run two such programs and what you get is virtual memory page thrashing and a thousandfold decrease in performance.
If that really was the case, I would immediately throw that OS out of the window!
Of course you cannot expect 200% performance - 100% for each process. You must expect that the process (hence working set) switching take some resources. But no program uses all the memory all the time; reality is that even when you think your program is all over the place, there are plenty of untouched physical memory pages that can be used by another process. Any decent MMS hardware and OS can handle that quite well. If your program really does make use of 100%, then any 10% (or maybe even 1%) increase in the data structures of that single program would take long strides towards that "thousandfold decrease in performance".
If you keep insisting that your program actually makes use of 100% of the RAM: Take a look in Resource Monitor, the Memory tab: Is it really true that the color bar is all green, "In use", or orange, "Modified"? No dark or light blue? If you flush memory - my tool for doing that is Sysinternals RamMap; its Empty menu has commands for emptying standby lists and flushing modified pages - there is a definite chance that the color bar goes at least a little blue at the right end. Probably much more than you would expect! Let your program run, and see how long it takes before all that blue has turned green/orange. Probably much longer than you would expect!
I am of course assuming that you have a "reasonable" amount of RAM. In the old days of 16 bit minis, a memory card with a mebibyte of RAM cost around USD 10,000 (the Euro wasn't invented then); inflation would bring that to USD 50,000 today, so you didn't buy RAM that you didn't need. This one mini had an OS that would actually run (or maybe I should say 'crawl') with two 2 Ki pages of RAM available to user processes (the rest taken by the OS. "4 Ki should be enough for everybody!"  ). The only ones actually running on 4 Ki for paging were the OS developers doing stress tests to see if practice matched theory. It did, but that configuration failed to enter the Top500 list . Those OS developers claimed that any system doing physical paging more than 5% of the time is heavily starved on memory. I have never encountered any production system doing that much paging. But if you regularly run two processes side by side, each with an active working set that fills all of your RAM, you really do need to buy some more RAM!
If my memory is correct, the 16-bit minis we used for interactive program development around 1980 initially had 256 Ki of RAM, that was increased to 512 Ki a year after installation. Each machine (we had three of them) served 24 interactive terminals, running screen oriented editors (although character oriented, 24 by 80, no graphics) and Pascal / Fortran compilers. That worked very well. It must be said that those machines had an MMS which was advanced for its time, and a very good interrupt handling system: The first user instruction in the interrupt handler was running 900 ns after the arrival of the interrupt signal. I guess both were essential for the machine's ability to handle lots of processes fighting for resources.
And then (and this is essential!):
As long as the 24 users were requesting RAM and CPU, the OS managed it very well. However, it had a file system design requiring a global lock to be set on the directory root before any disk operation! (Who are familiar with the Python GIL?) Fetching a file now and then is OK, but when 24 students at the call of the bell types 'logout' and raises from their chairs, a lot of file system operations lined up for the general lock. We (I was a TA) had to extend the break between lessons for the machines to be able to complete all the file system operations for the 24 user sessions.
That is the problem in lots of software: Programmers reserve a resource much earlier than needed, and release it long after the work on it has been done, e.g. in a final 'cleanup' stage. They reserve much more (e.g. the entire file system) when they actually need to reserve a small part of it (e.g. a single file). When the system runs slow as molasses, usually there is not a CPU saturation or paging bottleneck, but lots of processes waiting for some resource to become available, but the resource is locked by some process that probably could have released it long ago or not reserved it yet.
My memory goes back to the old batch oriented mainframes of the 1960s and 70s - in my student days, a few of them were still around - where you had to indicate in the job prologue which files and devices your program would refer, how much memory it would require, how many seconds of processing time you expected, how much output you expected. So the OS would pack as many programs side by side that would fit in physical memory, selecting those indicating much I/O but little CPU to run in parallel with those having high CPU requirements but little I/O, so that both classes of resources could be utilized at the same time. In our 'Algorithms' course, optimizing a job queue for maximum total utilization was one of the problems we were given to solve, and we were presented with the solutions in the OS-1100 (aka. Exec-8) OS. (We did use punched cards on the Univac with its batch OS for 'Programming 101', but after that we never touched the beast, but went to interactive terminals.)
|
|
|
|
|
With 100% CPU utilization, you will find that you can barely move the mouse or press a key in Windows (or macOS, Linux).
Likewise, at least on Windows, if your RAM allocation goes above 90% or the "available" RAM as shown in the taskbar will go below 1GB, what ever comes first, your system will become significantly sluggish.
So no, your "ideal world" doesn't exist, and thus 100% utilization of any computer resource will lead to a pretty much impossible to use system.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
