is this something normal?? I do not think so??
Imageshack - wit1
and when i try to terminate it i get this
Imageshack - wit2
is that some kind of virus activity or trojan or worm?
Printable View
is this something normal?? I do not think so??
Imageshack - wit1
and when i try to terminate it i get this
Imageshack - wit2
is that some kind of virus activity or trojan or worm?
Is this a joke?
If you really want to stop the "Idle Process" from using up all your CPU, just run some very CPU intensive programs. ;)
>> If you really want to stop the "Idle Process" from using up all your CPU, just run some very CPU intensive programs.
:D
I'm just curious as to why it is reporting 28k memory usage.
Ah, x64. Wasn't thinking about that.
He's clearly using XP, and I'd assumed this would always be 16k. So maybe it's the processor being a x64.
run CPU intensive programs??
what if i dont want to or just want to cancel it!!!
Not to worry it's neither a virus nor a worm.
Idle => not in action or work
System idle process simply denotes the CPU not doing any work. So if more the CPU consumed by it, the less the work is done by the CPU. So if you run any other CPU intensive process, the System is not idle anymore and hence it gets lower.
If you study about operating systems you'll come across these things in chapters related to Scheduling and stuff.
System Idle Process - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I take it it's the first time he ever opened Task Manager...
By the way, on my XP SP3 (32bit OS & processor) it also shows 28k.
Ok, I'll officially hijack the thread.
What exactly determines the size of this process?
It's not hyperthreading either, since I have it on my processor (where 16k is reported). It can't be cores, since the math doesn't add up. I have 2 cores, so two idle threads. Just curiosity, but anyone knows?
It takes a surprising amount of memory to run just 2 instructions ;)
The idle process actually does stuff sometimes, like zeroing out physical memory.
You'd think the word "Idle" gives enough information on the matter.
It's only using 16K on this 2000 system. Maybe the CPU make or model has something to do with it.
Or, *maybe*, if it does zero out memory, it could be the amount of active RAM?