Skip to content

Laurence "GreenReaper" Parry

My feedback

1 result found

  1. 79 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Laurence "GreenReaper" Parry supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Laurence "GreenReaper" Parry commented  · 

    I have a DL-165 device on a 2011-era AMD Bobcat-based X120e netbook. It works *if* I increase priority of the WinUDFHost.exe process to High or Realtime via Task Manager. If I don't, it lags.

    It's possible that you're already doing this at a thread level; examining the process using Process Explorer suggests that the busiest thread is two priority levels higher than the others. However my experience suggests this is insufficient to ensure adequate performance under competing loads. It may be that increasing the priority of a single thread is not enough, if several are involved in processing.

    Increasing process priority automatically could improve perceived performance of these older devices (which are still being sold new), especially on the older systems for which lower-resolution screens are most suitable, and which may only have access to USB 2.0.

    This is a relatively old CPU but, it has CPU instructions up to SSSE3. Essentially all systems currently in use have SSE2 and SSE3, which were introduced several years before this hardware. Targeted use of intrinsics or recompilation might reduce CPU usage.

Feedback and Knowledge Base