Well whether or not they are chewing up CPU/RAM this is still a bug, no? From what I understand others are having the same issue occur, I guess all we can do at this point is make sure that the developers know about this, and wait for a fix.
Not a bug, an upgrade. The CEF3 framework allows the current version to run MUCH more smoothly than the previous few versions.
I've been looking at Process Explorer to see what's going on. The Activity Feed DOES make the main spotify.exe process max out ONE CPU. Discover will chew up RAM. Swarm.fm eats up a TON of RAM. When you browse away from the apps, or close your Activity Feed, the offending spotifyhelper.exe process closes, a new one opens for whatever you are viewing, like a playlist or artist page, for example, and resource usage goes back to normal. Process Explorer clearly shows this.
Don't look at your processes, just enjoy the fact the that the software works better. If you insist on looking at your processes, do a thorough job and use Process Explorer [freeware from MS] and not Windows Task Manager.
I see, I was not aware that multiple instances of SpotifyHelper.exe was intended. In the past disabling the web service within Spotify would get rid of these processes, and now it seems it does not, I assumed it was a bug.
Even in the most-that-improbable case that a computer process never get into the cpu because it doesn't does anything (so, why calling it a process if it doesn't process anything?) the handling of all process (idle or not) needs cpu (task management is called. as you know).
So all the process you can see in a task manager (wherever using process manager or not), actually, consume cpu.
Actually, not true. Idle processes do not consume CPU, other than during the very brief moment they are bing loaded. Memory yes, CPU, only when actively in use. Clearly shown [and differentiated] in Process Explorer.
I'll be glad of helping you with your "Operative systems 101" homework but I deeply recommend you buying a good an classic handbook like "Modern Operating Systems" (by Andrew Tanenbaum) for that newbie questions.
In every modern OS exists a process scheduler (more information in wikipedia) in charge of the scheduling of process or threads. The scheduler itself actually consumes CPU because it takes the process or threads (depending on various factors like priority, latency, waiting time...) and evaluates if it have to do something with them (giving them to the process dispatcher) or keeping in his idle state (if that is the case). Therefore,the number of processesaffects the performanceof the operating system
the number of processes affects the performance of the operating system
Of course they do.
I never claimed anything to the contrary, only that idle processes do not consume CPU themselves. Dunno where you ever came up with the idea that they do. You may be misunderstanding as you are doing your own homework. Ask your instructor.
Don't know what you're trying to say, but there certainly isn't anything that you've quoted that contradicts anything else. Although both are resources, CPU and RAM are two entirely different things. Computers 101.
This conversationceased of beinginteresting long ago.
You'vestated twicethat idle processesdonot consumeanyCPU, bypassingthatprocess management itself (scheduling and dispatching)consumes CPU and other resources. The greater the quantity of idle process, the greater of CPU consumed in useless operations because scheduler MUST reevaluate each process in the assigned quantum regardless ofits previous state.Ifthese processes really do nothingjust should notbe created.
By the way,for me, thisconversation is over. It's muchmore fun to watch moss growthanreason with someone whois determined toremainwrong.