If you ask me, serious visual features should be implimented last... And that also looks quiet ugly imo...
Printable View
If you ask me, serious visual features should be implimented last... And that also looks quiet ugly imo...
You're always such a hard guy to please RejZoR. This feature was simple to add to RealTemp without a lot of code bloat and gives a user some control of how RealTemp looks on their desktop. It was mostly designed for Mini Mode but I decided to allow custom colors for the regular GUI as well. RealTemp will not force you to have that ugly monstrosity on your desktop. You can adjust the colors to whatever you like or you can choose not to use that feature and you'll get the standard background and text color just like in previous versions. Just because you personally won't be using a feature doesn't mean that no one else will.
That's exactly what I've done. There's not a hell of a lot left for RealTemp. It is reaching the end of the development line. Once Intel comes clean with TjMax, etc., every program should be able to correctly figure out temperatures for the 45nm processors.Quote:
If you ask me, serious visual features should be implimented last...
This is really important news.
Tomorrow at IDF 2008 Intel is going to announce max Tjunction values for 45nm CPUs along with more info about CPU DTS (Digital thermal sensonrs).
We depend on DTS readings to calculate the core CPU temps.
SourceQuote:
Benson Inkley, a senior power/thermal engineer with Intel, is prepared to address nearly every aspect of DTS functionality for the attendees. However, perhaps the biggest surprise to come out of his presentation will be the first-ever public disclosure of the maximum Tjunction value for all Core 2 Duo/Quad/Extreme desktop processors built on current 45nm-process technology.
I kind of like the ability to lighten up the main GUI as well as create some interesting Mini Modes.
The beta section is open for business:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/...alTempBeta.zip
http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/2029/rt273jf6.png
:up: if you think this might be a useful feature for you or
:down: I agree with RejZoR, this is fugly, useless bunk.
This is beta software but seems to work pretty good. If you have any problems, let me know.
Well, maybe it's just black that makes too much contrast difference... There is one thing. Can you make a drop down menu for Font options? Those radio buttons placement looks like feature related to each separate core but in fact it's not. Then just enter font names in the drop down menu, if there is no names or you don't have any to waste just name them "Font Type X" or "Font Option X". Replace X with font number.
:up:
I will use it!
A font requester for the System Tray area is a good idea RejZoR. The reason I haven't gone to this yet is because you can spend hours picking through your font collection and you'll probably come to the same conclusion that I did, there aren't a lot of fonts that are readable that fit nicely in the system tray area.
RealTemp gives users a choice of 4 fonts for the System Tray area that can be quickly accessed. I agree that it's not intuitive but after 100,000+ downloads, you are the only one to complain about this feature. RealTemp also allows you to use a font editing program like Fony and you can edit the included RTFont to create whatever you like. I like that flexibility. My main competition, CoreTemp, gives you one tiny font option for the System Tray last time I checked. A SystemTray font requester won't become a high priority feature to add until more people complain about this.
I tried putting a + sign in the naked toggle button at the top right that you don't like but to me it looked ugly so I got rid of that and left it blank.
1001 suggestions from yourself and other members of XS combined with 6 months of development has resulted in RealTemp heading to the IDF. :yepp:
I'm happy with that. :)
Nice hound in your Avatar Skinnee. I have a couple here at home.Quote:
Originally Posted by skinnee
webb, I can't wait to try the new beta when I get home. My work machine has a crappy Centrino and RT won't run.
Ol'Baditude: Why not post a CPU-Z screen shot of your work machine to see if there's any hope of getting RT to run on that.
Umm ... I like the added color schemes you can choose what you want .. as for mini mode .. i checked it off .... but how u get to use mini mode as it not going to mini mode for me?
Ya gotta read the manual to get to Mini Mode. Try double left clicking on the user interface and be prepared. A second double left mouse click will bring you back. Windows Task Manager also has a similar feature accessed this way so it's not a totally foreign interface concept.
The other documented feature is Anchor Mode. If you double right mouse click on the user interface it will move RealTemp up to the corner of your screen. If you can think of a better position for it then move RealTemp to where you like it. Next, hold down the shift key while double right clicking on the user interface. This sets your new custom Anchor position so RealTemp will move to this spot whenever you do a double right click now.
Oh my, that's sexy. Easy to use too. How sad is it to say that I never noticed that button at the top to switch the info from VID to CPU freq. to FSBxMulti. Lol.
http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/8241/nicefv2.png
And b4 anyone say anything about my temps, I have a 34Deg. ambient in here today. It's a scorcher with no AC. Booo.
Unclewebb thats awesome i like it ... i like it alot...
Three Tumbs up for ya... :)
Oh my gawd! I'm going to have to admit to RejZoR that my famous button is indeed a little obscure! Where's the sense of adventure guys? Click away on stuff! It's just a temp monitoring program after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ol'Baditude
Now do we need a background picture like Everest uses? RejZoR, sharpen your pencil. Any ideas for a background image?
I am going to give the beta a try.
:up:
Don't worry, beta is not like a dirty 4 letter word. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Lu523
Even the betas of RealTemp run pretty smooth and they don't gobble too many resources so don't be afraid to take it for a good run.
As i said before, that button has to tell the user what it does...Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Here, i made a reconstruction how it should really look.
http://shrani.si/f/2k/C9/40Q3qO25/rtmoreinfo.png
It just looks better because of the slightly different CPU name and info alignment, plus the button tells users exactly what it does. It shows more info. Oh and don't forget to make it the same lenght as those 4 buttons below, i've made a reconstruction and noticed that i made it slightly longer than those below...
Regarding background, i don't think it's worth investing time into it and in the end it'll just make reading values in window harder to read.
Everest is already using it's custom skining for entire window which i think looks ugly (some crippled hybrid between custom skin and XP theme). Yuck.
Though the internals of the window look pleasing because of the calm blue gradients used.
Anyway, stick to the plain interface. Trust me when i tell you this, many programs tried the skinning and failed miserably. So just don't go that way.
All RealTemp really needed was ability to use Windows visual styles (themes).
This way it always blends perfectly into the environment regardless of what Windows theme users are using.
I tried the new BETA...and I liked it :up:
Once again Unclewebb you do a tremendous job, keep up the good work. I am curious to see what Intel have to say at IDF re: the TJ Max.
By the way, do you think I have 2 defective sensors?
My ambient temperature is ~20-25C (depending on how hot the weather is).
Here is an attached screenshot of successful completion of IntelBurnTest
http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/677...test14ats6.jpg
What do you make of the temps for cores 3 and 4?
Thanks
John
The problem is that there is not enough room for what you suggest.
http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/3263/rttestkk1.png
For your processor there is enough room but if you have an Intel Quad QX6700 ES processor and you are running it at 333.33 x 10.0 MHz then all of that isn't going to fit. With your full size button idea the only way I could do that is to combine the two boxes at the top into one box so a user could see half as much information. The present version shows processor name and MHz which tells me what I'd like to know in a screen shot. I'm open to new ideas but I'll have to wait for some more user feedback on this topic before making any changes. I could also scrap all of the additional info like Intel, Quad, Extreme and just stick to the model number like QX6700. That would work.
JohnZS: It is a good thing if you have two sensors that can display numbers that low. Most sensors get stuck before they can ever get that low. Read the RealTemp documentation about Calibration and try doing that procedure. With some minor adjustments, you should be able to get some very accurate core temperatures out of that processor.
In a couple of more days Intel should be telling us a lot more about these sensors and what programmers can do to get accurate temperature information out of them. The RealTemp calibration method was the easiest thing I could come up with but if a new, Intel approved, method comes out then I plan to update RealTemp to reflect that. If they come out and say TjMax=105C for all 45nm desktop processors then I'll probably ignore that because it doesn't agree with any of the testing I've done.
Well, you could certanly scrap "Intel" as you can't use RealTemp on anything else anyway... There you go, you just gained 6 characters of space.
Just make the original button a black or bright red color so that ppl can see it better as it is blending in with the stock background... i have to admit i never even knew it was there until it was pointed out in here.... seriously . i didn't and i have been using realtemp since version 2.60 or just before that.
I like the way it looks. Thanks for all the time you have spent on it.
Thanks Unclewebb :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
Your guide was informative and easy to follow, quite interesting to. I could not use the lowest voltage setting in my BIOS as for some reason I kept getting "CPU OVERVOLT" errors on POST.
I ended up doing calibration @ 1.00V (0.982V in CPU-Z) 6.0*266Mhz FSB.
I then rebooted @ 1.20V 8x400Mhz FSB and now have temps which are more or less the same :D
http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/7...ibratedzk8.jpg
Keep up the good work...all eyes on IDF.
What if Intel say Tjmax IS...neither 105 or 95?!?! :confused:
John
JohnZS: The most Extreme thing about your Quad seems to be the sensors. My Q6600 isn't great but the Distance to TjMax which represents the raw data coming from the sensors only varies by about 4 or 5 degrees at idle from core to core. Your center two cores show a difference of 14! :eek:
All I can say is good luck to Intel to try and come up with a simple, user friendly formula to cover the wide variety of sensors that I've seen. Trying to cover a difference of 14 is stretching RealTemp's capabilities for covering up this mess.
If you're bored John could you try running a test with the calibration factors you're using? Run at whatever your normal MHz / core voltage is. Turn on the RT logging feature and set it to 1 second. Run 1 minute idle, followed by about 2 minutes of Prime95 small FFTs on all cores and then back to idle for a minute. E-mail or PM me the log file when you're done.
It is normal during this test for core0 / core1 to closely track each other and then for core2 / core3 to closely track each other. Core2/core3 being about 5C less while running Prime compared to core0/core1 is also fairly normal. I'm just curious to see how all these cores track each other during transition from idle to full load and back again.
Prime95 v25.6 32 bit
Prime95 v25.6 64 bit
One theory I have is that when a processor has badly mismatched sensors, Windows XP or maybe the processor itself will schedule a bigger work load on the core that reports the lowest temperature. When uncorrected, core2 reports that it is running so cool that it will get to do some extra work. To test for this run Prime95 and for Number of torture test threads to run enter 2. This will run 2 instances of Prime but they will be constantly spread to your 4 cores so no one core gets too hot. Do a CTRL+ALT+DELETE and bring up the Task Manager and you should get to see what core is getting the biggest chunk of work. I'm not sure if that's important but I found it kind of interesting.
http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/9...imetestcu0.png
My core2 reads highest Distance to TjMax so it gets to work the hardest. The load seems to be balanced for both sets of cores. Core0/core1 share half the load and core2/core3 share the other half.