Talk:System Idle Process

message: Does it also tell you how much memory is idle too, or just cpu? Either way, it should be added to this page JayKeaton 08:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you asking if it tells you how much memory is currently unused? If so, then no, that is part of the memory manager, not the scheduler. --Android Mouse 03:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The idle process doesn't really "tell" you anything. It just executes. Task Manager, Performance Monitor, and other tools will tell you how much the Idle process is executing, and that tells you how much idle CPU time you have. These tools also reveal free memory and other performance info, but Idle process has nothing to do with those. Jeh (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memory? 

message: To which file really belongs the code of this process? NTOSKRNL?--Dojarca 19:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just scanned the threads section in Windows Internals 4th edition and it didn't say specifically. Wherever the scheduling code is located is likely where the idle process code is located. For NT it's likely ntoskrnl, for 9x, who knows. --Android Mouse 19:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it exists on 9x (Does it?), . 68.39.174.238 16:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The code running in the idle thread is mostly in ntoskrnl.exe, with some calls into the HAL. If you look at the idle process with a kernel debugger you'll find the thread functions are all nt!KiIdleLoop, nt being the debugger's abbreviation for ntoskrnl. Jeh (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

text:  As for 9x, 1) this article is about the NT family; and 2) who cares, really? Jeh (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which file, really? 

message: What nonsensical foreign gibberish.  Still no explanation to anyone's questions for years!  No explanation about why System Idle Process consumes 94%+ of resources during mid-day peak usage times.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmpoor1234 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (sigh) Yes, the article does explain that - or rather, it shows that that's a mistaken concept to begin with. The idle process doesn't "consume" anything, it shows you how much CPU time is not being used at the moment. Jeh (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does it consume resources? 

message: It seems to me that System Idle Process is simply an OS-specific version of Idle (CPU), and the two should be merged.  This would be good for Idle (CPU), too, because it's currently rather short.  Plus then we could treat how other OSes handle idle time as well.  Thoughts?  Objections?  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 15:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to Idle 

message: If you added information about how different operating systems treat the idle CPU idle then merging the articles would make sense, but it doesn't make sense to merge the articles without mentioning how other operating systems treat the idle CPU as well.  Not all computers are windows.
Absolute Relativity (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Let's see individual articles, or material in other articles, about how Linux, BSD, MacOS X, VMS, etc., handle idling. Then once that material exists the articles can be merged if it still seems like a good idea. Merging now would just create an article with an OS-neutral title but with Windows-heavy content. Jeh (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "System Idle Proccess" is Windows specific, while Idle (CPU) is not 

message: I came here  tryimg to find out exactly how this works and the article hasn't really made this clear - on XP, over dozens of installations, including relatively fresh ones I have assumed that it is a '% of CPU going spare', yet the system can have slowed to a halt with over 50% available even though there is still plenty of RAM (and HDD space) available as well.  I've been trying to figure out why this would happen if it is just a marker for how much of the CPU is not being used and the article doesn't really explain this.  According to the article, this scenario shouldn't exist - yet it does.  Maybe it's down to sloppiness of how the NT OSes are built - but I feel that this should have a mention so that others can understand why this happens. groovygower (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation for slow PC performance despite significant amount of Idle Process % active? 

message: Looks like it. Still there in process hacker... 2A00:1370:8184:1765:2320:789C:D12F:3C7A (talk) 08:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed from Windows 11?