After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 170492 - Scale should reflect from min to max
Scale should reflect from min to max
Status: RESOLVED OBSOLETE
Product: gnome-applets
Classification: Other
Component: cpufreq
2.30.x
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: gnome-applets Maintainers
gnome-applets Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2005-03-15 20:42 UTC by Pierre Ossman
Modified: 2020-11-06 19:55 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.29/2.30



Description Pierre Ossman 2005-03-15 20:42:54 UTC
Distribution/Version: Fedora Core 3

The current scale (the icon) reflects the current frequency from 0 MHz to
maximum. Since the CPU:s do not scale very low this is not too useful. A better
scale is from the minimum to maximum.

Example:

My machine is a PM 1.6. That CPU scales from 600 MHz to 1.6 GHz. In the current
version the meter is at 50% (37% actually, but that's still a half-full meter).
I would prefer that the meter is at the bottom when the CPU is as idle as it can be.

I suspect that most people would like this behaviour since it better reflects
how much power the CPU is using currently.
Comment 1 Fernando Usero 2005-03-28 14:49:53 UTC
i agree with Pierre in most of the things, but I wonder what would happen when
the frequency is at the minimum. It could seem that the frequency is 0.
Comment 2 Carlos Garcia Campos 2005-06-27 12:19:24 UTC
I'm still not sure. I think the progress bar should represent the real cpu usage. 
I would like to know other thoughts about it. 
Comment 3 Danielle Madeley 2005-08-03 18:15:25 UTC
I am very much of two minds over this. I can't decide which I think is the
correct behaviour.
Comment 4 Pierre Ossman 2005-08-04 00:13:46 UTC
Perhaps a configuration option is the way to go then? Even if it makes things a
little less automatic...
Comment 5 Carlos Garcia Campos 2005-08-04 12:38:56 UTC
I think the applet already has too many configuration options, so I don't think
adding a new option would be a good idea. Since the applet is very simple, its
configuration dialog should be simple too. 
Comment 6 Pierre Ossman 2006-01-18 13:32:20 UTC
Any new feelings about this? I'm still standing firmly in my corner. :)
Comment 7 Antony Mee 2006-06-09 12:06:34 UTC
I was just looking at adding the possibility to offline a processor via the applet... (More useful as Core Duo machines become popular)

Perhaps frequency = 0 is a good representation of CPU offline, thus keeping the interface simple?
Comment 8 Carlos Garcia Campos 2006-06-09 14:22:53 UTC
I'm not sure wheter it's so clear frequency = 0 as cpu offline. Maybe by using another icon like netstatus-applet does. In the label we can simply put "off". 
Comment 9 Antony Mee 2006-06-09 14:29:45 UTC
True.  It wouldn't hurt to use freq=0 as the data representation for it though in the code would it?  ie. Is there any point adding another boolean flag for this when:
  
  if (!freq) {
     show offline icon;
  }

would do?

Comment 10 Fabio Durán Verdugo 2010-12-13 02:58:15 UTC
any news for this report?, this is valid today?
Comment 11 Pierre Ossman 2010-12-13 07:20:05 UTC
Behaviour is still the same for 2.30.0 at least.
Comment 12 Fabio Durán Verdugo 2010-12-13 14:38:47 UTC
thank for reply.
Comment 13 André Klapper 2020-11-06 19:55:31 UTC
bugzilla.gnome.org is being replaced by gitlab.gnome.org. We are closing all old bug reports in Bugzilla which have not seen updates for many years.

If you can still reproduce this issue in a currently supported version of GNOME (currently that would be 3.38), then please feel free to report it at https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-applets/-/issues/

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry it could not be fixed.