Please describe the problem:
On the "Resources" tab, each graph has its y-axis labeled "0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 100%".

On the CPU history graph, 100% means "using as much processor power as the hardware is capable of".  On the memory/swap history graph, 100% means "using as much memory (or swap) as the hardware is capable of".

For the Network History graph, though, the y-axis means something different.  It seems to mean either "% of max incoming/outgoing bandwidth used on this graph" or "% of max incoming/outgoing bandwidth used since System Monitor was started" (I can't tell for sure -- it seems to do a bit of each).

In either case, it's very different from the cpu/memory/swap graphs: 100% does not mean "100% of what the hardware is capable of", which is misleading.  A peak at 40% can shrink to 20% as it scrolls across the graph -- weird.

For example, when I go to the graphs, it looks like almost no CPU is being used, a moderate amount of memory, and my network is getting swamped -- even though it's not.

At the very least, the documentation should say what "100%" means here, because I've been playing around for a few minutes and I can't tell.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Open System Monitor
2. Click on Resources
3. Do things which take a lot of CPU, then do things which take a lot of network bandwidth
4. Look at the graphs for each



Actual results:


Expected results:


Does this happen every time?


Other information:
I admit it is a slightly different case from CPU or memory, because those are internal-only hardware.  With a gigabit ethernet card plugged into a DSL modem, if 100% on the graph meant the full capacity of the ethernet card, it would never go over 1% -- and the computer probably doesn't have a way to ask upstream for the bandwidth across the bottleneck.

One idea: make the "100%" a popup menu where you can choose an absolute scale, with entries like "DSL - 1.5Mbps" and "Ethernet - Gigabit" and "Modem - 33.6Kbps".  Then with just one selection, I could make the graph show useful data for me.