Re: NVDA With Task Manager
Yes that is what I thought to.toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
A lot of these things should only process data while idol.
Of course, if the company in question is having this on their servers
it may simply be set to do whatever it does whenever something is
That could mean that when you run nvda it may actually take time to
stop whatever then go back.
Of course, having used nvda with some extensive opperations from time
to time, you really don't need to do much to break nvda completely or
slow it down such that its broken unless you reboot.
Excluding waterfox, I have had this happen with some of my recording
programs and with some converters and the like.
Most of the time things come back after a bit or after the app is done
but sometimes depending where all the automated whatevers are at and
so on, I have had situations where things have screwed over and I have
had to reboot but who knows.
Of course if this thing is configured to run taking any idol data asnd
assuming its installed on all the systems it actually may be
monitoring for any idol time available.
This is only a guess, so that being the case I doubt the system can
differentiate exactly what that means.
Nvda to be honest doesn't use that much power generally, I mean it
could run at a stretch on singlecore systems, so depending on addons
and synth used, nvda really doesn't need that much cpu power at all.
As for it being an app, its almost an old style tsr as supposed to an
active thing sitting in systray.
So maybe the saver doesn't reguard it as an active process, and in
some ways it would be right.
Nvda really doesn't process much data by itself all the time if at all.
However it is effected by everything else around it.
Its one of the querks.
Its like the enhanced soundcard issues.
Those enhancements are to hide the small speaker issues with laptops.
They work well with speech in movies and music but tts just aint long
enough a loop to process correctly.
On 20/10/2020, Quentin Christensen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I might have missed something here, but shouldn't the screen saver only