Re: Vista and global warming.
- From: Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 12:16:45 GMT
On a sunny day (31 Jan 2007 18:40:00 -0800) it happened "hhc314@xxxxxxxxx"
<hhc314@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<1170297600.086827.190100@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Jan posted:
"Sure Linux runs on the smallest possible hardware and so is by
definition a lot greener then Vista, and should be made mandatory on
all computers for that reason alone."
Actually I coun't 2, no 3 stupid errors in that one sentence.
I will try to prove you wrong here.
First, there are many operating systems that run on hardware much
smaller and less power consuming than either Linux or Microsoft
Windows (any version). CP/M, DOS, SOS, RTOS, and just about any OS
with a command line interface and capable of running in less than 64-
Kbytes of memory. This is probably not significant today, except for
battery powered systems.
I can consider myself to be a bit of an expert on CP/M, as I wrote a CP/M clone
http://127.0.0.1/panteltje/z80/system14/index.html
It all depends, yes it needs only 8kB (KILO BYTE) for the CCP, BDOS, and BIOS.
But how much energy it takes depends on something totally different.
If we for a moment assume that energy consumption depends on the amount of clock
cycles executed per second, then this will burn out your supply (pseudo code):
start:
load register with constant
goto start
The processor executes this at maximum possible speed, and we can make it even worse
by adding some arithmetic processing. but for example in a FPGA you can really make
the supply choke (FPGA is programmable array logic, you can design your own processor,
logic in the chip, no soldering needed) just connect some input of a gate in phase
to an output and smoke will appear as millions of state changes will happen each second.
So _how_ the OS (and application software) handles loops like this, sets how much power
is consumed, and really honestly neither the CP/M or MS DOS
command interpreter gave a dime and just kept polling at full speed in many cases.
Exception interrupt driven IO.
Linux is not polling anything in that way, keyboard and mouse are interrupt driven,
as is net and all other IO.
So the compare cannot be made to simple 'old age' single taskers that perhaps were polling.
(For example IBM PC DOS polled the printer to see if it ran out of paper, and if it did,
_everything_ stopped, and I mean the PC _STOPPED_ it was dead, until you changed paper.
OK you first argument is of no value, stupid refers to your lack of understanding of the subject.
Lack of experience.
Second, the "green quality" of a system is determine not by the OS
itself, but by the power consumption stinginess of the hardware and
the energy conservation modes that are built into its design.
Almost what I wrote above, and the above facts refute that, you _CAN_ f*ck up with the
software.
Count 2, you're down 2 times now, one more round to go.
In mostperhaps, perhaps not.
cases today, the monitor and peripherals attached to the computer will
consume more energy that the processing system itself.
If you run a smoking dual Pentium 3.48 GHz with 200 W going in, and a cursor coming out,
then NO.
You are KO.
Finally, the last sofware that I required being made "madatory" in the
US was 'Ada' and its friends, which somehow passionate Developers
convinced the US Govenment to require its use on all their computers.
(Few of today's readers will be hard pressed to even remember Ada,
I have a book on Ada, had it for many years, it is on the shelf, I have read it,
and I have forgotten most of it now :-)
But you know that the emission rules for automobiles did give us some cleaner
engines (air that comes out is cleaner then the air that goes in).
And Ada was only required for _MIL_ apps, so the whole argument makes no sense.
(You are now carried out of the ring).
That said, I'm certainly not a fan of Microsoft operating systems,
Well, OK, what ever makes you happy.
which I see as bloated, layered, inefficient designs based upon
difficult to troubleshoot and debug software designs.
See, I wrote an OS, I do not normally say these things, but I would say they
design in limitations so they can sell a better version later.
The DRM stuff added is already cracked for Vista, look here:
http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=24
(And that guy actually wrote a Windows clone).
Adding all the DRM nonsense that will be cracked and never _can_ work, adds hardware
overhead (like doing DES or AES real time consumes WAY much power) for no reason at all.
More than
anything else, this can be accused of making them slow and flakey
compared to something like Linux...but the industry standard
application programming interfaces that they offer, and their common
familiarity to most computer users (non-programmers) that they offer
tends to overcome the many shortcomings. It is definitely not an
energy conservation issue, since most of the bloat in Microsoft
software is rarely executed, and sits waiting for a rare applicatioin
to run on the computer. So, the bloat, generally speaking, doesn't
eat energy. The ineffecient kernel sofware does, but not enough to be
a serious energy issue.
Well, I see that a bit different.
If you need a super powerful (or more powerful) heat steaming computer to have it
just _standby_ while you are only thinking what is the next word to type in 'Word',
then yes, and also counting the energy needed to manufacture that more powerful computer,
yes, then that sucks double,.
For the record, I'm running Windows XP Professional, and see no
advantage to upgrading to Vista, at least for me. I've also performed
energy consumption measurements on my computer system using one of
those little "Kill A Watt P3" power monitors. I see no difference at
in in energy consumption between running Windows XP and running a tiny
memory diagnostic that runs resident in under 64-Kbytes of memory...at
least none that is measurable. Similarly, I would expect to see no
difference if I were running Vista, but perhaps someone who owns a
copy of Vista would be kind enough to run the same test and report.
If vista does decryption / encryption in real time on streams then it _must_
flip a lot more bits a second (gates) and _will_ use more power.
The big power suckers are of course my 19" CRT monitor, and my HP LJ4
printer, which is to be expected.
Switch printer off when not needed.
For what it's worth, I ran the same
check on a friends 19" flat panel plasma monitor (actually it was an
active matrix LED design, and that actually consumed nearly 50 more
power than my 19" CRT (Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 900u) model. That
surprised me.
Na, back light is the amount of light that comes out, has to be at least as much as the CRT.
If the CRT uses 25kV at 1.5 mA to light the screen, it uses 37.5 W just to make the light,
add deflection power + heater power, efficiency power converter = what ever.
The LCD uses a fluorescent light likely, has to make a lot MORE light as it has to pass through
the liquid crystals + color filters.... light bulb efficiency is not very good, efficiency power
converter, high power consumption in the rescaling hardware... works out about the same.
Except the CRT picture is much better :-)
Have fun.
.
- References:
- Re: Vista and global warming.
- From: hhc314@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Vista and global warming.
- Prev by Date: Re: If time stops, would you notice after it restarts?
- Next by Date: Re: NY Times - You Want Innovation? Offer A Prize
- Previous by thread: Re: Vista and global warming.
- Next by thread: Re: Vista and global warming.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
