Re: Benchmark: Ubuntu GNU/Linux More Power Efficient Than Vista - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: Benchmark: Ubuntu GNU/Linux More Power Efficient Than Vista - Linux ; On Apr 26, 6:43 am, Roy Schestowitz wrote: > Ubuntu 8.04 vs. Windows Vista Power Usage > > ,----[ Quote ] > | When the Lenovo ThinkPad T60 was idling with Ubuntu 8.04 LTS "Hardy Heron" it > | had ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Re: Benchmark: Ubuntu GNU/Linux More Power Efficient Than Vista

  1. Re: Benchmark: Ubuntu GNU/Linux More Power Efficient Than Vista

    On Apr 26, 6:43 am, Roy Schestowitz
    wrote:
    > Ubuntu 8.04 vs. Windows Vista Power Usage
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    > | When the Lenovo ThinkPad T60 was idling with Ubuntu 8.04 LTS "Hardy Heron" it
    > | had quite an advantage over Windows Vista Ultimate. Ubuntu was consuming five
    > | less Watts, which equates to more than 10% less power, over Microsoft Windows
    > | Vista.
    > `----
    >
    > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...dy_power&num=1
    >


    It's possible that Microsoft will improve the power consumption of
    Vista. They will, if the publicity gets bad enough. (Remember how
    Ballmer has promised to listen to customers who want XP continued. /
    sarcasm) If so, it will be another instance in which Microsoft has
    improved its products in response to competition (something it is
    loathe to do in its absence). On the other hand, Vista is dragged
    down by its layer of DRM that pervades its entire operation, and that
    may limit what improvements are possible.

  2. Re: Benchmark: Ubuntu GNU/Linux More Power Efficient Than Vista

    "nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu" writes:

    > On Apr 26, 6:43 am, Roy Schestowitz
    > wrote:
    >> Ubuntu 8.04 vs. Windows Vista Power Usage
    >>
    >> ,----[ Quote ]
    >> | When the Lenovo ThinkPad T60 was idling with Ubuntu 8.04 LTS "Hardy Heron" it
    >> | had quite an advantage over Windows Vista Ultimate. Ubuntu was consuming five
    >> | less Watts, which equates to more than 10% less power, over Microsoft Windows
    >> | Vista.
    >> `----
    >>
    >> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...dy_power&num=1
    >>

    >
    > It's possible that Microsoft will improve the power consumption of
    > Vista. They will, if the publicity gets bad enough. (Remember how
    > Ballmer has promised to listen to customers who want XP continued. /
    > sarcasm) If so, it will be another instance in which Microsoft has
    > improved its products in response to competition (something it is
    > loathe to do in its absence). On the other hand, Vista is dragged
    > down by its layer of DRM that pervades its entire operation, and that
    > may limit what improvements are possible.


    One can almost see you struggling against your straitjacket.


    --
    I really think XP is going to be a flop. Between the glut of hardware out
    there (and slowing down of purchasing), and the fact that W2K is
    sufficient for so many casual users.... I just don't see it taking off.
    comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

  3. Re: Benchmark: Ubuntu GNU/Linux More Power Efficient Than Vista

    Hadron wrote:

    > "nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu" writes:
    >
    >> On Apr 26, 6:43 am, Roy Schestowitz
    >> wrote:
    >>> Ubuntu 8.04 vs. Windows Vista Power Usage
    >>>
    >>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>> | When the Lenovo ThinkPad T60 was idling with Ubuntu 8.04 LTS "Hardy
    >>> | Heron" it had quite an advantage over Windows Vista Ultimate. Ubuntu
    >>> | was consuming five less Watts, which equates to more than 10% less
    >>> | power, over Microsoft Windows Vista.
    >>> `----
    >>>
    >>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...dy_power&num=1
    >>>

    >>
    >> It's possible that Microsoft will improve the power consumption of
    >> Vista. They will, if the publicity gets bad enough. (Remember how
    >> Ballmer has promised to listen to customers who want XP continued. /
    >> sarcasm) If so, it will be another instance in which Microsoft has
    >> improved its products in response to competition (something it is
    >> loathe to do in its absence). On the other hand, Vista is dragged
    >> down by its layer of DRM that pervades its entire operation, and that
    >> may limit what improvements are possible.

    >
    > One can almost see you struggling against your straitjacket.
    >
    >


    DRM adds an additional processing burden. Processing takes power.

    Is there something about either of these two steps you fail to understand?


    Here's a source you might believe:

    microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2007/02/VistaKernel/


    And from Dave Marsh:

    =================================
    Will Windows Vista content protection features increase CPU resource
    consumption?

    Yes. However, the use of additional CPU cycles is inevitable, as the PC
    provides consumers with additional functionality. Windows Vista's content
    protection features were developed to carefully balance the need to provide
    robust protection from commercial content while still enabling great new
    experiences such as HD-DVD or Blu-Ray playback.
    =================================


    Note that enforcing unwanted DRM at the cost of extra power is providing
    consumers with "additional functionality".



  4. Re: Benchmark: Ubuntu GNU/Linux More Power Efficient Than Vista

    > Hadron snotted:
    >>
    >> One can almost see you struggling against your straitjacket.


    One can almost see the snot and puke spewing from your misshapen head,
    you worthless bag of filth.

  5. Re: Benchmark: Ubuntu GNU/Linux More Power Efficient Than Vista

    Quoting chrisv who, on Sat, 26 Apr 2008 13:48:06 -0500, posted:

    >> Hadron snotted:
    >>>
    >>> One can almost see you struggling against your straitjacket.

    >
    > One can almost see the snot and puke spewing from your misshapen head, you
    > worthless bag of filth.


    One can see Quack defending his beloved M$ yet again.

    --
    This message was sent from a
    computer which is guaranteed
    100% free of the M$ Windoze virus.
    -- 64bit Mandriva 2008.1 --

  6. Re: Benchmark: Ubuntu GNU/Linux More Power Efficient Than Vista

    ____/ nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu on Saturday 26 April 2008 16:57 : \____

    > On Apr 26, 6:43 am, Roy Schestowitz
    > wrote:
    >> Ubuntu 8.04 vs. Windows Vista Power Usage
    >>
    >> ,----[ Quote ]
    >> | When the Lenovo ThinkPad T60 was idling with Ubuntu 8.04 LTS "Hardy Heron"
    >> | it had quite an advantage over Windows Vista Ultimate. Ubuntu was
    >> | consuming five less Watts, which equates to more than 10% less power, over
    >> | Microsoft Windows Vista.
    >> `----
    >>
    >> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...dy_power&num=1
    >>

    >
    > It's possible that Microsoft will improve the power consumption of
    > Vista. They will, if the publicity gets bad enough. (Remember how
    > Ballmer has promised to listen to customers who want XP continued. /
    > sarcasm) If so, it will be another instance in which Microsoft has
    > improved its products in response to competition (something it is
    > loathe to do in its absence). On the other hand, Vista is dragged
    > down by its layer of DRM that pervades its entire operation, and that
    > may limit what improvements are possible.


    Mark said something interesting the other day about the goal of having all
    media files (audio/video/others) DRM-laden. They could apply the same thing to
    software (they already play 'software police') with digital signatures. So
    does the iPhone, FWIW. It's all about taking away control from the user.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Windows Vistaster: Newly-coined Windows MEstake
    http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Tasks: 113 total, 1 running, 112 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
    http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine

  7. Re: Benchmark: Ubuntu GNU/Linux More Power Efficient Than Vista

    Sean Inglis writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> "nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu" writes:
    >>
    >>> On Apr 26, 6:43 am, Roy Schestowitz
    >>> wrote:
    >>>> Ubuntu 8.04 vs. Windows Vista Power Usage
    >>>>
    >>>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>>> | When the Lenovo ThinkPad T60 was idling with Ubuntu 8.04 LTS "Hardy
    >>>> | Heron" it had quite an advantage over Windows Vista Ultimate. Ubuntu
    >>>> | was consuming five less Watts, which equates to more than 10% less
    >>>> | power, over Microsoft Windows Vista.
    >>>> `----
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...dy_power&num=1
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> It's possible that Microsoft will improve the power consumption of
    >>> Vista. They will, if the publicity gets bad enough. (Remember how
    >>> Ballmer has promised to listen to customers who want XP continued. /
    >>> sarcasm) If so, it will be another instance in which Microsoft has
    >>> improved its products in response to competition (something it is
    >>> loathe to do in its absence). On the other hand, Vista is dragged
    >>> down by its layer of DRM that pervades its entire operation, and that
    >>> may limit what improvements are possible.

    >>
    >> One can almost see you struggling against your straitjacket.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > DRM adds an additional processing burden. Processing takes power.


    I dont use a p2 with 48 Megs of memory.


    Typing your bile uses up CPU too. Do they stop you using it?

  8. Re: Benchmark: Ubuntu GNU/Linux More Power Efficient Than Vista

    Hadron wrote:

    > Sean Inglis writes:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> "nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu" writes:
    >>>
    >>>> On Apr 26, 6:43 am, Roy Schestowitz
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>> Ubuntu 8.04 vs. Windows Vista Power Usage
    >>>>>
    >>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>>>> | When the Lenovo ThinkPad T60 was idling with Ubuntu 8.04 LTS "Hardy
    >>>>> | Heron" it had quite an advantage over Windows Vista Ultimate. Ubuntu
    >>>>> | was consuming five less Watts, which equates to more than 10% less
    >>>>> | power, over Microsoft Windows Vista.
    >>>>> `----
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...dy_power&num=1
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> It's possible that Microsoft will improve the power consumption of
    >>>> Vista. They will, if the publicity gets bad enough. (Remember how
    >>>> Ballmer has promised to listen to customers who want XP continued. /
    >>>> sarcasm) If so, it will be another instance in which Microsoft has
    >>>> improved its products in response to competition (something it is
    >>>> loathe to do in its absence). On the other hand, Vista is dragged
    >>>> down by its layer of DRM that pervades its entire operation, and that
    >>>> may limit what improvements are possible.
    >>>
    >>> One can almost see you struggling against your straitjacket.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> DRM adds an additional processing burden. Processing takes power.

    >
    > I dont use a p2 with 48 Megs of memory.
    >


    Why this non-sequitur?

    What does this have to do with power efficiency, or the assertion that
    systematically polluting your architecture with DRM may place a limit on
    improvements?

    If you try reasoning for one moment, rather than a cheap knee-jerk reaction
    because you've made yourself look a bit of a tit with your ignorant
    response, you'll see that the problem persists however the power of the PC
    in question increases.

    >
    > Typing your bile uses up CPU too. Do they stop you using it?


    Bile? What bile is this Hadron?

    Perhaps you mean something like:

    "One can almost see you struggling against your straitjacket."

    a statement absent of any comment on the original contention or on the
    assertions of the MS insider which you have snipped in your reply.

  9. Re: Benchmark: Ubuntu GNU/Linux More Power Efficient Than Vista

    Sean Inglis writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Sean Inglis writes:
    >>
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu" writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Apr 26, 6:43 am, Roy Schestowitz
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>> Ubuntu 8.04 vs. Windows Vista Power Usage
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>>>>> | When the Lenovo ThinkPad T60 was idling with Ubuntu 8.04 LTS "Hardy
    >>>>>> | Heron" it had quite an advantage over Windows Vista Ultimate. Ubuntu
    >>>>>> | was consuming five less Watts, which equates to more than 10% less
    >>>>>> | power, over Microsoft Windows Vista.
    >>>>>> `----
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...dy_power&num=1
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It's possible that Microsoft will improve the power consumption of
    >>>>> Vista. They will, if the publicity gets bad enough. (Remember how
    >>>>> Ballmer has promised to listen to customers who want XP continued. /
    >>>>> sarcasm) If so, it will be another instance in which Microsoft has
    >>>>> improved its products in response to competition (something it is
    >>>>> loathe to do in its absence). On the other hand, Vista is dragged
    >>>>> down by its layer of DRM that pervades its entire operation, and that
    >>>>> may limit what improvements are possible.
    >>>>
    >>>> One can almost see you struggling against your straitjacket.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> DRM adds an additional processing burden. Processing takes power.

    >>
    >> I dont use a p2 with 48 Megs of memory.
    >>

    >
    > Why this non-sequitur?
    >


    Huh?


    > What does this have to do with power efficiency, or the assertion that
    > systematically polluting your architecture with DRM may place a limit on
    > improvements?
    >
    > If you try reasoning for one moment, rather than a cheap knee-jerk reaction
    > because you've made yourself look a bit of a tit with your ignorant
    > response, you'll see that the problem persists however the power of the PC
    > in question increases.
    >
    >>
    >> Typing your bile uses up CPU too. Do they stop you using it?

    >
    > Bile? What bile is this Hadron?
    >
    > Perhaps you mean something like:
    >
    > "One can almost see you struggling against your straitjacket."
    >
    > a statement absent of any comment on the original contention or on the
    > assertions of the MS insider which you have snipped in your reply.


    It's a typical load of paranoid COLA garbage. That bile.

    BTW, for some reason my system didn't just slow down the other day : it
    completely stopped playing m4a files in Amarok. Debian Lenny.

    All this slowdown and things not working in MS products only really
    happens in COLA as well you know.

  10. Re: Benchmark: Ubuntu GNU/Linux More Power Efficient Than Vista

    Hadron wrote:

    > Sean Inglis writes:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> Sean Inglis writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu" writes:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Apr 26, 6:43 am, Roy Schestowitz
    >>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>> Ubuntu 8.04 vs. Windows Vista Power Usage
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>>>>>> | When the Lenovo ThinkPad T60 was idling with Ubuntu 8.04 LTS
    >>>>>>> | "Hardy Heron" it had quite an advantage over Windows Vista
    >>>>>>> | Ultimate. Ubuntu was consuming five less Watts, which equates to
    >>>>>>> | more than 10% less power, over Microsoft Windows Vista.
    >>>>>>> `----
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...dy_power&num=1
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> It's possible that Microsoft will improve the power consumption of
    >>>>>> Vista. They will, if the publicity gets bad enough. (Remember how
    >>>>>> Ballmer has promised to listen to customers who want XP continued. /
    >>>>>> sarcasm) If so, it will be another instance in which Microsoft has
    >>>>>> improved its products in response to competition (something it is
    >>>>>> loathe to do in its absence). On the other hand, Vista is dragged
    >>>>>> down by its layer of DRM that pervades its entire operation, and that
    >>>>>> may limit what improvements are possible.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> One can almost see you struggling against your straitjacket.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> DRM adds an additional processing burden. Processing takes power.
    >>>
    >>> I dont use a p2 with 48 Megs of memory.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Why this non-sequitur?
    >>

    >
    > Huh?
    >


    As you are apparently too idle to do it yourself, here:

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non+sequitur

    Understand?

    >
    >> What does this have to do with power efficiency, or the assertion that
    >> systematically polluting your architecture with DRM may place a limit on
    >> improvements?
    >>
    >> If you try reasoning for one moment, rather than a cheap knee-jerk
    >> reaction because you've made yourself look a bit of a tit with your
    >> ignorant response, you'll see that the problem persists however the power
    >> of the PC in question increases.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Typing your bile uses up CPU too. Do they stop you using it?

    >>
    >> Bile? What bile is this Hadron?
    >>
    >> Perhaps you mean something like:
    >>
    >> "One can almost see you struggling against your straitjacket."
    >>
    >> a statement absent of any comment on the original contention or on the
    >> assertions of the MS insider which you have snipped in your reply.

    >
    > It's a typical load of paranoid COLA garbage. That bile.



    Yet again, you respond to no point of fact and make no sense, exchanging
    this for a feeble "insult".

    Explain your references to paranoia and bile. You aren't making any sense.

    >
    > BTW, for some reason my system didn't just slow down the other day : it
    > completely stopped playing m4a files in Amarok. Debian Lenny.
    >


    And? What is the relevance of this claim in the context of this thread?


    > All this slowdown and things not working in MS products only really
    > happens in COLA as well you know.



    Total ****e.

  11. Re: Benchmark: Ubuntu GNU/Linux More Power Efficient Than Vista

    Sean Inglis wrote:

    >Hadron snotted:
    >>
    >> Typing your bile uses up CPU too. Do they stop you using it?

    >
    >Bile? What bile is this Hadron?
    >
    >Perhaps you mean something like:
    >
    >"One can almost see you struggling against your straitjacket."
    >
    >a statement absent of any comment on the original contention or on the
    >assertions of the MS insider which you have snipped in your reply.


    The quack asshole's hypocrisy proven again. KF the asshole.


  12. Re: Benchmark: Ubuntu GNU/Linux More Power Efficient Than Vista

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Sean Inglis

    wrote
    on Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:41:37 +0100
    <67j3jbF2p0plpU1@mid.individual.net>:
    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Sean Inglis writes:
    >>
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu" writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Apr 26, 6:43 am, Roy Schestowitz
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>> Ubuntu 8.04 vs. Windows Vista Power Usage
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>>>>> | When the Lenovo ThinkPad T60 was idling with Ubuntu 8.04 LTS "Hardy
    >>>>>> | Heron" it had quite an advantage over Windows Vista Ultimate. Ubuntu
    >>>>>> | was consuming five less Watts, which equates to more than 10% less
    >>>>>> | power, over Microsoft Windows Vista.
    >>>>>> `----
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...dy_power&num=1
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It's possible that Microsoft will improve the power consumption of
    >>>>> Vista. They will, if the publicity gets bad enough. (Remember how
    >>>>> Ballmer has promised to listen to customers who want XP continued. /
    >>>>> sarcasm) If so, it will be another instance in which Microsoft has
    >>>>> improved its products in response to competition (something it is
    >>>>> loathe to do in its absence). On the other hand, Vista is dragged
    >>>>> down by its layer of DRM that pervades its entire operation, and that
    >>>>> may limit what improvements are possible.
    >>>>
    >>>> One can almost see you struggling against your straitjacket.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> DRM adds an additional processing burden. Processing takes power.

    >>
    >> I dont use a p2 with 48 Megs of memory.
    >>

    >
    > Why this non-sequitur?


    Probably because he believes that DRM has a future, that
    DRM is necessary, that DRM is desirable (and it is, if
    one's a media mogul; I'd say the common folk might have
    a different take thereon!), and that DRM is inevitable.

    One can liken DRM as a tax on our computers; liberals
    do say that taxes are necessary for a civil society, but
    there is a bit of a disconnect here, especially since DRM
    assumes a priori that one is a bit of a persona non grata
    prior to authorization.

    Other connotations of this statement are that Linux is only
    usable with a PPro (90 or so MHz) with 48 MB of RAM, not
    on a modern machine with 3.0GHz+ clockspeed and 4 GB RAM.
    (This is patently untrue, of course; I for one have my
    laptop at 2.8 GHz (Mobile Intel Pentium IV), 1 GB RAM,
    and a number of desktops of various speeds.)

    >
    > What does this have to do with power efficiency, or the assertion that
    > systematically polluting your architecture with DRM may place a limit on
    > improvements?


    DRM has everything to do with power efficiency, as it's
    extra transistors switching to implement the fundamental
    problem of transmitting (or, perhaps, authorizing the
    transmission of) media over limited bandwidth for display
    on one's hardware and ultimately into one's ear canal,
    eyeball, and/or brain.

    >
    > If you try reasoning for one moment, rather than a cheap knee-jerk reaction
    > because you've made yourself look a bit of a tit with your ignorant
    > response, you'll see that the problem persists however the power of the PC
    > in question increases.


    Indeed, though there is the concept of a threshold-point;
    one wonders if a 5% "DRM tax" or 40% "DRM tax" would be
    required here, assuming one needs such at all. (Theora is
    a workable alternative, last I looked.)

    ["bile" snipped for brevity]

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #12398234:
    void f(char *p) {char *q = strdup(p); strcpy(p,q);}
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

+ Reply to Thread