This is the coolest **** ever... you gotta see this LOL.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006...windows_xp.php

25 billion dollars wasted on power/electricty because of three little bugs.

I dont know if it s true but it sounds damn cool LOL.

WANKERS LOL.

Not to mention the CO2 output hhahahaha.

TOO COOOOL

Let's SUE microsoft.

For environmental DAMAGE :P*

Bye,
Skybuck

Quit the crossposting
Quit the OFF Topic posts
Quit using a computer.
Next time you have a thought............Let it go!

"JAD" <JOHN_ DOE@PORN_ ADDY_ HARVESTER.com> wrote in message
news:7KJ9h.1075$...
> Quit the crossposting
> Quit the OFF Topic posts
> Quit using a computer.
> Next time you have a thought............Let it go!

I agree we should all stop using computers right now the WHOLE WORLD IS IN
DANGER !!!!!!!!!!!

HAHAHAHA Bye,
Skybuck.

WOW

It wasn`t like that with msdos , you started, switched on, finished , switched off .............. LOL

Skybuck Flying wrote:
> http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006...windows_xp.php
>
> 25 billion dollars wasted on power/electricty because of three little bugs.


Whatever increased electrical consumption Windows XP's imperfect power
management might have 'caused' is dwarfed by the energy consumption of
CRT monitors, most of which have proven not to consume significantly
less power even when in standby mode.

There are so many flaws, unsupported assertions, and assumption-based
logic in the anti-Microsoft article I hardly know where to begin. But,
to start with...

The vast majority of PCs worldwide are not DIY or custom built, but OEM
mass produced (e.g. HP, Compaq, Dell, Gateway, Packard Bell, IBM, et.
al.). These companies actually have a fairly good (though not great)
track record of delivering PCs with working power management, due to
their closer (direct) relationships with hardware and peripheral
vendors who supply their components, and the engineering level staff
they have doing product development, testing, and support.

Its mostly the DIY and custom built machines that have power management
issues, because these machines will be used with the broadest spectrum
of hardware and peripherals from the broadest spectrum of vendors; only
a tiny fraction of which will be fully tested by the motherboard
manufacturer before mass production. It is the system integrator,
designer, or builder that is responsible for validating/testing
specific hardware combinations before production and roll-out, and this
is where DIY and custom builders are largely just playing darts in a
trial-and-error manner, often having to settle for some glitches due to
cost or time constraints.

By in large, power management issues are not caused by any flaw in
Microsoft's power management implementation or some 'bug' in
Microsoft's code, but by poorly designed device drivers on the part of
hardware and peripheral manufacturers (the same underlying cause of
most so-called 'IRQ conflicts').

You can imagine, then, the backlash and criticism Microsoft would face
if its operating system were designed by default to just slam a system
into standby or hibernation no matter what other devices were doing or
why. e.g.

_Someone trying to download SuSE Linux distro on DVD and their computer
keeps going into standby or hibernation @ 30 minutes whether or not
their download is finished.

_A PC being used as security DVR is forced into standby or hibernation
@ 60 minutes.

There are dozens of other scenarios where the consequences or costs of
forcing a PC into a PM state without regard for what the PC is doing at
the time or user preference would far outweigh the energy savings. The
same reason why a ****-poor device driver can prevent a PC from
entering standby or hibernation also prevents the PC from entering a PM
state when it is not safe to do so from a task objective or data
integrity standpoint.

But how nice and simple the world must be to view every problem with
narrow single-issue mindedness, which in this case seems to be driven
more by some juvenile disdain for Microsoft than sincere 'concern' for
the environment (typical of environmentalists). By this guy's logic, a
worse polluter would have to be the frame-rate zealots who build raging
dual-core SLI systems sporting dual monitors and 600+ watt PSUs for
browsing the web and running benchmarks, when they could be out doing
something constructive with their time and money instead of playing
games, like 'saving the environment'.

Regards,

Tim

All of my CAD lab PCs go to "hibernate" after 45
minutes of not being used. I have cut their cost of
operation by 75 percent doing that. At no time was
a download interrupted, and F-secure AV does
not interfere with the reliability of entering hibernate
mode. Also, that means the video cards with fans
run far less, and there is far less dust build up in
them. I have probably extended the useful life of
these systems by a factor of 4x. In addition, since
many of the PCs are not turned on during the day,
I have cut the cost of air conditioning in those labs
by the same factor of 75%. Also, I do the same
with my office PC, and that means, it goes off
when I leave for meetings, or lunch, or every single
evening, and all weekend. Calculations show that
the money I am saving by doing this, will pay for
all new computers in those labs every 3 years.
Only a moron would ignore the obvious advantage
of using the hibernate function in XP. Hibernate
saves all settings to disk, and on reboot only takes
about 15 to 20 seconds to restore all operations,
including any open applications. AutoCAD comes
right back to the open drawing just like I left it in
15 seconds, from a totally OFF condition ... no
fans, no lights ... totally OFF, so that the box is
cool to the touch. It is ridiculous not to use
Hibernate.

johns

johns wrote:
> All of my CAD lab PCs go to "hibernate" after 45
> minutes of not being used. I have cut their cost of
> operation by 75 percent doing that.


Clearly then, according to this article, you are an example of how the
environment is worse off because of Microsoft's decision to let the
user tailor PM events to his individual preference. Reason being, you
could have chosen to hibernate your computers after 15 minutes instead
of 45 minutes.

Thus, your PM preferences contributed to this $25 billion wasted
electrical consumption and higher CO2 emissions. Allowing the user to
tailor PM events to preference is one of the three 'flaws' outlined in
this self-proclaimed 'green' article (actually two of the three, if you
count being able to turn-off PM altogether).

The author doesn't mention the standard by which he delineates those
PCs that don't waste energy from those that do, but one might
reasonably infer he defines as 'wasteful' any PC that is consuming more
power than his own. Therein lies the rub; who gets to arbitrarily
define according to his own personal views, wants, and needs the power
consumption 'standard' that will be imposed on everyone else?

Someone in China might wring his hands at the environmental impact of
the automobile, offering himself up as a better model because he rides
a bicycle for personal transportation. Someone in India might then
point-out that manufacturing bicycles has an environmental impact,
offering himself up as a better model because he walks everywhere he
goes. Someone in Africa might then point out that manufacturing
running shoes has an environmental impact, offering himself up as a
better model because he walks everywhere in his bare feet!

So on and so forth, until we get to the guy who offers himself up as
the better model by committing suicide to spare the environment. lol!

If you're breathing, you're contributing to the decline of the planet -
period. The rest is just self-righteous adolescent ****ing-match (my
carbon footprint is smaller than your's...blah blah blah).

Regards,

Tim

In article <. com>,
says...
> Skybuck Flying wrote:
> > http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006...windows_xp.php
> >
> > 25 billion dollars wasted on power/electricty because of three little bugs.
>
>
> Whatever increased electrical consumption Windows XP's imperfect power
> management might have 'caused' is dwarfed by the energy consumption of
> CRT monitors, most of which have proven not to consume significantly
> less power even when in standby mode.

Huh? My three-year-old ViewSonic P95b consumes about 3W in
standby. Even my 6-year-old IBM G94 consumes less than 8W in
standby. Neither are in much use anymore, but the P95b will be if I
can get Xinerama working in SuSE Linux (not much chance, I fear).

--
Keith

JAD wrote:

> Quit the crossposting
> Quit the OFF Topic posts
> Quit using a computer.
> Next time you have a thought............Let it go!
>
>
>
You only need to look for the smoke!


--
"I'm never wrong, once i thought i was, but was mistaken"
Real Programmers Do things like this.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5

krw wrote:

> Huh? My three-year-old ViewSonic P95b consumes about 3W in
> standby. Even my 6-year-old IBM G94 consumes less than 8W in
> standby. Neither are in much use anymore, but the P95b will be if I
> can get Xinerama working in SuSE Linux (not much chance, I fear).

According to manufacturer published specs? Numerous tests have found
large disparities between published specs and actual measurements of
power consumption during standby. Many CRT monitors failed to meet
Energy Star and other energy saving initiatives though they use the
compliance logos.

But yeah, you seem to newly have stumbled upon the meaning of "most"
(in contrast to the meaning of "all"). More expensive product lines
from major brands such as IBM typically tested better than the
lower-end commodity CRT monitors (i.e. MAG, ProView, Envision, KDS,
CTX, the cheaper CRTs shipped with PCs from eMachines, Gateway, Compaq,
Dell, et. al.).

Regards,

Tim