RE: Linux on the desktop - it's come a long way, but is it there yet?

["Palit, Nilanjan" <user=108@nabble.blu.org>]

 > 5) 
> If I activate certain of the screen-"savers", the motherboard eats 30 watts 
> (!) of additional electricity in order to perform the 3D calculations.  (Maybe 
> they need an Energy Un-star icon next to these selections. ;-) 
> 
> -rich 

Well, they are called "screen"-savers, and *not*, "power"-savers for a reason. Screen savers were designed to avoid burn-in of old CRT displays before such technologies matured. However, they stuck and people (including engineers!) continue to confuse them with some sort of a power-saving mode, which they are not. They were *not* designed to minimize your system's power consumption, then or now. They are typically graphics intensive tasks and thus use as much power as you would expect any other graphics-intensive tasks to consume. 

I'm continually amazed at the screen-savers that people run when they are away from their desks at home or work. They are such an energy drain. You are right, when you said "they need an Energy Un-star icon next to these selections" -- yes, systems that support/allow screen-savers should indeed have their Energy Star stamps revoked. If you want to save $$ and the environment, be responsible and have your display settings to turn the monitor OFF when not in use, as opposed to running some stupid sequence of animated fish swimming in a dull aquarium! 

-Nilanjan 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 

_______________________________________________ 
Discuss mailing list 
[hidden email] 
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss