Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 6:16 am
Or maybe they just got tired of you?Palindroman wrote:Funny thing is, now they are used to it and they act as if it's the most normal thing in the world. Great, isn't it?
Discussions about Silent Computing
https://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/
https://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=35371
Or maybe they just got tired of you?Palindroman wrote:Funny thing is, now they are used to it and they act as if it's the most normal thing in the world. Great, isn't it?
Whatever. If that's what it takes to make people act rationally, then I hope everyone gets very tired of me.Erssa wrote:Or maybe they just got tired of you?
We already do - Google, Medline, ... All use remote storage/CPU cycles.0) would you be willing to use shared computer resources? I.e. not fully own your own computer or at least not all the CPU cycles/storage/memory that you use.
Seems like a bit of a red herring - most of the time most people spend using computers the computers aren't busy. Limiting hours of use is mostly a savings on power for the display hardware. (Rather than saying no idling - make more sense to make computer more efficient at idling, or give it something else to do while idling.) Doesn't make much sense to limit how much time I can use the display - Keeping me warm takes a lot more energy than keeping a display going while I am using it.1) Would you be willing to limit your computer use to X hours / week (on average) to limit it's energy use?
Time between purchases doesn't seem like a good metric here.2) Would you be willing to limit your re-purchase cycle to Y years and not upgrade until the minimum safety time has passed? This could mean passing up on "revolutionary" faster cpus/gpus/hds, etc and having a relatively "slow" computer compared to the best available.
Isn't this one of the main themes of SPCR already?4) Would you be willing limit the power of your computer if it means staying under a certain limit of power draw and material intensity load (due to mfg/logistics)?
You'll have to ask the EPA about that:I wonder why non active PFC power supplies have not been banned?
It may have something to do with the current administration not being particularly concerned about stuff like this.The current non-mention of Power Factor Correction in the Energy Star draft is something of an oddity. PFC is mandatory for any >75W device in most other industrialized nations, including Japan, China and the EU. Why not make it part of Energy Star at least? Active Power Factor Correction, in particular, has the potential to greatly reduce harmonics and other garbage in the AC lines.
This administration is a proctologist's and a CEO's wet dream.It may have something to do with the current administration not being particularly concerned about stuff like this.
The tremendous growth in human population in the last century or so is fit rather well by an exponential curve. (Doubling every so many years). This has been well documented - check Malthus, Ehrlich, etc.padmewan wrote:Human population growth is not exponential,
It may be shocking (well I think it is), but it is well documented.and whatever statistic you pulled about ... [unintended] children in the United States (a) sounds dubious without more backup, and
If you check the figures (e.g. US census bureau) you will find that the US has been experiencing exponential population growth. (see rate above) The rate is not as large as in some countries, but it is higher than in many more developed nations.(b) certainly does not describe "exponential" growth of population in the U.S. (which is not experiencing exponential growth!).
Human population growth is a problem over most of the world - and especially in the US. Individuals in the US use a lot more resources and energy than those in most other parts of the world, which magnifies the impact of US population increases on the environment. (While the US has a bit over 1/20th of world population, it uses a vastly larger proportion of the world's energy.)Population growth is certainly a pressing issue, but from a computing POV the parts of the world where population growth is a problem are not where the computing resources are being disproportionately spent.
With respect to overpopulation in underdeveloped parts of the world, Bill Gates was convinced that improving health would, paradoxically, help curb that growth, ergo the focus of the B&M Gates Foundation.
Nah, China & India win that one by a country mile. OK, they don't use much resources on a per-capita basis at the moment, but they are going to want to in the future, and there are a lot of capitas! Together they account for about 40% of world population. US is very sparsely populated compared with Tokyo,HK,Holland,even Germany, Belgium and UK. US is #172 on list of countries by population density, however this stat is probably skewed by Alaska.the case has been made that the US is the most overpopulated nation.
Breeder reactors have basically 3 problems: public acceptance, economics, and the fact that they are an unproven technology (commercially). Theoretically the public should welcome a (well-designed) breeder reactor, because it reduces the waste problem to negligible levels, but we know the debate on nuclear power is not always based on rational considerations.We have the "techno-fix" right now for reduction of carbon emission. It is nuclear breeder reactors.
Hope that didn't come across as over-critical. Just meant that within thehalcyon wrote:scdr wrote:Hardly seems like a radical rethink.
Staying within the topic of green computing, what would you consider a radical rethink?
Let's try to stay away from techno-fixes (process/usage-pattern related changes only).
Nah, it's good to be critical. Important topic and all.scdr wrote: Hope that didn't come across as over-critical. Just meant that within the
context of SPCR, the idea of compromising on speed/etc. for other factors
is fairly standard. (Of course for those touting computers it is a different story.)
You quoted 500 watts several times, but the true power draw would be nearer 120 watts, not 500 watts. Just because you have a 500 watt power supply doesn't mean the consumption is ANYWHERE near that. As for manufacturing versus power consumption, I've read that it takes 10 times as much power to produce a consumer electronic device as it will consume in it's lifetime, making the consumption rate irrelevant compared to the manufacture of the device.Bigg wrote:Desktops last just about forever. Also, my desktop computer is a northwood, with an older ~70% efficient PSU. It has two CRT monitors. It is just an energy hog? How long should I keep it versus buying a new Apple laptop that uses 50W instead of 500W?
3) Your attack on Apple is just WRONG. While they may not use green manufacturing, the Mini uses 18W of power, the iMac 35. Compare that to the 150+ watt Dell systems. Plus, Apples are just plain a lot smaller, so they have a smaller material and shipping impact. I love Apple's eco-friendly systems. They help the electric bill too. I'm not saying they are perfect, they are not, but they are the most eco-friendly computer maker that I know of. The greenpeace study did not factor in electric useage.
4) That makes no sense. My current 500W machine would be outperformed by a Mac Mini (60 wattsish total) or Macbook (50 wattsish) that draws 1/10th the power.
How old is that iBook? My laptop is six years old this month and shows no signs of disintegrating.Bigg wrote:2) The problem here is that there is no one way to say how long something should last. For example, my desktop may go to 4.5 years, while my laptop (iBook) is architecturally obsolete, and literally falling apart. Laptops just don't last as long, as they are moved around a lot.
Even with two CRT monitors, there's no way a Dell machine breaks 400 watts at idle unless they're like 24". Did you check the wattage rating on the screens? Then add 120 watts (max) for an idling Northwood system.Bigg wrote:2) The problem here is that there is no one way to say how long something should last. For example, my desktop may go to 4.5 years, while my laptop (iBook) is architecturally obsolete, and literally falling apart. Laptops just don't last as long, as they are moved around a lot. Desktops last just about forever. Also, my desktop computer is a northwood, with an older ~70% efficient PSU. It has two CRT monitors. It is just an energy hog? How long should I keep it versus buying a new Apple laptop that uses 50W instead of 500W?
I'd be interested in finding out which Dell systems use 150 watts in idle? The XPS models maybe. Not the general purpose ones. Certainly not the new ones with C2D inside.Bigg wrote:3) Your attack on Apple is just WRONG. While they may not use green manufacturing, the Mini uses 18W of power, the iMac 35. Compare that to the 150+ watt Dell systems.