On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 03:43:04 -0800 (PST), Ht****irs
<ht****irs@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Thanks for all the feedback/suggestions.
>
>kony wrote:
>
>> In other words, if one didn't need the performance or
>> features of their modern system, they wouldn't have bought
>> it, would still have the old system which has more similar
>> power usage as the OP's proposed system, without the waste
>> of buying two more systems in money, time, pollution in
>> manufacturing and later landfill.
>>
>
>Kony : I am evaluating the possibility that a person who needs the
>power of a modern system for some work (gaming), uses the same system
>for work that can be achieved by older systems (browsing, do***ent
>creation etc). It is not my desire to use the Via system for gaming or
>other intensive purposes. I think there is a strong possiblitity that
>most of the high end systems being used by gamers, are operated most
>of the time for chatting or do***ent creation.
You may be right, but IMO the percentage of systems that are
these high-end gaming systems is fairly small. The average
system is sold by an OEM and uses integrated video.
>Everyone will disagree with the above. Reducing population is not the
>same as reducing wastage. The largest polluters are not the most
>populous nations.
>In the SPCR link about the Hiper PC you provided, the damning figure
>is the 82 W that the system consumes when idle.
.... which isn't necessarily a damning figure. What happens
if someone doesn't find using the PC enjoyable? They may
read - turning on a 60W light or a couple of 14W CCFL
lights, or cook and eat, consuming more power, or go out -
driving somewhere, or watch TV... the list goes on. You're
talking about only a minor reduction in power usage while
there are so many other far more significant areas of power
wasted. These areas also include the power to make,
distribute, sell, deliver an additional system worth of
parts. The "green" idea is seldom to buy more stuff that
consumes power with the idea only the newer would be used
enough to make a difference and then ignoring the other
power usage aspects.
Perhaps a better idea would be that when the present PC is
due for replacement then it is replaced with one more energy
conservative, but many people replace to see a performance
benefit - if it were only the matter of a failed part it
could be nearly as conservative to just replace the one
failed part.
Don't forget about the cost. Not just as a deterrent to
buying the 2nd system but in that the more money one spends,
the more society has to work on average to pay for these
things, which also increase energy usage from the workplace,
travel, and often a sup****ting infrastructure like
restaurants... not everyone can always brown-sack their
lunch.
>I doubt if rendering a page will be an issue if one has a broadband
>link.
One has nothing to do with the other. The speed of the data
coming in has no effect on whether a low powered CPU can
render multiple animated flash ads as now seen on many
'sites. If you are browsing with a low powered system and
see a video clip you want to watch, will you turn off the
power conservative system, boot the more powerful one, watch
the video, then turn the more powerful one off and boot the
conservative one again? I suspect many times both would be
running.
>Flash loaded files take longer to be transmitted over the line,
>and rendering can occur only after that, so probably the CPU is not
>the bottleneck in that case.
False. No matter how fast or slow the data gets there, the
system has to be able to realtime process it to play it.
I'm not suggesting such a low powered system would be
completely unusable, but the truth is that most of us do not
have newer faster systems because we didn't want or need
them - and we had slower systems previously that did use
less power, systems that we could have (or did) keep and
could use instead of buying a new system too to reach a
lower power usage.
Ultimately power conservation has to be across the industry,
in parts design. Your idea could be applied in many areas
of life like buying a small efficient car to suppliment the
larger one, buying a well insulated toaster oven to
suppliment the large oven. Buying a smaller microwave to
suppliment the larger one, smaller TV when you don't *need*
to see things as large or are willing to sit closer. All
these are more expense, more manufacturing pollution, etc.
The answer is not as simple as buying more stuff.
|
