Star Windows Vista: More Than Just a Pretty Face
Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Tue 20th Mar 2007 10:26 UTC
Windows Windows Vista has had something of a troubled birth. Hyped features were pulled, and the project as a whole took far longer to complete than expected, partly due to standing still while MS dropped everything to work on WinXP Service Pack 2, but in part also due to a decision to "reset" and scrap much of the new development. This has led some commentators to dub the project a "train wreck."
E-mail Print r 0   142 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/dip
Thread beginning with comment 222903
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Nice, but no thanks
by BluenoseJake on Tue 20th Mar 2007 18:07 UTC in reply to "Nice, but no thanks"
BluenoseJake
Member since:
2005-08-11

"And all the while, you are burning up oodles of energy because your machine needs a lot of juice to run Vista, which translates to a lot of aircon in an office"

Considering that most of the extra processing is done by your video card, and that most machines would only need ram and/or Video card upgrades to run Vista, I don't see how it could possibly mean that much more energy is used, especially if you have a new machine, which is much more energy efficient than older P4s and Athlon XPs

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

RE[2]: Nice, but no thanks
by archiesteel on Tue 20th Mar 2007 19:03 in reply to "RE: Nice, but no thanks"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Considering that most of the extra processing is done by your video card, and that most machines would only need ram and/or Video card upgrades to run Vista, I don't see how it could possibly mean that much more energy is used

The GPU in the video card uses energy as well, you know. As much as I like bling (I'm a Beryl user myself), I can't deny the fact that it *does* drain more juice. You don't get anything for nothing, and fancy graphics do need more electriciy than plain ones.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

RE[3]: Nice, but no thanks
by BluenoseJake on Tue 20th Mar 2007 23:48 in reply to "RE[2]: Nice, but no thanks"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I dunno, I would think that that the differences would be minor, considering you are trading less processor usage for more video card usage, I would think they may almost cancel out

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

Read more of this thread... >
RE[2]: Nice, but no thanks
by heh heh on Wed 21st Mar 2007 00:25 in reply to "RE: Nice, but no thanks"
heh heh Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah sure, and a 460 watt power supply will use less
power than a 200 watt job.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1

RE[3]: Nice, but no thanks
by Zoidberg on Wed 21st Mar 2007 01:16 in reply to "RE[2]: Nice, but no thanks"
Zoidberg Member since:
2006-02-11

Not sure what you mean by that, but a 460 watt power supply will use exactly the same amount as a 200 watt in the same system. The rating is what the power supply can provide, not what it uses.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1