On 10/03/2011 03:48 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: > This is todays hardware and with every generation the gap is getting smaller > between dyn pm savings and suspend savings. "The annual life cycle energy use for a computer (3-year lifespan) is 2600 MJ [...]. The energy footprint of a computer is thus far more significant than its physical size would suggest. The energy used for the production phase is 81% of the total consumed for production and operation"[1] I've read other figures of 70% for production but we can agree that it's not contradicting. With this in mind I think the REAL energy saving battle lies elsewhere. Not to diminish the work done on energy saving during usage, but how much can you reduce from 19% versus 81%? Oh right, we have no control over the 81%... but maybe it's not a reason good enough to force such choices onto users. This is a general comment on suspend/always-on/power off; we saw the same logic being pushed forward to justify the 'hidden' shutdown option in GNOME. Maybe developers and users should be aware of the overall impact of their PC, not just the usage part. Fred [1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/4183/Energy-Intensity-of-Computer-Manufacturing -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
