On 11-06-20 10:35 AM, Olav Vitters wrote: > > I don't see the relation between environmentally responsible and using > suspend vs powering off. Powering off typically means having to restore to one's "working set", including waiting for the machine to boot up to that working set when one returns. This page: http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/computers.html attributes a desktop computer at 60-250 watts. My personal measurements (from quite a while ago) put it at more like 150W which seems a reasonable value between 60W and 250W. That same page lists a computer in standby at 1-6W, which IIRC sounds reasonable from my measurements of a while ago. If we take again an average, that's 3W. Assume your computer takes 180s to boot up, let you log in and you restore your "working set". In that 180s you used up 45000 watt-seconds. At 3W, your computer can suspend for 15000 seconds (250 minutes or over 4 hours) before consuming that same amount of energy. Now do that several times a day... Being able to suspend my desktop seems very environmentally responsible to me. > If you don't use it for a while: it should automatically use less power > (maybe even go to standby). But I don't see people putting desktops into > standby. People that care about their children's future do. Or probably would if they knew the math. > Everything is turned off instead. No, in fact I'd hazard to guess that nothing is turned off, sadly. I know I don't because the hassle of returning to the working set is just too much. I suspend. b.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ gnome-list mailing list gnome-list@xxxxxxxxx http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-list
