Mike McCarty wrote:
> I don't know that it does or doesn't. But the question
is to vague to
> even
> contemplate. Maybe in a multi-tasking environment Linux is more
> efficient
You apparently already know all the answers. Of course you don't need
more data.
I'm sorry... What part of "I don't know" translates to "you
apparently
already know all the answers"?
> in its scheduling. Maybe a Linux system spends less time in an
idle/wait
> state while I/O is going on. What services/tasks are being performed on
> when running windows v.s. Linux?
>
> All I know is, there isn't some hidden defect in "Linux" causing every
Who said anything about "hidden defect"?
OK, then let me rephrase to say "unknown defect". I can see how one may
interpret "hidden" to mean it was done intentionally.
Every defect has a first time that it gets discovered. As software
gradually matures, the "easy" defects get taken care of, and the
more elusive ones remain.
And the elusive ones are "hidden" from view. But if one has no empirical
evidence to suggest there is an unknown defect it is pure idle speculation.
> system running it to use more electricity and over heating
systems. Then
> again, maybe Linux is conspiracy cooked up by the oil companies to
> increase
> demand for their products. :-)
This isn't worth responding to. The whole message has the appearance
of a joke.
Indeed, your sarcasm detection ability is not impaired. You will note the
smiley face which should have given you the clue that indeed no response was
expected.
I suggest that he actually capture some information, and the world
comes to pieces. Where I come from letting prejudice guide behavior
is not considered good practice.
You are detecting prejudice where none exists.
I suggest he run top or something similar, and actually *measure*
CPU utilization. If it is within normal operation (as I suspect
it is) then that's the end of the story.
Define "normal".
If it isn't, then it's worth further investigation.
Suggesting actually *collecting information* rather than
*acting on knee-jerk prejudice* is usually considered
prudent, where I come from.
And were does "common sense" factor into the equation?
But then, I come from a background where if software
fails, one loses customers, because they don't have
a religious attachment to using it, and people care
about their reputations, and try to produce high
quality stuff, because they know the customers will
vote with their feet.
A bit OT, but one then wonders how Microsoft has done so well over the
years. How many BSOD have you suffered?
I honestly have no idea where you are coming from. If the situation were
reversed I would still be saying the same thing. One aspect of the O/S +
applications is stressing the user's hardware more than the other. This is
pushing the user's marginal hardware to the thermal breaking point. I could
give a (excuse the expression) rat's ass what O/S + application are putting
his hardware over the threshold.
Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as
few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off", those that make
no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or
theory. In short, when given two equally valid explanations for a
phenomenon, one should embrace the less complicated formulation.
So, claiming there is a potential defect in some software is causing the
over heating is just too complex to make sense. This is especially true
when we are talking about a single occurrence. The less complicated answer
is his cooling is substandard.
FWIW, running mprime on my system in Taipei makes for a great foot warmer
during the winter months. Homes here are generally not heated....kind of
like Florida.
--
Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.
-- Albert Einstein