New computers are more efficient than old ones; therefore we need
to make all software so bloated that it does not run on old
computers, to make sure that those old computer become obsolete and
people stop using them.
Everything new is always more secure than the old; therefore we
need to make all software so bloated that it does not run on old
computers, to force people to use new computers that are so much
more secure than the old ones.
Monitors nowadays use less power than the CRTs of old; therefore,
to save power, we must make bloated user interfaces that don't work
with small resolutions.
Fallacies Advocating Software Bloat
Ben Collver wrote:
Fallacies Advocating Software Bloat
A lot of the arguments seem to be handwaving, doctrinaire stuff.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
Ben Collver wrote:
Fallacies Advocating Software Bloat
A lot of the arguments seem to be handwaving, doctrinaire stuff.
None of the claimed positions actually cite any real, specific people
who hold them. The author appears to be arguing with people who exist
only inside their own head.
On Sun, 6 Apr 2025, Borislav Petkov wrote:
I don't have your old rust and maybe you should simply throw it
in the garbage - that thing is probably not worth the
electricity it uses to power up... :-)
C'mon, these are good room heaters with nice extra side effects. ;)
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
Ben Collver wrote:
Fallacies Advocating Software Bloat
A lot of the arguments seem to be handwaving, doctrinaire stuff.
None of the claimed positions actually cite any real, specific people
who hold them. The author appears to be arguing with people who exist
only inside their own head.
At least so far as the first argument goes, it definitely reflects
the attitude of some Linux kernel developers:
From the LKML:
"On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 11:16:26AM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2025, Borislav Petkov wrote:
I don't have your old rust and maybe you should simply throw it
in the garbage - that thing is probably not worth the
electricity it uses to power up... :-)
C'mon, these are good room heaters with nice extra side effects. ;)
Maybe we should intentionally prevent booting Linux on such machines
and make this our community's contribution in the fight against
global warming!
:-P
"
At least so far as the first argument goes, it definitely reflects
the attitude of some Linux kernel developers:
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> writes:
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
None of the claimed positions actually cite any real, specific people
who hold them. The author appears to be arguing with people who exist
only inside their own head.
At least so far as the first argument goes, it definitely reflects
the attitude of some Linux kernel developers:
From the LKML:
"On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 11:16:26AM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2025, Borislav Petkov wrote:
I don't have your old rust and maybe you should simply throw it
in the garbage - that thing is probably not worth the
electricity it uses to power up... :-)
C'mon, these are good room heaters with nice extra side effects. ;)
Maybe we should intentionally prevent booting Linux on such machines
and make this our community's contribution in the fight against
global warming!
:-P
"
There is no statement about making anything more 'bloated' in that
quote.
On 2025-12-22, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
At least so far as the first argument goes, it definitely reflects
the attitude of some Linux kernel developers:
Regarding power usage it's fairly simple:
Older computers had smaller wattage power supplies, and the typical
usage pattern was to power down when you weren't using it.
UPS battery backup power can be educational. I seem to recall that
the CRTs would drain the batteries faster than the LCDs did, which contradicts one of the arguments in the original article.
On the other hand, power usage is only the tip of the iceberg in terms
of ecological footprint. I have no idea about the comparative cost of manufacture, nor the comparative load of toxic materials. Considering
these factors it would make sense to extend the service life.
Fallacies Advocating Software Bloat
===================================
New computers are more efficient than old ones; therefore we need
to make all software so bloated that it does not run on old
computers, to make sure that those old computer become obsolete and
people stop using them.
This one is often used by environmentalists, and it is wrong in so
many obvious ways.
* New computers generally consume more power than old ones. Of x86
CPUs anything older than Pentium II uses only a single-digit amount
of watts.
* Bloated code causes also new computers to use more electricity than
would otherwise be required for the task.
* Most importantly, when we create non-bloated computer programs, we
are not necessarily targeting old CPUs--we are targeting old
instruction sets. The patents of those old instruction sets are
already expired and CPUs that use them can be freely produced by
anyone. They are also widely supported by compilers and other
existing software. Making software that works on old and/or
patent-free instruction sets is necessary to preserve our digital
freedoms.
* If those old computers end up not being used, they are thrown to
landfills, causing more environmental damage that way.
Everything new is always more secure than the old; therefore we
need to make all software so bloated that it does not run on old
computers, to force people to use new computers that are so much
more secure than the old ones.
This one is often used by corporate security experts.
* Everything new is not always more secure. In fact the opposite is
often true--mindlessly changing stuff just for the sake of novelty
creates an infrastructure that will never become properly
battle-tested. Typically the pieces of software that are assumed to
be the most secure programs in existence have been around for a
long time, and their current form is the result of decades of
small, incremental and carefully thought changes to their codebase.
* Because general purpose computers are Turing-complete, there is not
a single reason why an old computer would be somehow less secure
than a new one. Encryption is mathematics, and the exact same
encryption can be performed on any two machines with the same
levels of Turing-powerfulness. If anything, new computers are
actually often less Turing-powerful than the old ones, thanks to
various firmware- and hardware-level restrictions (firmware
signing, UEFI Secure Boot etc.) that have been implemented to them
because Microsoft has demanded the hardware manufacturers to do so.
* What corporate security experts usually mean with "old computers"
is actually "old operating systems" (or more specifically "old
versions of Windows"), because they somehow associate the
individual computers with the operating system that was originally
installed to them in the factory. But the operating system is not
an integrated part of the computer itself--instead it is just a
bootable program that can be easily changed.
Monitors nowadays use less power than the CRTs of old; therefore,
to save power, we must make bloated user interfaces that don't work
with small resolutions.
This one is often used by HD/4K/8K enthusiasts.
* Old CRTs don't really use that much power at all--a typical 15"
color CRT uses less than most lightbulbs. Monochrome CRTs are even
less power hungry, usually consuming something between 15 to
30 watts of power. The CRT itself doesn't actually usually use much
power. The neck of the CRT, where the electron gun resides, is
where most of the CRT's power is spent. Corporate propaganda often
states a very commonly heard lie that CRTs consume hundreds of
watts of power, but that's not physically possible--the neck of the
CRT would melt if that was true. Although there are exceptions to
the rule, most CRT displays are actually quite power efficient for
a self-illuminating display technology.
* With "modern" flat panel displays, especially OLEDs, the power
consumption grows in an almost linear fashion with the area of the
display. This means that we can actually save more power by
creating scalable user interfaces that also work well on smaller
display resolutions.
From: <http://sininenankka.dy.fi/leetos/swbloat.php>
Blame Microsoft for putting Windows on literally every computer
candycanearter07 wrote:
Blame Microsoft for putting Windows on literally every computer
Not quite _every_ computer.
Blame Microsoft for putting Windows on literally every computer ...
candycanearter07 wrote:
Blame Microsoft for putting Windows on literally every computer
Not quite _every_ computer.
Not even every x86 PC.
candycanearter07 wrote:
Blame Microsoft for putting Windows on literally every computer
Not quite _every_ computer.
Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote at 16:19 this Tuesday (GMT):
candycanearter07 wrote:
Blame Microsoft for putting Windows on literally every computer
Not quite _every_ computer.
Enough that most people don't know there IS an alternative (or that the
only two choices are Windows and MacOS)
candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote at 16:19 this Tuesday (GMT):
candycanearter07 wrote:
Blame Microsoft for putting Windows on literally every computer
Not quite _every_ computer.
Enough that most people don't know there IS an alternative (or that the only two choices are Windows and MacOS)
Wot no Plan 9?
I believe I've seen Windows 2000 running on a DEC Alpha.
Wot no Plan 9?
On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 16:57:03 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
Wot no Plan 9?
What exactly does Plan9 get you?
On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 16:57:03 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
Wot no Plan 9?
What exactly does Plan9 get you?
On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 19:02:02 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
What exactly does Plan9 get you?
The ability to have as much stuff as possible running outside the
kernel ring. The more stuff you can kick out of the kernel, the less
stuff there is which can cause catastrophic failure when things go
wrong.
OSX started out adapting some of the Plan9 philosophy but it mostly
turned into bloat and the current OSX kernel looks nothing like a
classic microkernel.
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 16:57:03 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
Wot no Plan 9?
What exactly does Plan9 get you?
The ability to have as much stuff as possible running outside the kernel ring. The more stuff you can kick out of the kernel, the less stuff there
is which can cause catastrophic failure when things go wrong.
OSX started out adapting some of the Plan9 philosophy but it mostly turned into bloat and the current OSX kernel looks nothing like a classic microkernel.
There are also some distributed processing features built into Plan9. To
be honest I don't think those are really of much benefit in the modern environment but they are pretty ingenious.
--scott
Sami Tikkanen wrote:
http://sininenankka.dy.fi/leetos/swbloat.php
"New computers are more efficient than old ones; therefore we need
to make all software so bloated that it does not run on old computers,
to make sure that those old computer become obsolete and people stop
using them."
This one is often used by environmentalists, and it is wrong in so
many obvious ways.
* New computers generally consume more power than old ones. Of x86
CPUs anything older than Pentium II uses only a single-digit amount
of watts.
* Bloated code causes also new computers to use more electricity
than would otherwise be required for the task.
* Most importantly, when we create non-bloated computer programs,
we are not necessarily targeting old CPUs - we are targeting old
INSTRUCTION SETS. The patents of those old instruction sets are
already expired and CPUs that use them can be freely produced by
anyone.
* If those old computers end up not being used, they are thrown to
landfills, causing more environmental damage that way.
"Everything new is always more secure than the old; therefore we need
to make all software so bloated that it does not run on old computers,
to force people to use new computers that are so much more secure than
the old ones."
This one is often used by corporate security experts.
* What corporate security experts usually mean with "old computers"
is actually "old operating systems" (or more specifically "old
versions of Windows"), because they somehow associate the
individual computers with the operating system that was originally
installed to them in the factory. But the operating system is not
an integrated part of the computer itself - instead it is just a
bootable program that can be easily changed.
"Monitors nowadays use less power than the CRTs of old; therefore,
to save power, we must make bloated user interfaces that don't work
with small resolutions."
This one is often used by HD/4K/8K enthusiasts.
* Old CRTs don't really use that much power at all - a typical 15"
color CRT uses less than most lightbulbs.
Monochrome CRTs are even less power hungry, usually consuming
something between 15 to 30 watts of power.
Although there are exceptions to the rule, most CRT displays are
actually quite power efficient for a self-illuminating display
technology.
* With "modern" flat panel displays, especially OLEDs, the power
consumption grows in an almost linear fashion with the area of the
display. This means that we can actually save more power by
creating scalable user interfaces that also work well on smaller
display resolutions.
* Most importantly, when we create non-bloated computer programs,Sami Tikkanen wrote:
we are not necessarily targeting old CPUs - we are targeting old
INSTRUCTION SETS. The patents of those old instruction sets are
already expired and CPUs that use them can be freely produced by
anyone.
I'm frankly at a loss to what extent those claims might be
valid or relevant.
In particular, was, say, 8086 ISA ever patented? And if
it wasn't, or if, as the author seems to suggest, its patent
expired, do we have chip manufacturers lining up to produce
cheap 8086/8088 clones?
* If those old computers end up not being used, they are thrown to
landfills, causing more environmental damage that way.
The Wikipedia [e-waste] article might be a good starting point
for researching this problem in detail. AIUI, most of discarded
consumer electronics globally do indeed end up in landfills -
presumably for the countless future generations to "thank" us for.
And that's something that I doubt will ever change until people
at large start paying for recycling.
In general, environmental benefits of switching to a newer
computer - if there're any in the first place - would be offset
by the environmental impacts of manufacturing, delivery of the
new computer to the customer, delivery of the old one to the
recycling facility, and the recycling process itself.
Upgrade often enough, and no amount of "power efficiency" of
your new hardware will save you from harming the environment.
[e-waste] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_waste
* Most importantly, when we create non-bloated computer programs,
we are not necessarily targeting old CPUs - we are targeting old
INSTRUCTION SETS. The patents of those old instruction sets are
already expired and CPUs that use them can be freely produced by
anyone.
I'm frankly at a loss to what extent those claims might be
valid or relevant.
In particular, was, say, 8086 ISA ever patented? And if
it wasn't, or if, as the author seems to suggest, its patent
expired, do we have chip manufacturers lining up to produce
cheap 8086/8088 clones?
* If those old computers end up not being used, they are thrown to
landfills, causing more environmental damage that way.
The Wikipedia [e-waste] article might be a good starting point
for researching this problem in detail. AIUI, most of discarded
consumer electronics globally do indeed end up in landfills -
presumably for the countless future generations to "thank" us for.
Some of the ideas in plan9 are useful. However, the plan9 project fails to provide a coherent and intutive GUI, editor, web browser, and file browser that are ready to use out of the box. It is too arcane for mere mortals to even try to use.
Having great ideas does no good when one must have a compsci PhD as a bar to entry.
As with Linux and Linux distros, the project is more about promoting the project than providing something for people to improve their work flow.
On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 15:44:02 -0500 (EST), Scott Dorsey wrote:
On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 19:02:02 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
What exactly does Plan9 get you?
The ability to have as much stuff as possible running outside the
kernel ring. The more stuff you can kick out of the kernel, the less
stuff there is which can cause catastrophic failure when things go
wrong.
Ah, the hoary old microkernel refrain. You'd think, after something
like four decades of repeating the same tired old claims without being
able to back them up, the microkernel fans would have given up by now.
OSX started out adapting some of the Plan9 philosophy but it mostly
turned into bloat and the current OSX kernel looks nothing like a
classic microkernel.
Gee, I wonder why they succumbed to real-world evidence in that way ...
On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 22:51:11 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 15:44:02 -0500 (EST), Scott Dorsey wrote:
On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 19:02:02 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
What exactly does Plan9 get you?
The ability to have as much stuff as possible running outside the
kernel ring. The more stuff you can kick out of the kernel, the
less stuff there is which can cause catastrophic failure when
things go wrong.
Ah, the hoary old microkernel refrain. You'd think, after something
like four decades of repeating the same tired old claims without
being able to back them up, the microkernel fans would have given
up by now.
How so? The microkernel does exactly what it's claimed to do ...
... and it's a very commonly used architecture.
There's still a microkernel at the bottom of OSX ...
... and it's a very commonly used architecture.
Many keep trying to use it, but many don't succeed.
There's still a microkernel at the bottom of OSX ...
I think the BSD kernel started out as something vaguely
microkernel-based, but that got severely compromised over time, for
the sake of performance if nothing else.
On Fri, 26 Dec 2025 21:07:02 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
... and it's a very commonly used architecture.
Many keep trying to use it, but many don't succeed.
Odds are your car's media system uses qnx.
Your laser printer and toaster might use VxWorks. Satellites and
aircraft use cFS. Lots of places where people care about reliability
and verifiability use microkernels.
There's still a microkernel at the bottom of OSX ...
I think the BSD kernel started out as something vaguely
microkernel-based, but that got severely compromised over time, for
the sake of performance if nothing else.
No, I am talking about the XNU stuff that sits below the BSD layer
in OSX.
On 2025-12-25, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> writes:
Sami Tikkanen wrote:
The patents of those old instruction sets are already expired and
CPUs that use them can be freely produced by anyone.
I'm frankly at a loss to what extent those claims might be valid
or relevant.
In particular, was, say, 8086 ISA ever patented? And if it wasn't,
or if, as the author seems to suggest, its patent expired, do we
have chip manufacturers lining up to produce cheap 8086/8088 clones?
Chip manufacturers produced cheap 8086 clones when it was a worthwhile
thing to do, i. e. in the 1980s. Today it would be a bizarre choice.
If you want an IP-free ISA then RISC-V is the place to look today,
although the extension system is a bit of a maze...
Working computers I generally dispose of by passing on to friends or colleagues. Last I heard my 2006 laptop was still going strong.
For my most recent upgrade I was able to trade in the old one for
100 GBP or so.
For less useful electronics I take a trip to the local computer
recycling firm once every few years. They've never charged me a
penny so presumably they're getting some kind of value out of my
electronic waste.
Chip manufacturers produced cheap 8086 clones when it was a worthwhileOn 2025-12-25, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
thing to do, i. e. in the 1980s. Today it would be a bizarre choice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_6809 gives no citations,
but still has the following bit:
6809> In 2015, Freescale authorized Rochester Electronics to start
6809> manufacturing the MC6809 once again as a drop-in replacement
6809> and copy of the original NMOS device. Freescale supplied
6809> Rochester the original GDSII physical design database.
6809> At the end of 2016, Rochester's MC6809 (including the MC68A09,
6809> and MC68B09) is fully qualified and available in production.
If you want an IP-free ISA then RISC-V is the place to look today,
although the extension system is a bit of a maze...
Which renders the point moot, I suppose. There /might/ be ISAs
that are both still relevant and no longer patented, but I'm
not aware of any.
On 2025-12-25, I wrote:
Sami Tikkanen wrote:
* New computers generally consume more power than old ones. Of x86
CPUs anything older than Pentium II uses only a single-digit amount
of watts.
That's somewhat offset by the power drawn by the chipset and
peripherals, though. For an example, I've just started my
Pentium 166 MMX-based box (PSU + mainboard + PCI VGA & NIC) and
it's under 30 W during POST. I gather adding an IDE HDD there
would add some 15 W (during active use) on top of that.
For comparison, Olinuxino A64 board is specified to use a 10 W PSU.
Although there are exceptions to the rule, most CRT displays are
actually quite power efficient for a self-illuminating display
technology.
I'd like to run some tests, but note that unlike monochrome CRTs,
color ones employ shadow masks, which, if [cathode ray tube] is
to be believed, "block 80-85% of the electron beam" - and thus
are ought to have about 20% of the efficiency of the monochromes.
[cathode ray tube] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube
Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> writes:
There /might/ be ISAs that are both still relevant and no longer
patented, but I'm not aware of any.
MIPS held that role for a while, AFAIK primarily as an educational
choice.
6809> In 2015, Freescale authorized Rochester Electronics to start
6809> manufacturing the MC6809 once again as a drop-in replacement
6809> and copy of the original NMOS device. Freescale supplied
6809> Rochester the original GDSII physical design database.
6809> At the end of 2016, Rochester's MC6809 (including the MC68A09,
6809> and MC68B09) is fully qualified and available in production.
It's still on their price list at over $100/unit in volume, which seems >rather expensive. I wonder what their expected market is?
On 2025-12-22, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
At least so far as the first argument goes, it definitely reflects
the attitude of some Linux kernel developers:
Regarding power usage it's fairly simple:
Older computers had smaller wattage power supplies, and the typical
usage pattern was to power down when you weren't using it.
Sami Tikkanen wrote:
http://sininenankka.dy.fi/leetos/swbloat.php
lEEt/OS seems like an interesting project, and I certainly have
sympathy to its "easily programmable", "user always in control"
and "keep old computers in use" [philosophy] as well.
I have my doubts regarding the goals it sets and how it tries
to approach them, but there might be some overlap with my own
efforts, and I wouldn't mind contributing my code to this project.
In particular, regarding "old computers," I've seen recent reports
of running, successfully, current NetBSD on 1990-era hardware:
MIPS- and 80486-based. (The bundled version of GCC apparently
takes /minutes/ to compile "hello world" on a 80486, though.
Sadly cannot test it myself: my only Socket 3 mainboard reports
"BIOS ROM checksum error.")
Personally, I /think/ that while a DOS-like system makes every
sense for something like IBM PC/XT, NetBSD - with its focus on
portability - fits rather well for 486+ and comparable machines.
The webpage is no doubt a bit presumptuous on the whole, but
the "counterclaims" given IMO have merit.
Anyway, thanks Ben Collver for bringing it here.
[philosophy] http://sininenankka.dy.fi/leetos/philosophy.php
"New computers are more efficient than old ones; therefore we need
to make all software so bloated that it does not run on old computers,
to make sure that those old computer become obsolete and people stop
using them."
This one is often used by environmentalists, and it is wrong in so
many obvious ways.
That's about as "environmentalist" as playing games on Steam -
on GNU/Linux - is "free software activism."
* New computers generally consume more power than old ones. Of x86
CPUs anything older than Pentium II uses only a single-digit amount
of watts.
That's somewhat offset by the power drawn by the chipset and
peripherals, though. For an example, I've just started my
Pentium 166 MMX-based box (PSU + mainboard + PCI VGA & NIC)
and it's under 30 W during POST. I gather adding an IDE HDD
there would add some 15 W (during active use) on top of that.
For comparison, Olinuxino A64 board is specified to use a
10 W PSU. It also has better performance, doesn't require
IDE storage (running off an SDHC card), and takes much less
space on one's desk. And it's OSHW, too.
* Bloated code causes also new computers to use more electricity
than would otherwise be required for the task.
Certainly. And that includes not only "installed" applications,
but also whatever web applications one might choose to run. Or
have no choice but to run, such as ads and captchas. See, e. g.,
http://mdpi.com/2227-7080/8/2/18 .
As a rule, viewing a web page takes less power than running
a (client-side) web application. From whence, it /does/ make
sense to disable Javascript in one's browser whenever possible
- or to use one that has no support for JS in the first place.
* Most importantly, when we create non-bloated computer programs,
we are not necessarily targeting old CPUs - we are targeting old
INSTRUCTION SETS. The patents of those old instruction sets are
already expired and CPUs that use them can be freely produced by
anyone.
I'm frankly at a loss to what extent those claims might be
valid or relevant.
In particular, was, say, 8086 ISA ever patented? And if
it wasn't, or if, as the author seems to suggest, its patent
expired, do we have chip manufacturers lining up to produce
cheap 8086/8088 clones?
[...]
* If those old computers end up not being used, they are thrown to
landfills, causing more environmental damage that way.
The Wikipedia [e-waste] article might be a good starting point
for researching this problem in detail. AIUI, most of discarded
consumer electronics globally do indeed end up in landfills -
presumably for the countless future generations to "thank" us for.
And that's something that I doubt will ever change until people
at large start paying for recycling.
In general, environmental benefits of switching to a newer
computer - if there're any in the first place - would be offset
by the environmental impacts of manufacturing, delivery of the
new computer to the customer, delivery of the old one to the
recycling facility, and the recycling process itself.
Upgrade often enough, and no amount of "power efficiency" of
your new hardware will save you from harming the environment.
[e-waste] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_waste
"Everything new is always more secure than the old; therefore we need
to make all software so bloated that it does not run on old computers,
to force people to use new computers that are so much more secure than
the old ones."
This one is often used by corporate security experts.
[...]
* What corporate security experts usually mean with "old computers"
is actually "old operating systems" (or more specifically "old
versions of Windows"), because they somehow associate the
individual computers with the operating system that was originally
installed to them in the factory. But the operating system is not
an integrated part of the computer itself - instead it is just a
bootable program that can be easily changed.
Whether an OS can or cannot be replaced depends largely on the
manpower available.
In lots of cases, buying M computers with N year technical
support contract (and sending them to a landfill once the
contract expires) /will/ be cheaper for a corporation than
employing their own staff for said technical support, including
"OS changes."
That does not, normally, apply for /personal/ computing, but
there's a somewhat similar issue with the availability of
hardware: how does one replace their Pentium MBs when they die?
"Monitors nowadays use less power than the CRTs of old; therefore,
to save power, we must make bloated user interfaces that don't work
with small resolutions."
This one is often used by HD/4K/8K enthusiasts.
* Old CRTs don't really use that much power at all - a typical 15"
color CRT uses less than most lightbulbs.
Which is still a considerable amount of power.
Whether that's an issue would depend on the climate. Around
here, there's typically a couple of weeks in summer when the
weather is hot. It is thus not unreasonable to run a fraction
of kW worth of "inefficient" computing hardware the rest of the
year - as a kind of a "data furnace."
Conversely, someone living in the climate where AC is a must
during a significant fraction of the year would perhaps prefer
not to waste grid power to create extra work for their AC.
Monochrome CRTs are even less power hungry, usually consuming
something between 15 to 30 watts of power.
[...]
Although there are exceptions to the rule, most CRT displays are
actually quite power efficient for a self-illuminating display
technology.
I'd like to run some tests, but note that unlike monochrome CRTs,
color ones employ shadow masks, which, if [cathode ray tube] is
to be believed, "block 80-85% of the electron beam" - and thus
are ought to have about 20% of the efficiency of the monochromes.
[cathode ray tube] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube
* With "modern" flat panel displays, especially OLEDs, the power
consumption grows in an almost linear fashion with the area of the
display. This means that we can actually save more power by
creating scalable user interfaces that also work well on smaller
display resolutions.
It's perhaps worth noting that portable computers, such as
tablets, tend to employ higher-dpi displays than those common
for "desktops" (300 dpi vs. 100 dpi, unless I be mistaken.)
Thus it is possible to have small, energy-efficient displays
that still have lots of pixels.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 17:45:11 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
4 files (8,203K bytes) |
| Messages: | 184,414 |
| Posted today: | 1 |