Excellent ; )
Originally Posted by kraftman
The issue with the wording of the articles and their titles depends on personal sensibilities. I don't have a problem with it partly because I'm convinced that Phoronix is a friendly site towards Linux, Open Solaris and so on, so I never think it's trying to undermine their image when pointing out faults or comparing these systems or distributions to, say, Windows or Mac. It all depends on what you think the intention is. I know some of us here are constantly scratching the itches about this or about that, but the same thinking applies really.
As for the benchmarks, absolutely, there will always be better ways to handle everything. But I'm convinced this is a two-way road, meaning that Michael and company surely improve and learn from past mistakes and comments in the forum. I don't think anybody sees the benchmarks as coming from above and set to stone--the criticism in the forum proves it, as well as the calls for suggestions about how to improve the test suite (which you can even do yourself if you want to). Actually, if I got it right, the idea is to bring as much as possible exposure to the automatic testing system to the projects that could be interested, with as much as possible involvement from their developers, who could point out how and what to run or why the numbers are what they are. How cool would it be if Arjan, Garrett or whoever popped in and said "look, guys, this is rubbish, you have to take into account x, y, z", as the people from the OSS drivers do?
Ubuntu by default disables power saving for Intel wireless 5100 cards. Turning the powersaving changes my battery life from 1 hour to 3 hours on my netbook.
That's a pretty huge difference.
Originally Posted by ua=42
So, this is the point: while comparing stock OSes with all the services/daemons running that they will, is the power savings difference REALLY in the drivers, or is it in the configuration? If you do tweak the settings and it does make them equal power-savings-wise, how will they perform? In other words, tweaking one to just be basically clocked really low would be cheating, since it would perform far worse when running programs.
Doing fair comparisons is very hard work, but regardless doing a "default OS" comparison is fair on that level. I would like to know about where ATI is at as far as power savings over Nvidia cards. AMD has often had better power savings and cooler chips, but again unless you measure it against performance too it's not really fair to try to say who is ultimately better at that point.
although an old discussion now, may I add that there is a bug in Ubuntu 10.04 kernel that prevents the CPU from staying in lower states. People report half the battery life compared to the previous Ubuntu release.
Interesting: I noticed at the weekend that my netbook seems to have about 2/3 of the battery life with 10.04 that it used to have with 9.10.
Originally Posted by ioannis
I see the number of wakeups per second when idle seems to have dropped by about 1/3 on my laptop with the latest updates; I don't know whether that's a coincidence or whether they've fixed something in the kernel.
I'll have to upgrade the netbook and see if the power usage drops there.