Electricity falls out of the wall socket

Bill Wright wrote...

No, it just means we pay a few pence per year per item for the
advantages of having it on standby. It's good value I think. It
certainly isn't an important issue. It isn't worth discussing really.


Households wasting up to £86 a year leaving gadgets on standby

Official: Standby devices costing UK £1.3bn a year

http://energysavingtrust.wordpress.com/


--
Ken O'Meara

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 21:03:20 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote:

In article , Steve Thackery wrote:
Why does it need to use swap space for anything? Surely all it has to do
is save the processor registers to RAM and turn off the processor, HDD
and fans, just leaving the RAM refreshed.

That's what you'd think, logically, but it definitely does more than
that because it takes a couple of seconds rather than a couple of
microseconds.

There's a free program called Tclockx that you could use to indicate the
percentage of RAM in use. If you find that its getting close to 100% the next
thing I'd want to do is try the effect of adding more.

Rod.

TClockEx, actually.
http://win.softpedia.com/dyn-search....ckex+&x=14&y=8

I use TClock2 with MM hh:nn:ss ddd. dd/mm/yy as the format; the MM gives
RAM. It is very configurable, including the abilty to show open apps as
buttons on the Task Bar to save space.
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Desktop.../Tclock2.shtml
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

Max Demian wrote:


Why? To me, 'standby' is just the same as 'on' but using less power. A power
failure during standby would have the same effect as a power failure while
it is on.


Standby can last a long time, increasing the time based risk of total
power loss, and standby also increases the risk that the human will
accidentally do a total power down.

I would expect the cut down SQL Server to do a checkpoint.

I would expect word processors to force an early periodic document save.

I would expect TCP connections to be closed down, and any consequential
disk operations to be performed.

Some of the applications may have been paged out, and they may need to
be paged in to handle the request for permission to change power
management state.

Roderick Stewart wrote:

I have. I cannot see any way to stop it going automatically into hibernation
from standby when I close the lid, after a time delay which seems to be about
5 minutes. It only seems to be possible to disable hibernation altogether.

Start | Control Panel | Power Options | Power Schemes | System Hibernates ??

In article , Huge
wrote:
On 2012-06-29, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:

Can I suggest you do your own research?

Can I suggest

No. If you're interested in these things, either do your own research,
or I will send you my rate card. I have already spent more time on this
than I want to.

Nice try. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

UnsteadyKen wrote:
Bill Wright wrote...

No, it just means we pay a few pence per year per item for the
advantages of having it on standby. It's good value I think. It
certainly isn't an important issue. It isn't worth discussing really.


Households wasting up to £86 a year leaving gadgets on standby

Official: Standby devices costing UK £1.3bn a year

http://energysavingtrust.wordpress.com/


That's a load of greeny ******** though. Greatly exaggerated, and it
takes no account of the heat generated by the devices, or of the savings
made by leaving things in standby.

Bill

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:13:24 +0100
Bill Wright wrote:

UnsteadyKen wrote:
Bill Wright wrote...

No, it just means we pay a few pence per year per item for the
advantages of having it on standby. It's good value I think. It
certainly isn't an important issue. It isn't worth discussing
really.


Households wasting up to £86 a year leaving gadgets on standby

Official: Standby devices costing UK £1.3bn a year

http://energysavingtrust.wordpress.com/


That's a load of greeny ******** though. Greatly exaggerated, and it
takes no account of the heat generated by the devices, or of the
savings made by leaving things in standby.

Bill

There is mention in there of paper shredders. I have a domestic paper
shredder, and I can confidently say that, if it is not actually chewing
paper, it is not consuming electricity, the paper sensing microswitch
turns it on only when required. It has no LEDs indicating that it is
powered but not running, it is dead until needed. I can also imagine
that the potential cost of not shredding sensitive papers, and thus
helping somebody steal my financial identity, would far exceed any
electrical 'drain' caused by a shredder, even if it did use power when
not shredding.
Wow, that report really is sensible!
--
Davey.

Roderick Stewart wrote:

There's a free program called Tclockx that you could use to indicate the
percentage of RAM in use. If you find that its getting close to 100% the next
thing I'd want to do is try the effect of adding more.

Both Linux and the Windows NT family aim to only have a small amount of
free RAM. They use otherwise free RAM to cache recently accessed disk
sectors, or ready to receive network traffic. In terms of task manager,
you need to add some proportion of System Cache to Available, to get a
true idea of how tight on memory hte machine is. The right proportion
is going to be very sensitive to the applications running.

For the linux free command, the "+/- buffers cache gives the most
optimistic view of memory available.

All recent versions of Windows are from the NT family.

Davey wrote...

Wow, that report really is sensible!

Yes, the authors are foolish cretins, a little research on their part
would have revealed that every paper shredder in the world is identical
to the one that you possess, and that nobody makes a shredder with a
wall wart PSU, like the one that my sister doesn't have.

--
Ken O'Meara

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 17:00:34 +0100
UnsteadyKen wrote:


Davey wrote...

Wow, that report really is sensible!

Yes, the authors are foolish cretins, a little research on their part
would have revealed that every paper shredder in the world is
identical to the one that you possess, and that nobody makes a
shredder with a wall wart PSU, like the one that my sister doesn't
have.


Maybe Alastair Campbell was part of the team that wrote that report?
--
Davey.