Mike McCarty wrote: >> So, you are saying that if I run the GIMPS torture test and my system >> overheats then there "may" be a defect in the GIMPS software? > > Sorry, I guess I didn't make the exact context clear here. > The OP claims that his machine seems to overheat when running > Linux, but not Windows XP. Some seem to be saying "Well, you > have an underdesigned machine. The problem isn't Linux. It's > your box." > > My point is that there may actually be some defect in Linux > which is eating lots of CPU on his machine, and this possibility > should be investigated, not cast aside with "well, your system > cooling is just underdesigned, get a new one". If it were the case that Linux had such a defect don't you think it would have been discovered by others? I doubt his hardware is so unique that it only affects his system. > I hope you mean 30 degres centigrade. I'd hate to think you turned on > the A/C when the room temp was 32 degrees Fahrenheit. No wonder your > machines don't overheat! Yes, 30C. Isn't the whole world metric? > Eh... > > Why should Linux be using more CPU than Windows? 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 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 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. :-)
