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
