Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Processor Throttling In Windows XP

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the why-are-they-doing-that dept.

Windows 148

TomSlick writes "Michael Chu, a former Intel employee, has written up a fairly interesting and readable summary of Windows XP power schemes as they relate to Intel processor throttling. An old topic, but one still relevant as many business notebooks still use XP."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

you can't polish a turd... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20802683)

But you can eat it!

A few years ago, while browsing around the library downtown, I
had to take a piss. As I entered the john a big beautiful all-American
football hero type, about twenty-five, came out of one of the booths.
I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he
washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was "straight" and
married - and in any case I was sure I wouldn't have a chance with
him.

As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated,
hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still
warm from his sturdy young ass. I found not only the smell but the
shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left
behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It
apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat,
stiff, and ruggedly textured. The real prize was a great feast of turd
- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as a man's wrist.

I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and
wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd
always been a heavy rimmer and had lapped up more than one little
clump of shit, but that had been just an inevitable part of eating ass
and not an end in itself. Of course I'd had jerk-off fantasies of
devouring great loads of it (what rimmer hasn't), but I had never done
it. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound
turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy
and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of the world's
handsomest young stud.

Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both
hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled
like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the
consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit
without the benefit of a digestive tract?

I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it
smelled. I've found since then that shit nearly almost does.

I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into
my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big brown cock,
beating my meat like a madman. I wanted to completely engulf it and
bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet
flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had
chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed
I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I
soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd
passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily,
sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My
only regret was the donor of this feast wasn't there to wash it down
with his piss.

I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the
cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more
delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with
the rich bitterness of shit.

Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer. But
then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There
was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished
them out, rolled them into my handkerchief, and stashed them in my
briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the
shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever
unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an
unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom.

I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using
them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my
mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit
trickling down my throat for nearly four hours. I must have had six
orgasms in the process.

I often think of that lovely young guy dropping solid gold out
of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could,
and at least once did, bring to a grateful shiteater.

WOW! I'm impressed. (-1, Troll)

mmell (832646) | more than 6 years ago | (#20802901)

I can actually see oxygen being wasted.

Many? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20802697)

"Many" business notebooks still use XP? How about "virtually all"?

Re:Many? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20802711)

"Many" is inclusive of "Virtually All".

Re:Many? (1)

webmaster404 (1148909) | more than 6 years ago | (#20802713)

How about almost all notebooks, business or otherwise still use XP, I can only hope that the author was thinking that the rest were Macs or have switched to Linux or BSD, because no one, not even the "non-technical people" don't like Vista and its showing.

Re:Many? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20802797)

... no one, not even the "non-technical people" don't like Vista and its showing

Expect El Lobo (994537) troll in 5... 4... 3...

Re:Many? (4, Funny)

Dolda2000 (759023) | more than 6 years ago | (#20802827)

[...]no one, not even the "non-technical people" don't like Vista and its showing.
Yeah, personally I dislike the Vista's showing even more than Vista itself.

Re:Many? (2, Interesting)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 6 years ago | (#20802903)

because no one, not even the "non-technical people" don't like Vista and its showing.
(raise hand)

I had the beta, I liked what I saw. When I get my next PC or laptop, I'll put Vista on it as a preference to XP.

Re:Many? (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#20803787)

Seconded. Vista is a solid OS, it just isn't enough of an upgrade from XP to justify the cost. I encourage anyone building a new machine to put Vista on it, however, it really is better than it's cracked up to be.

Re:Many? (2, Insightful)

esecasco (1160055) | more than 6 years ago | (#20804019)

It wasn't that bad...but it got on my f'n nerves. I couldn't use a bluetooth headset with it, and it refused to automatically install SD card drivers or joystick drivers. So I got XP OEM, and it detected my joystick in 2 seconds and was up and running, next on my list is the bluetooth(when I have time). Vista will go back on my laptop when it hits SP2 and I see that the difference in 3Dmark is less than 100 points(not to mention 20FPS difference in CS:Source)

Re:Many? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20804933)

Oh good. The astroturfers or Microsoft Junkies come out. I'm not sure which you are, but I'm currently leaning towards the latter.

Re:Many? (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 6 years ago | (#20802911)

What is so wrong with Vista on modern hardware?

Re:Many? (2, Informative)

pla (258480) | more than 6 years ago | (#20802961)

What is so wrong with Vista on modern hardware?

Well, instead of requiring a dual-core CPU and 2+GB to run tolerably, you could use that second core and second gig to actually run things you want, rather than nothing but OS-related eye-candy and DRM crapware.

Now, if you have a nostalgic desire for a machine that "feels" just like XP on a PII-300 with 256MB, by all means run Vista. If, however, you consider the OS "just a way to get to the real programs", you may want to consider upgrading from Vista to XP.

Re:Many? (4, Insightful)

yvajj (970228) | more than 6 years ago | (#20803087)


From you post, I gather that you have not run Vista. I am running it comfortably on my laptop (~1GB ram with AMD cpu) and my desktop (AMD X2 3800) with nary a problem.

The only stuff I turned off is the animated windows and window transparency (which I hate in general). Desktop composition and other "eye-candy" is still on (I actually find desktop composition to be useful, since I can mouse over stuff on my taskbar thats hidden by other windows and view whats going on in a realtime thumbnail window).

This is undoubtedly blasphemy on this Linux-centric site, but I actually like Vista, and find the little nuances a welcome change from XP.

Re:Many? (1)

iocat (572367) | more than 6 years ago | (#20803621)

I use XP on my work machine (ThinkPad T60). I've been able to configure it so it looks quite a bit like Windows 95 or 98 -- grey start menu bar and task bar, no font smoothing, disabling all those stupid fades and animations. Can I do that in Vista, or is it like my home Mac, where there's no way to actually disable the stupid window closing and minimalization animations? (Yes, you can make them less effete and flashy, but that's not exactly the same thing)? And also, how much does this affect the perceived performance?

Re:Many? (2, Insightful)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 6 years ago | (#20803837)

If your machine is relatively new, it may even run faster than XP would because Vista is better at using your RAM to cache programs. Every animation and effect can be disabled until you're back to what looks like XP. Most of the new stuff they added to the GUI is pleasing and useful though, the only thing I turn off is the transparency.

Vista "Windows Classic" Theme (1)

benwaggoner (513209) | more than 6 years ago | (#20803851)

Sure, just pick the "Windows Classic" Theme. It'll be much like you remember graphically. Start button reading "Start" and everything, all in gray.

That said, I don't know WHY you'd want to - I've never really understood the appeal of atavistic GUI except for those with really old GPUs. But it's in there.

Perceptually, I'd say using "Windows Classic" seems more clunky and perceptually slower, part of that because it looks slow, and probably in part because it means my CPU is busy doing work that my GPU should be doing instead.

Myself, working in video where color perception is critical, I just customized the default Vista appearance by turning the background color and window shading to R'G'B'=127. I get the performance (no trails!) of Aero Glass, the nice Segoe font, transparency, etcetera, but in a way that doesn't mess with my color perception.

Really, Vista is as themeable as XP was.

Re:Vista "Windows Classic" Theme (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20804233)

A lot companies run in classic mode, it's faster. Classic is very much suited to business. Whereas fisher price XP and strange Vista are not appealing to companies. At home is another story.

Re:Vista "Windows Classic" Theme (1)

leenks (906881) | more than 6 years ago | (#20804849)

That said, I don't know WHY you'd want to - I've never really understood the appeal of atavistic GUI except for those with really old GPUs. But it's in there.

Hmmm... I've not played with Vista that much, other than to repair trojan infested machines for friends, but with XP I use the classic theme because it uses far less screen real estate. The widgets are smaller and more balanced with the text sizes etc, for my taste at least and on smaller monitors (1280x800 and 1280x1024 for example, although I still value the extra space at 1920x1200).

On the XP machines at work, which are crippled by 256MB RAM and alsorts of background crap, I use it primarily because the machines are more responsive. I suspect this is true for a lot of people with low end machines or those with little or no hardware acceleration.

Re:Vista "Windows Classic" Theme (1)

thealsir (927362) | about 7 years ago | (#20805335)

On a 20.1"/1680x1050 monitor, I've found I have to increase the DPI/text size to avoid eye strain. Most of the people around me (with rather good eyesight, in their early 20s) cannot read the default 96dpi size at a reasonable distance from the monitor. I honestly don't understand the micro-widgets philosophy - it makes me cringe - even at 120dpi, there is way more than adequate real estate to get stuff done. When programming for hours it's especially important to have reduced eye strain.

To me, unless you're running on a 15" panel, there's no reason to stick with a classic 4px-wide border GUI. Even then, it hints at the need for a bigger monitor anyway.

Also, what's with the comments related to turning cleartype off? IMO text is a lot more legible and easy on the eyes with cleartype on.

Re:Vista "Windows Classic" Theme (1)

benwaggoner (513209) | about 7 years ago | (#20805573)

Ah, machines that shipped with 256 MB RAM certainly can certainly have performance issues with XP - I can't imagine the GPU is that powerful either, meaning the CPU has to do a bunch of processing for effects and such. But I think the bigger difference even in XP is about the effects in use, not the theme.

Vista is different, in the advanced graphical modes will offload to the GPU, actually using less CPU. But there needs to be DX9 hardware there.

Between Classic and Aero, I don't see it taking up different amounts of screen real estate. That said, all my Windows machines are 1920x1200, so I probably am not sweating them that much.

Under XP, I normally reduce my font size a couple of points anyway to get even more on the screen, even at 1920x1200.

Re:Many? (3, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 6 years ago | (#20804185)

I have now made TWO attempts to try Vista Premium on top of the line hardware (one desktop and one laptop). It is much slower than XP (I don't mean benchmarks, I mean the experience of actually trying to get work done). After I removed Vista and went back to OEM XP Pro, the performance boost was amazing. I do media production and there's no way I could have worked for any length of time with Vista and not thrown the computer through the window in frustration.

Plus, it's full of all sorts of DRM crap. That alone is a stopper for me. I will not willingly run an operating system that is designed to get in my way. And I seriously doubt if any Vista SP1 is going to get rid of the DRM. I'm afraid Windows XP is going to be my last Microsoft operating system unless they take a significantly different direction.

I'm trying to think of something positive about the experience of having used Vista for the approximately 20 hours that I had it on my machines (combined) before I formatted the hard disks and installed Windows XP. I honestly have nothing.

It's not like I hate Microsoft or anything. If they have a product that helps me get work done, I'll use it and pay for it. I don't consider them all that much more "evil" than any other huge American corporation, including Apple. But Vista is simply garbage, in my opinion. I have also suggested to all of my "strategic partners" in the work I do (bandmates, graphic artists, video producers, etc) that they stay well clear of Microsoft Vista. All but one took my advice. The one who decided he just had to have Vista lasted about a month before switching back to XP (because he's a gamer). Many of us have installed Ubuntu Studio on our secondary systems.

Re:Many? (4, Informative)

oakgrove (845019) | about 7 years ago | (#20805877)

I couldn't agree more with what you have typed. I gave Vista a very fair shot. I ran it for a week on a core duo laptop with 2 gigs of ram and a 7600Go video card. Not shabby hardware by any means. And it quite honestly could only be described as a complete dog. Not only slow but buggy as hell. I'd close the lid and when I opened it, the screen would flicker and when I finally got my desktop back after a few seconds, the icons would be out of place like I changed the resolution and changed it back or something. I mean, wtf? I get the whole thing about immature video drivers and all that but, really, this wasn't marketed as beta software. The CPU cores would both idle and I mean idle, on about 35 percent usage. Huh? In XP is was about 2-3 percent. And that matters because I take my laptop everywhere I go and use the battery. The taskbar would flicker inexplicably. I could go on and on. I dumped that sucker and moved back to something that actually works and stays out of my way.

Maybe I'll give it another shot when the service pack comes out.

Re:Many? (4, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 6 years ago | (#20803095)

My main windows box is a dual core Pentium @ 1.6 Mhz running on an Intel DG33TL motherboard, 2 GB Crucial ram, 300 GB SATA drive and Windows Ultimate. It isn't sluggish, in fact it runs rather quickly, nothing like a PII-300. Perhaps I am doing something wrong?

Re:Many? (1)

Glonoinha (587375) | more than 6 years ago | (#20803485)

Perhaps I am doing something wrong?
My main windows box is ... Windows Ultimate <-- This.

Re:Many? (1)

DAldredge (2353) | about 7 years ago | (#20805221)

Explain.

Re:Many? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20803627)

Perhaps I am doing something wrong?

Yep. Having 2 fucking gigabytes of ram and bragging about vista performance is wrong. It's a machine ideal for hosting a 50 GB Oracle database, not a home PC. If you think Vista will run quickly on a home pc (as in "a computer suitable for any other desktop OS"), try it on a single-core computer with 512 MB of RAM.

Re:Many? (1)

dal20402 (895630) | more than 6 years ago | (#20803925)

In this age of cheap RAM, why wouldn't 2 GB be appropriate for a home PC?

Other desktop OSes aren't happy in 512MB either. I used to have an XP machine with 512MB. It didn't perform well. If I had had any interest in keeping it around, I would have upgraded. The box didn't run Ubuntu well either, once I added enough visual goodies to make Ubuntu look sorta-kinda-mostly as good as OS X. My current primary machine is a MacBook Pro with 2GB. With any less, it would be a drag. I would upgrade to 4GB if the machine would allow it.

Both RAM prices and market reality have passed your purist position by.

Re:Many? (1)

Nikker (749551) | more than 6 years ago | (#20804175)

I don't think parent was saying you should not purchase multiple gigs of ram if you chose to. What I think he/she was referring to is that you shouldn't brag that that you have a 5.0L V8 and you think it's pretty spiffy that it can reach highway speeds.

Re:Many? (1)

dal20402 (895630) | more than 6 years ago | (#20804795)

And my point would be that, given the complexity of any modern OS (not just Vista), 2GB RAM is not comparable to a 5.0L V8. More like your basic pushrod V6: moves an average car just fine, but not with a lot of power (space) to spare.

Want a machine that performs like a modern V8 car? Get 4 (or 8) GB.

Re:Many? (1)

Beltonius (960316) | about 7 years ago | (#20805169)

I have an old Gateway P2-450 with it's max of 384 MB of RAM and a Radeon 7500 graphics card. XP was sluggish to the point of being unpleasant to use. Ubuntu 7.04 runs great with their desktop effects enabled! Sure, compiling big software packages takes a while, but for simple web browsing and whatnot, it's a joy to use. Enough so that my youngest brother (who's not technically inclined at all) has taken a liking to Linux because of how nicely it runs.

Re:Many? (1)

thealsir (927362) | about 7 years ago | (#20805275)

Yeah, I've found that on older (P2 and below) machines, Windows 2000 actually runs a lot faster than XP. Something to do with SSE enhancements and the general background load of the OS, I presume. Win XP was incredibly slow on a P200, even in classic mode, while 2K was rather spiffy. On the other hand, a K6-2 machine that I upgraded from 98 to XP was faster in XP than 2K. So YMMV I guess.

I do agree that Ubbys/etc linuces tend to run faster than XP/Veesta. But at what cost? They're not running the millions of cryptographic/etc services in the background. There is a price to pay for that, especially in the corporate world.

I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but a bogged down Linux in my experience tends to consume more RAM, resources, and run slower than a comparably "bogged down" NT 5.1+ system.

Re:Many? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20805849)

I do agree that Ubbys/etc linuces tend to run faster than XP/Veesta. But at what cost? They're not running the millions of cryptographic/etc services in the background. There is a price to pay for that, especially in the corporate world.
And what percent of XP/Vista users complaining about performance actually take advantage of these so called "cryptographic/etc services"? Come on, if you are going to pull things out of your ass, at least try to make it sound plausible.

Re:Many? (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 6 years ago | (#20804465)

That 2GB of RAM cost 85.00 from newegg...

Re:Many? (1)

i.of.the.storm (907783) | more than 6 years ago | (#20804589)

Seriously, where have you been the past year? A dual-core CPU can cost $60 or less, and 2GB of ram is around $75, depending on how picky you are. There's no reason not to use that kind of quality now. 512MB PCs have been outdated for ages.

Re:Many? (1)

Almahtar (991773) | about 7 years ago | (#20805553)

MmHmm, and how much for the motherboard that supports that dual core CPU? How about a case and power supply for the whole thing, since your average computer user doesn't know (or doesn't think they know) how to swap mother boards and their current one is single-core only? Do you honestly expect the average computer user to feel comfortable installing an HDD and an optical drive themselves?

Add the whole package up, and don't forget to include a copy of Vista (since most users don't know they can buy a computer without it) and you're at an EASY$500.

Then take into account laptops. My only computer is a laptop I bought 2 years ago. I can't afford a new one yet. Changing the RAM in this bad boy is not only pretty expensive (upgrading to 2GB would be at least $120), but would require taking the entire thing apart. The 2nd ram module is UNDER THE KEYBOARD. Think Mom and Pop can do that?

It's not as easy as dropping $60 on a CPU and $75 on ram, and even if it was: $135 + cost of OS license is just a bit much to just enjoy a smoothly operating OS.

Re:Many? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20804109)

Enough RAM (I wouldn't recommend running Vista in less than 2GB) and a fast harddisk are all you need.

And if possible, use standby instead of a full shutdown and reboot: it keeps the disk cache intact, saving you from the sluggishness you otherwise experience in the first five minutes after boot. But don't try to combine standby with readyboost: they don't mix well, at least on my machine (frequently causes file system corruption on the USB stick, and sometimes inexplicable service crashes shortly after powering on).

That, and knowing that operations on large numbers of files/folders in Vista's File Explorer can sometimes be just as slow as a stalagmite trying to reach up to a stalactite. Workaround: use the command prompt instead of explorer if you want to delete or move a subtree with 10,000 files in it. It will save you hours, if not days.

Too bad you can't get rid of the bugs by adding more RAM. I mean bugs like that race condition that renames the wrong item if you start typing too fast after creating a new subdirectory in a directory that already contains a lot of items, and that logic error that can cost you some files if you don't carefully check if the correct files are selected by a 'shift-click' in list view (it tends to select more items than you wanted, if you shift-select when another application created new files or folders in the same directory after you selected the first one).
[BTW: one of these two bugs only happens with NTFS disks, I'm not fully sure anymore which of the two, but I believe it was the shift-select one.]

But for the rest, Vista seems to be just fine. Except for that new expensive DRM that is, and for media player making your network connection work slower, and for not being able to turn off that stupid "did you really start this" on a per-program basis, and maybe a few other minor issues I overlooked.

O yeah, probably due to a bad driver, but my sound acts weard too. Sometimes there's no sound in applications, but the "ping" still sounds when I change the volume through the speaker icon - takes a reboot to fix (or maybe not, if I only knew what driver or service to restart). Sometimes my sound volume is much lower after a standby/resume cycle, with the setting unchanged - also takes a reboot to fix. And it redetects my sound card as new hardware on every cold boot (i.e. not booting out of standby, but out of a full shutdown and power off). I wonder how long it's going to take before all those "hardware changes" are going to force reactivation.

I installed Vista at home, to get the feeling of it. Took me less than a week to decide that it's *not* ready for use at work yet.

Re:Many? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20804573)

Wow. I am honestly amazed. How the heck did you ever get Vista to run on a Pentium @ 1.6 megahertz? And it isn't sluggish (nothing like a PII-300)? WOW.

Any tips?

Re:Many? (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 6 years ago | (#20804635)

That should have been Ghz. Oops.

Re:Many? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20803709)

Acer Aspire 5100 (AMD Turion 2.0Ghz, 1GB RAM, ATI Radeon 200M Integrated Graphics) that was 400$ runs Vista Ultimate just as well as XP. Some things are even faster. Firefox, Thunderbird, WMP11, VLC, Skype, and Pidgin (the programs I use most often) all load faster (near instantly) than they did in XP. The search indexing works great, although that's available for XP for free from MS. The driver hell people always drag out is completely non-existent for me. I plug in a device and it works in a few seconds automatically, a little longer if it needs to download the drivers. I even like the new interface.

Sounds like you've never even used Vista for yourself.

Re:Many? (4, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#20803777)

instead of requiring a dual-core CPU and 2+GB to run tolerably
That is absolute bullshit. I can't speak for RAM, since I have 2 GB for gaming purposes, but I was running Vista on a single-core Athlon 3200 with NO problems whatsoever. Everything performed like a charm. A dual-core CPU isn't anything close to required.

Re:Many? (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 6 years ago | (#20804445)

Well, after looking at Vista running on a demo computer, and hearing some very vivid and informative hearsay from Slashdotters, whom I trust have tried it themselves, I've come to the conclusion that you're wrong.

Re:Many? (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#20804495)

Ah, yes, my actual, first-hand experience is wrong. That's a new one.

Re:Many? (2, Funny)

Tim C (15259) | more than 6 years ago | (#20804545)

Of course it is, it provides evidence that a much-vaunted disadvantage of Vista (that it requires a half-way modern machine) is incorrect...

Re:Many? (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 6 years ago | (#20804529)

I have also used Vista on such a system. No problems at all.

Re:Many? (1)

the_ridd1er (941410) | about 7 years ago | (#20804867)

I think the government should regulate CPU cycles, thus having more overall effect on power-grid usage :-P

Re:Many? (4, Funny)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 6 years ago | (#20803867)

Well, instead of requiring a dual-core CPU and 2+GB to run tolerably, you could use that second core and second gig to actually run things you want, rather than nothing but OS-related eye-candy and DRM crapware.

Are you some sort of Microsoft fanboy there?

Over here Vista requires 256 cores and 1 petabyte of RAM to run tolerably. And then I run Calculator.exe and it stalled. I'm checking every day how the Calculator launch is going and it's painfully slow. It's been over 9 months now and it's done rendering the buttons from 1 to 6, it still has 7 to 9 AND all operators to finish with.

I'm seriously pissed off, if it's not done by 2008 I'll be upgrading to XP.

Re:Many? (1)

wanna_be_a_developer (941117) | more than 6 years ago | (#20804427)

I have an AMD 5000+ with 2 GB and my Vista enabled PC runs very nicely.

I do a lot of work with the Quartus II software (FPGA Development) and compilation time is very impressive. Visual Studio 2005 runs smoothly despite having a minium of 3 projects open at one time. IIS and Sql Server 2005 (Express) both are running. Despite having a combination of all the above running, I "sense" that my PC does not have any trouble.

I know my description is subjective, but so is the above statement.

Currently, I am downloading 3 files, working via Remote Desktop, and reading about 10 webpages and my processor is averaging 3-4%. I am using 990 MB of memory, much of which is stolen by the video card.

YMMV

Re:Many? (1)

iCEBaLM (34905) | more than 6 years ago | (#20803053)

What, indeed. [slashdot.org]

Doncha hate "Misread" headlines? (1, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | more than 6 years ago | (#20802801)

For a second there, I read "Professor Throttling in Windows XP"

Re:Doncha hate "Misread" headlines? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20803021)

for a second there I thought you had something interesting to say

Re:Doncha hate "Misread" headlines? (5, Funny)

rock_climbing_guy (630276) | more than 6 years ago | (#20803051)

Is Professor Throttling of any relation to General Failure or Colonel Panic?

Re:Doncha hate "Misread" headlines? (1)

The One and Only (691315) | about 7 years ago | (#20804913)

I'm more worried about General Protection. Everything is his fault!

Re:Doncha hate "Misread" headlines? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20804899)

Try my product!

Re:Doncha hate "Misread" headlines? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20805869)

I know exactly what you mean, I read your posting as "Douche head 'Misread' headlines'.. honest.

Nice (4, Interesting)

teebob21 (947095) | more than 6 years ago | (#20802807)

Now I know why my laptop burns my legs whenever I use it...it literally IS always on...so that's what my power management was set to. I had no idea that affected the CPU frequency stepping. I guess i just had assumed that was something that scaled intelligently depending on load average or some other *CPU* metric, not a battery setting.

Of course, being WinXP, I should have realized that Foo is actually changed each time I use the GUI to modify the behavior of Bar 1 and Bar 2, which are completely separate system functions.

Re:Nice (2, Insightful)

xtracto (837672) | more than 6 years ago | (#20802865)

Yeah, I have known about this stepping options back when I used WinXP in my laptop, the program CPUZ shows quite interesting information and the current running frequency is one of them. What I did not know is how to manually change this profiles... [un]fortunately I am now running Ubuntu and I guess there is no easy way (not requiring a kernel patch or some magical .conf file mangling) way to set my computer to a low speed as in Windows.

Re:Nice (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20802989)

There is a program called cpufreq-selector that should come with the default installation. There is even a Gnome panel applet that interacts with it called CPU Frequency Scaling Monitor.

Re:Nice (5, Informative)

EvilIdler (21087) | more than 6 years ago | (#20803125)

Sure you can:
cpudyn - CPU dynamic frequency control for processors with scaling
cpufreqd - fully configurable daemon for dynamic frequency and voltage scaling
cpufrequtils - utilities to deal with the cpufreq Linux kernel feature

All are found in your apt repository.

Re:Nice (1)

pherthyl (445706) | more than 6 years ago | (#20804487)

And you should add, any number of power management apps will handle all that for you automatically. For me, I use kpowersave, and it handles cpu frequency scaling and power profiles (performance/dynamic/energy saving) for me.

ACPI is Sabotaged. (0, Troll)

twitter (104583) | about 7 years ago | (#20804921)

Power management is one of the biggest examples of why non free software sucks. The programs you list are nice but they all depend on a working ACPI implementation, something Bill Gates personally forbade [edge-op.org] . Free software always does what users want and does it better than non free, but it's hit and miss as long as M$ is around to screw the hardware itself up. When you don't have software freedom, what you are left with is lousy choices like "degrade".

Because of this and many other problems, it's a good thing Vista is a failure [slashdot.org] .

Re:ACPI is Sabotaged. (1)

Macthorpe (960048) | about 7 years ago | (#20805511)

ACPI is still not sabotaged, and it won't start being sabotaged just because you wish it was.

One day you'll realise that all you have as 'proof' is an email that is not only nearly nine years old but completely at odds to the fully working ACPI implementations on OS X, Windows and Linux [advogato.org] . ACPI is an open spec. To sabotage it would be to have every part of that sabotage documented for people to read.

I suggest you go read it and quote the specific parts of it that are Microsoft-only, then copy them up here for everyone else to look at.

Re:Nice (1)

deftcoder (1090261) | more than 6 years ago | (#20803241)

On Debian, all I had to do to get processor throttling working was apt-get install powersaved.

Now, my 2ghz Core 2 Duo has both cores running at 1ghz, except when the full 2ghz is required. This + i8kutils to force my left fan to run on low all the time = 26C when idle. Not bad for a dual core system. :)

Re:Nice (1)

mattrwilliams (534984) | more than 6 years ago | (#20804299)

Gnome power manager has looked after cpufreq scaling since at least Edgy. You can choose between three profiles - always high, always low, or on demand.

Re:Nice (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 6 years ago | (#20804459)

``[un]fortunately I am now running Ubuntu and I guess there is no easy way (not requiring a kernel patch or some magical .conf file mangling) way to set my computer to a low speed as in Windows.''

Why do you assume that something is difficult on Ubuntu? And what is difficult about editing configuration files?

Re:Nice (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 6 years ago | (#20804617)

Why do you assume that something is difficult on Ubuntu? And what is difficult about editing configuration files?
Because Ubuntu is Linux after all, and for example, I have just tried to install truecrypt and, while in windows is just a matter of double click an exe ant then load a nice interface, there is no such thing as a nice interface and you need to do all kinds of su a+x truecrypt bash things (I know how to do it... after all I work with bash/awk/R/Java/C++/JNI/Latex every day).

But the main difference between these two approaches (the nice GUI and the command line) is that with the command line you have to *figure out* what to do while the GUI indicates you what to do (as an example, to make a shapiro-wilk test in R you need to know the exact command while in SPSS you just click on a intuitive "statistical analysis" menu...)

I could think of hundreds of apps in Linux with the same problem... but hey, this is slashdot and If I bash Linux too much I could get bad reputation here :)

Laptop heat a threat to fertility (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20803239)

You should probably read this 2004 article, then:

Laptop heat a threat to fertility

http://www.news.com/Study-Laptop-heat-a-threat-to-fertility/2100-1044_3-5485763.html [news.com]

I wouldn't hazard a guess as to whether this problem actually applies to very many people who read Slashdot, though.

Vista? (1)

nathan.fulton (1160807) | more than 6 years ago | (#20802845)

I don't run vista. Could someone try following the paper in vista and explain any differences?

No one uses Vista. Re:Vista? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20804957)

Vista is a failure [slashdot.org] . Instead of spending your money on the next generation lockdown, demand your software freedom. Send your laptop back if power management does not work under Ubuntu. Make vendors pay for their misplaced loyalty to Microsoft and big media companies. Make them serve you instead of them.


Very easy to know when it's off (4, Interesting)

istartedi (132515) | more than 6 years ago | (#20802873)

For a while, I thought my fan might have been broken because my laptop was getting very hot. Then I realized that, a few months ago I had messed with the power setting and turned off that technology to make sure I was getting maximum performance out of something. I forgot to turn it back on, and this resulted in the machine running flat-out all the time and getting very hot. Something jogged my memory, I went back to the power settings, and it works fine now. Even DVD playback doesn't force it to run flat-out, so if you have this technology you should definitely use it.

Of course it's only easy to feel the heat with a notebook. If you have a desktop you could be wasting power and not even know it unless you check the settings.

Re:Very easy to know when it's off (1)

zlogic (892404) | more than 6 years ago | (#20803615)

If you have a relatively new system with automatic fan control (late Pentium 4, Pentium D or any Core), you'll definetly hear if it's wasting power :-)
And desktop Cores can actually lower their frequency when CPU load is low.

Re:Very easy to know when it's off (1)

josh6179 (635444) | about 7 years ago | (#20805173)

I had the opposite problem. My wife complained for the longest time that her work laptop was running sluggish. I assumed it was a combination of the paltry memory installed in the laptop and the amount of additional software on the machine (virus, hard drive enryption, etc..).

After the laptop nearly burned my leg, I realized the fan wasn't working which caused the CPU to throttle down. It couldn't find documentation but SpeedStep scales the CPU speed depending on temp. Once the fan was replaced, the performance of the laptop was much improved.

Most business notebooks use Windows XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20802875)

and Vista, Mac OS X, Linux, et. al. probably won't change that for at least several more years.

For businesses, the cost of deploying a new OS and the cost of training can be showstoppers no matter what benefits are promised. Imagine the downtime and disruption of upgrading hundreds or thousands of laptops.

At least with Linux, the cost of hardware upgrades required by Vista or Mac OS X isn't in the picture. But several years from now, it won't matter because most laptops in use will have at least 2GB and even business-class laptops will support accelerated 3D.

I bet Windows XP will be widespread on business laptops even 10 years from now. And I'll be using XP software running inside vmware or Wine unless I'm forced to install it as the host OS.

Re:Most business notebooks use Windows XP (2, Insightful)

dal20402 (895630) | more than 6 years ago | (#20803957)

Even if it pushes back the dates, MS WILL eventually stop supporting XP, as they have all previous Windows variants. Businesses will have no choice but to upgrade at that point, as they already have from 98SE, NT4, and (mostly) 2k.

Vista really won't be that painful an upgrade once 1) much more is understood about application compatibility and 2) even bargain-basement office-bot PCs ship with 2GB of RAM and a dual-core processor. (No need for fancy graphics if you turn off Aero.) Two years from now, no one will remember all of this Sturm und Drang. We had exactly the same things happen when XP replaced 2k.

Re:Most business notebooks use Windows XP (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 6 years ago | (#20804071)

You forgot
3) Third party tools that can disable the most annoying features of Vista.

It is 3) that will eventually make Vista viable.

Re:Most business notebooks use Windows XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20805523)

Are you comparing upgrading XP -> Vista today, with Windows 2000 -> XP? That is like comparing hurricane Katrina to a mild thunderstorm.

Seriously, Windows 2000 was "5.0" and Windows XP is "5.1", whereas Vista is a whole new beast. On top of that, Windows 2000 wasn't around as long as Windows XP when Microsoft released a new OS.

The lifespan of Windows XP will probably be 10 times longer than Windows 2000 (if we define lifespan to having a global marketshare greater than 10%.)

Linux ? (1)

BeoCluster (995566) | more than 6 years ago | (#20802883)

Does Linux run on Windows XP ?

I couldn't get my desktop machine to be stable ... (1, Offtopic)

antdude (79039) | more than 6 years ago | (#20802909)

... with AMD Cool'n'Quiet in Windows XP Pro. SP2 even with the latest drivers on my Athlon 64 4600+ (939 dual core) system. It seems like I would get rare random blue screens of deaths (IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL) when playing videos. One time, I had a corrupted SB Audigy 2 ZS driver and I had to reinstall it. I don't have this problem if I don't use the power management (Cool'n'Quiet).

No one was able to figure out why I get them according to this newsgroup thread [google.com] . Maybe it is because of all my hardware devices I have in this case (Audigy2 ZS, an old ASUS TV tuner, HDTV tuner card, five drives, etc.).

I have not tried to clean install OS (XP installation has been used since 2002 or so), or try Linux. I will try that later on when I have lots of free time. My older Athlon 64 3200+ (754 single core) has no problems in Debian/Linux with powernow-k7 (Kernel 2.6.22-K7), but it is a simple box (only one PCI card for ethernet card [Intel brand].

Re:I couldn't get my desktop machine to be stable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20803011)

My first guess would be an overloaded power supply. Second guess would be crappy audio (more likely) or video (less likely) drivers.

Re:I couldn't get my desktop machine to be stable (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 6 years ago | (#20803209)

Isn't 600 watts SeaSonic S12 PSU enough? I don't use cheap PSU brands either. Yeah, NVIDIA and Creative have crappy drivers. What can I do? NVIDIA = newer games require newer drivers. Creative hasn't updated its drivers. I refuse to use onboard sound and other sound cards because of lack of EAX support in games. :(

Re:I couldn't get my desktop machine to be stable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20803099)

You should give a clean install and/or a bios upgrade a shot. It wasn't even needed here though.. Turned it on in the bios, installed all AMD drivers and turned on the power management to minimal power. Now the cpu (Athlon 64 x2, 4400) is running at 1000 Mhz most of the time. It's lovely.

No problems with my old hauppauge Nova DBV card either. I doubt that C&Q is your problem. Set up a clean system and enjoy the benefits.. :)

Re:I couldn't get my desktop machine to be stable (1)

JohnBailey (1092697) | more than 6 years ago | (#20804321)

It seems there are some problems with cool'n' quiet and some hardware. My Nebula TV tuner card was getting random glitches when watching live TV or recording. I have a 939 Athlon single core and an Asus A8V board in my PVR, and it worked fine when I turned that feature off in the bios. Try removing the TV card and seeing if the problem persists.

On my Linux box, it seems to work fine. The boot up for Fedora 6 complained quite a bit when I didn't have it enabled, and it throttles the CPU speed quite nicely too. I'm running at 21-25degrees C with the stock cooler while idling, and going up to about 35-40 under load. Could be the AM2 CPU or perhaps it is more compatible with the hardware in the Linux box.

Re:I couldn't get my desktop machine to be stable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20805035)

Try to uninstall the dual core optimizer. In my system (X2 4800+), the random kernel deadlocks (or livelocks) with the Flash plugin and the Opera web browser have not occurred since. Also, I am not sure whether the dual core hotfix (kb896256) has an affect on stability with the power management modes activated. See also system voltages and check other BIOS settings, especially make sure you have the correct settings for the memory array.

Quick summary for the RTFA impaired... (4, Informative)

pla (258480) | more than 6 years ago | (#20802927)

If you run XP, set the power scheme to "Minimal Power Management".

Unless, as a twitch-gamer, you (think you) can't afford to lose even a single CPU cycle, then by all means continue trying to heat your house in "Always On" mode (or the default of "Home/Office Desk", which means the same thing to AC-powered non-laptops).

As an interesting aside, TFA's author recommends "Portable/Laptop" mode; However, he writes that coming from the Intel world. Users of AMD chips (myself included) have noticed problems with CnQ (AMD's version of SpeedStep) not working correctly unless you set it to "Minimal Power Management", which according to the charts in the linked article, should work the same as "Portable/Laptop".

Re:Quick summary for the RTFA impaired... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20803047)

Unless, as a twitch-gamer, you (think you) can't afford to lose even a single CPU cycle, then by all means continue trying to heat your house in "Always On" mode (or the default of "Home/Office Desk", which means the same thing to AC-powered non-laptops).

As a renter, my electric bill is paid for by my landlord. My oil heating bill is not. Always On mode greatly reduces my spending in the winters.

Re:Quick summary for the RTFA impaired... (4, Insightful)

LLuthor (909583) | more than 6 years ago | (#20803411)

So buy an electric radiator or two. They are cheap. No need to reduce the lifespan of your CPU and/or mobo just for heat.

linux (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20802935)

my ubuntu laptop does this intelligently by default. each core runs at about 30-45% clock speed until i launch an intensive application. even in the equivalent mode on XP with the same machine, theres quite a noticeable difference in clock speed reduction and battery life.

Transmeta Efficeon does it in any OS (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20802965)

I have a Sharp mm20 with a Transmeta Efficeon 1GHZ. It has no fan. I recently replaced the hard disk with a ssd drive and now it has no moving parts at all. It runs kubuntu 7.04. Since it has no fan, the power management is based on CPU throttling.

Some people see CPU throttling as a drawback, 2-3 years ago people complained that mm20 performs poorly because of it. This is stupid. If you want performance you dont buy a 1.9 pound mm20 laptop but a 10 pound monster with a 120W AC adapter.

Transmeta CPUs were great, more powerful than VIA yet they did not need fans. Try find an ultralight fanless laptop these days! A friend has a UX280P Sony UMPC and it has the fan on almost all the time.(sure it runs Aplle MacOSX and Sharp mm20 cannot do that)

Why is this offtopic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20805153)

CPU throttling is the topic and the post is about this.

Just use Notebook Hardware Control (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20802973)

http://www.pbus-167.com/ [pbus-167.com]
It has a free version and allows you to control the power on all aspects on your notebook, this way you know exactly what its doing. It used to be the first thing I installed on XP laptops, with Vista it's needed a bit less, but still comes in useful as it allows you to switch profiles with much more ease than the normal Vista speed control.

Throttling (3, Funny)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 6 years ago | (#20803439)

After using WinXP, it's not the processor that wants to throttle the system - it's me. So I installed Linux instead.

Fixed your post (0, Offtopic)

fat_mike (71855) | more than 6 years ago | (#20803749)

"An old topic, but one still relevant as 99% of business notebooks still use XP."

Seriously, why do you think all laptop makers have instructions to downgrade to XP. And, Microsoft knows they got a lemon because the Vista license is also good to use if you downgrade to XP. I recently did this with three Thinkpad T61's.

Re:Fixed your post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20804633)

eriously, why do you think all laptop makers have instructions to downgrade to XP. And, Microsoft knows they got a lemon because the Vista license is also good to use if you downgrade to XP. I recently did this with three Thinkpad T61's.


So, in other words, MS figured out a subtle way to bump the price of WinXP and have users like it?

I use Outlook (4, Funny)

bl8n8r (649187) | more than 6 years ago | (#20803765)

as a cpu throttler.

not just businesses (2, Insightful)

Devistater (593822) | more than 6 years ago | (#20804225)

Its not just business laptops that are using XP. The vast majority of people still use XP. Heck, even amongst average gamers (where you'd expect ppl to upgrade to vista for DX10 games), less than 2.5% have vista and a dx10 capable card.

Poorly written article (2, Informative)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 6 years ago | (#20804663)

"CPU(s) begin in lowest performance state and then get slower and slower"

This is remarkably sloppy writing for a supposedly technical article. Is there a performance state even lower than the lowest? Is he talking about clock modulation? Does it get "slower and slower" but never faster and faster?

XP vs. Vista (5, Funny)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | about 7 years ago | (#20804947)

XP can throttle your CPU, but Vista downright chokes it.

works only if you have good BIOS... (1)

postmortem (906676) | about 7 years ago | (#20805209)

...if you don't , like I don't (Dell E1505) where manufacturer screwed up BIOS so 2nd column is always CPU(s) run in highest performance state.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?