Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MeeGo 1.2 Boots Nearly Twice As Fast As Fedora, Ubuntu

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MeeGo 1.2 Boots Nearly Twice As Fast As Fedora, Ubuntu

    Phoronix: MeeGo 1.2 Boots Nearly Twice As Fast As Fedora, Ubuntu

    Prior to being spun into MeeGo, Intel's Moblin Linux distribution was one of the fastest-booting Linux distributions. Moblin worked phenomenally for Intel Atom netbooks with a great user-interface and was very quick at starting up. With the release this week of MeeGo 1.2, we have some Bootchart numbers for MeeGo 1.2 Netbook UX compared to Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 11.04...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=OTQ2OQ

  • gururise
    replied
    I'd be more interested in knowing if MeeGo finally ships with a working Poulsbo driver!!?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jonno
    replied
    I'm no "power plant expert", but I worked for several years at a power production company, so I have some clue what I'm talking about.

    First of, you are right in that a power consumption reduction of a single W will not make any difference at all in total emissions, as you can't adjust production to that degree of precision. Additionally, most power plants always run at full capacity, as running them on partial capacity is not nearly as efficient. However,when the total demand on the regional grid drops several MW, entire power plants will shut down to save fuel (in my case the "regional" grid covers Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark, approximately 25 million people, so that only a few W per person). Whichever power plant on the regional grid has the lowest fuel efficiency ($ per produced MW) will shut down first when consumption drops, and start last when it increases. On this grid, and probably on most grids, those are the Oil Plants (daytime) or Coal Plants (nighttime, when the Oil Plants are turned off anyway due to lower demand), and shutting down one of those makes a huge difference in emissions, even per W produced (on average).

    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    And yet the net change in world emissions have not dropped since those have been in place.
    Of course not, as power consumption still increases. But thanks to those regulations emissions has increased less than it would have without them...
    Last edited by Jonno; 05-22-2011, 02:25 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jimbo
    replied
    what is your concept of "user"?

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by Jimbo View Post
    yeah, power plants are designed to cover alien demans! wtf!
    Guess you figure that all industrial uses of electricity are supplied by their own independent source. WTF?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jimbo
    replied
    yeah, power plants are designed to cover alien demans! wtf!

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by Jimbo View Post
    This is totally wrong, by the reasons I already exposed, uffff , Power plants are dimensioned to cover user demands, stand-by represents 7-13% of house power consumption...
    Ummm no, power plants are most certainly not dimensioned to cover just user demands (let alone just house power). Pretty much every plant out there has been designed to exceed the current demands within the expected lifespan of the plant within it's serviced area. Surplus is then sold to others in need.

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by zhark View Post
    Excuse me, but are you actually portraying that the amount of power used (on standby appliances or otherwise) have zero impact on global emissions? Thats just pure nonsense. Power plants are built as a response to consumer demand, and hydro-electric power plants can store power for later usage as well as quickly bringing production up or down based on usage.
    Absolutely they are built to respond with consumer demand not to the point where plants operate so close to the edge that it requires constant adjustments where even a 20% increase in load requires ramping up additional power generation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jimbo
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    It is a small power reduction and it has no impact on emissions. Electrical networks are designed to be able to provide a minimum of the capacity of the largest generator plus roughly 20% over capacity for short term demands. They operate with a reserve 100% of the time. If the demand extends to something larger that is where the power grid kicks in to supply that extra demand. At no regular interval is there a case of no reserve available on the grid. Your emissions are not reduced as long as there us a surplus of energy produced (which is wasted by it not being utilized).
    This is totally wrong, by the reasons I already exposed, uffff , Power plants are dimensioned to cover user demands, stand-by represents 7-13% of house power consumption...

    Leave a comment:


  • zhark
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    And yet the net change in world emissions have not dropped since those have been in place. Using less energy but wasting more. Until they have a way to store generated energy in a effective manner, small energy reduction measures like these mean SFA.
    Excuse me, but are you actually portraying that the amount of power used (on standby appliances or otherwise) have zero impact on global emissions? Thats just pure nonsense. Power plants are built as a response to consumer demand, and hydro-electric power plants can store power for later usage as well as quickly bringing production up or down based on usage. To my knowledge the same goes for coal and oil. I know this isn't applicable to nuclear power, but even if most of your countries power is produced by these, it is still supplemented by other more flexible sources (local or import) to account for unexpected surges in demand. It really shouldn't be necessary to take this argument any further.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X