«

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 14:26:56 +1200, Harry <> wrote:

>frederick wrote:
>
>> "Harry" <> wrote in message
>> news:7BPZc.21174$...
>>> Mr Bond wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> My question; Does a computer use more power in a state of high CPU
>>>> load than it does in low CPU load?
>>>
>>> No. Basically because the number of semiconductors in on and off states
>>> will be roughly 50/50. But I suppose if your cpu is dealing with lots
>>> of binary -1's then the load might differ. I don't think Windows makes
>>> much use of the hlt and wait instructions which would save power.
>>> Probably because much of Windows is message orientated as opposed to
>>> interrupt driven.
>>>
>> a strange conclusion
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If so, is it significantly more?
>>>>
>>>> My computer is a AMD 2500XP with 1 gig of DDR. I often leave my
>>>> computer downloading files overnight and wonder if I should be
>>>> contributing to society in some way through Seti or something similar
>>>> instead of the computer constantly running at 1% CPU useage.
>>>>
>>>> If it would cost me not a lot more in terms of power useage I should
>>>> look into it.
>>>
>>> What you need is a way to turn your computer off when your download or
>>> whatever has finished. I don't know if such a thing exists, but one
>>> crude way would be to have a scheduled task that periodically checks
>>> whether a process is still running - trouble not all processes will exit
>>> when their job is done.
>>>
>>> Another way would be to use Linux. Very easy because "shutdown" is just
>>> a normal command like any other and it is so easy to script an http or
>>> ftp download, or whatever.
>>
>> Type "shutdown /?" at the windows command prompt Harry - it sounds like
>> you might get a surprise.
>>>
>>>
>
>I just get "Bad command or filename".
>Is that the surprise I am supposed to get?

No, you need to type it correctly, He did say windows command prompt.

Mr Bond wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My question; Does a computer use more power in a state of high CPU
> load than it does in low CPU load?
>
> If so, is it significantly more?
>
> My computer is a AMD 2500XP with 1 gig of DDR. I often leave my
> computer downloading files overnight and wonder if I should be
> contributing to society in some way through Seti or something similar
> instead of the computer constantly running at 1% CPU useage.
>
> If it would cost me not a lot more in terms of power useage I should
> look into it.

AFAIK the difference between running at 1% CPU and 100% CPU on your machine
is roughly the equivalent to running a 40W light bulb. i.e. not a big
difference.
--
~misfit~

Bret wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 14:26:56 +1200, Harry <> wrote:
>
>>frederick wrote:
>>
>>> "Harry" <> wrote in message
>>> news:7BPZc.21174$...
>>>> Mr Bond wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> My question; Does a computer use more power in a state of high CPU
>>>>> load than it does in low CPU load?
>>>>
>>>> No. Basically because the number of semiconductors in on and off states
>>>> will be roughly 50/50. But I suppose if your cpu is dealing with lots
>>>> of binary -1's then the load might differ. I don't think Windows makes
>>>> much use of the hlt and wait instructions which would save power.
>>>> Probably because much of Windows is message orientated as opposed to
>>>> interrupt driven.
>>>>
>>> a strange conclusion
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If so, is it significantly more?
>>>>>
>>>>> My computer is a AMD 2500XP with 1 gig of DDR. I often leave my
>>>>> computer downloading files overnight and wonder if I should be
>>>>> contributing to society in some way through Seti or something similar
>>>>> instead of the computer constantly running at 1% CPU useage.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it would cost me not a lot more in terms of power useage I should
>>>>> look into it.
>>>>
>>>> What you need is a way to turn your computer off when your download or
>>>> whatever has finished. I don't know if such a thing exists, but one
>>>> crude way would be to have a scheduled task that periodically checks
>>>> whether a process is still running - trouble not all processes will
>>>> exit when their job is done.
>>>>
>>>> Another way would be to use Linux. Very easy because "shutdown" is just
>>>> a normal command like any other and it is so easy to script an http or
>>>> ftp download, or whatever.
>>>
>>> Type "shutdown /?" at the windows command prompt Harry - it sounds like
>>> you might get a surprise.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>I just get "Bad command or filename".
>>Is that the surprise I am supposed to get?
>
> No, you need to type it correctly, He did say windows command prompt.

I can read what he said.
And I did type it correctly.
And it was at the Windows command prompt.

Nik Coughin wrote:

> Harry wrote:
>> frederick wrote:
>>> Type "shutdown /?" at the windows command prompt Harry - it sounds
>>> like you might get a surprise.
>>
>> I just get "Bad command or filename".
>> Is that the surprise I am supposed to get?
>
> No, you should get what I get:
>
> Usage: shutdown [-i | -l | -s | -r | -a] [-f] [-m \\computername] [-t xx]
> [-c "comment"] [-d upx:yy]
>
> No args Display this message (same as -?)
> -i Display GUI interface, must be the first
> option
> -l Log off (cannot be used with -m option)
> -s Shutdown the computer
> -r Shutdown and restart the computer
> -a Abort a system shutdown
> -m \\computername Remote computer to shutdown/restart/abort
> -t xx Set timeout for shutdown to xx seconds
> -c "comment" Shutdown comment (maximum of 127
> characters)
> -f Forces running applications to close
> without
> warning
> -d [u][p]x:yy The reason code for the shutdown
> u is the user code
> p is a planned shutdown code
> xx is the major reason code (positive
> integer less than 256)
> yy is the minor reason code (positive
> integer less than 65536)

Somebody should sue Microsoft because that is a stolen Unix command.
Where is SCO when you need them?

Harry wrote:
>>>I just get "Bad command or filename".
>>>Is that the surprise I am supposed to get?

>>No, you need to type it correctly, He did say windows command prompt.

> I can read what he said.
> And I did type it correctly.
> And it was at the Windows command prompt.

try cmd?

which OS are you using?

--
Dave Hall
http://www.dave.net.nz

Harry wrote:
> Somebody should sue Microsoft because that is a stolen Unix command.
> Where is SCO when you need them?

standing idle.

heh, with MS in their back pocket

--
Dave Hall
http://www.dave.net.nz

~misfit~ wrote:
> Mr Bond wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>My question; Does a computer use more power in a state of high CPU
>>load than it does in low CPU load?
>>
>>If so, is it significantly more?
>>
>>My computer is a AMD 2500XP with 1 gig of DDR. I often leave my
>>computer downloading files overnight and wonder if I should be
>>contributing to society in some way through Seti or something similar
>>instead of the computer constantly running at 1% CPU useage.
>>
>>If it would cost me not a lot more in terms of power useage I should
>>look into it.
>
>
> AFAIK the difference between running at 1% CPU and 100% CPU on your machine
> is roughly the equivalent to running a 40W light bulb. i.e. not a big
> difference.
> --
> ~misfit~
>
>
and on that note. i would say yes, run seti, or prime or whatever you
like. It makes you feel good when your PC is actually being used while
its sitting there humming away warming up your house.

12200 seti units and counting.. .

In article late for dinner says...
> and on that note. i would say yes, run seti, or prime or whatever you
> like. It makes you feel good when your PC is actually being used while
> its sitting there humming away warming up your house.
>
> 12200 seti units and counting.. .
>
>
Keep wasting power, I just got another dividend from Contact today.

Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

> Harry wrote:
>>>>I just get "Bad command or filename".
>>>>Is that the surprise I am supposed to get?
>
>>>No, you need to type it correctly, He did say windows command prompt.
>
>> I can read what he said.
>> And I did type it correctly.
>> And it was at the Windows command prompt.
>
> try cmd?
>
> which OS are you using?
>

Windows OS

Mr Bond wrote:
> My computer is a AMD 2500XP with 1 gig of DDR. I often leave my
> computer downloading files overnight and wonder if I should be
> contributing to society in some way through Seti or something similar
> instead of the computer constantly running at 1% CPU useage.

When considering where to put your spare CPU cycles to use, take a look at
folding.
http://folding.stanford.edu/

And even check this one out ...
http://www.hel-razor.com/FoldingForOurFuture.html

Some people consider this produces more actual benefit to society than seti,
as folding is researching medical areas. Of course, you should research
this so you can form your own opinion.


Peter