Rhialto posted on Mon, 23 Jul 2012 21:45:47 +0200 as excerpted: > On Mon 23 Jul 2012 at 12:17:27 +0000, Duncan wrote: >> But for several weeks I was able to continue to run it... as long as I >> kept the AC turned down low enough... about 20C/68F max, or it would >> crash. That here in a Phoenix summer with temps of 40C/104F+, so I >> like a room temp of 28C/82F, and at 20C/68F I was bundled up in a heavy >> jacket, wearing a warm hat with slacks and a blanket over my legs, just >> to keep warm while I worked on the computer I was trying to keep cool >> enough to keep it from crashing! >> >> I really don't have the money for a replacement, > > I would guess that you'd save plenty of money now that you're spending > less money on the AC! The investment will pay for itself...
Yes, especially since I was having to keep the other one so cold in ordered to keep it working. Tho even that's likely to take perhaps thru next summer to pay for itself. But the year of deferred interest (same as cash provided I pay within that period, otherwise I get hit with all the deferred interest at once!) will help even it out as well. I'd have certainly been WAY more conservative otherwise, as 20%+ interest is rather steep. As long as I actually have it paid off by then. THAT's what I have to worry about now! Another power factor I'm not quite sure the effect of, over time, is that the new system both cpu-freq manages and suspends to RAM much better. The dual socket setup of the old system meant that cpu-freq wouldn't work at all -- I'd have had to effectively suspend and turn off the second socket first, before I could cpu-freq the first -- and suspend to ram was much more complicated, such that between that and various other factors, it wasn't reliable, and I basically didn't use it at all. Even suspend to disk (aka hibernate) was problematic, as my hard drives would sometimes not be recognized as the same ones on resume, thus kicking them out of the md/RAID and forcing a re-add and resync. So basically, I generally either left the system running, or shut it down entirely. But all that "just works" on the new system, and I'm actually using suspend-to-ram regularly, now. The question then becomes, and I really won't know until I've had time enough to adopt a new routine and see, whether the more time fully shut down but otherwise running normally, or the seldom fully shut down but more time in suspend-to-ram, will be easier on the power bill. Especially because I'm not sure that I'm comfortable turning off the AC entirely when the system's suspended to RAM, so I keep the AC in power- save-mode turned as high as it'll go (86F/30C), instead of turning it entirely off as I did with the old system shutdown. Certainly that's more comfortable for me returning home as well, but it's equally certainly eating up some of the power savings I'd otherwise be getting, compared to last year, old system before the capacitor popped. Meanwhile, perhaps a bigger savings, we'll have to see, was when I switched from dual 20" plus CRTs, to dual 22" LED-backlit LCDs. *THAT* made a *SERIOUSLY* noticeable drop in my power usage and bill, ESPECIALLY in the summer, because as I said, any energy the system uses here in the summer (well, in Phoenix, pretty much nine months of the year) is paid for twice, once to use it on the computer, venting heat to the room, once to pump that heat outside with the AC. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman _______________________________________________ Pan-users mailing list Pan-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users
