Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Poll
I would underclock my PC
If I were not too busy 6%
If I could find someone tech-savvy enough to help me out 6%
If I were absolutely sure Microsoft Word would still run fast enough 8%
If I could be sure I would not damage my motherboard and CPU 4%
Over my dead body. I am an American - screw the enviroment ! 59%
If there were more hard evidence on the environmental benefits 14%

Votes: 61

 How to increase the lifespan of your PC.

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Sep 03, 2001
 Comments:
Many of us Americans enjoy tinkering with things. We customize our vehicles. We remodel our houses. Some of us even modify our bodies. Americans are always looking to improve our lot. To squeeze out that extra bit of value from what we have. Whether it be adding a nice set of 18" OZ wheels to our Honda Civic, adding a conservatory at the back of the house, or improving our sex lives with interesting body modifications We always feel we can make improvements.

The world of the humble personal computer is no different. In this article I will explain how any reasonably competent DIY enthusiast can modify his or her PC and extract that extra bit of longevity, saving money and helping the environment at the same time.

technology

More stories about Technology
Building your dream PC. What the experts don't tell you.
DVD Versus VHS: The Surprising Truth
Why We Need National Missile Defense
Security, Microsoft, and You
Napster, Gnutella and the file sharing revolution
LIFE? Is What You Make Of It
The Stupidity of Environmental Liberalism
A Reader Disputes Our Wisdom
Apache 2.0 - Still Not a Contender?
The Console Wars, the Dust Has Settled.

More stories by
dmg

America wages psychological war on Iranian soccer team
Wicca - a scientific, Christian approach to the problem
Reparation and reconcilation - the time is right.
Is it time women covered up at work ?
The Malaise of the Middle Classes.
Christianity isn't working in the USA; Is Islam the answer ?
European Union eclipses US in games market - what next ?
SUV's Bigger and Better - The Ultimate American Dream
Sports- The direct cause of Racism in America today.
US in recession. What should we do about it ?
Marion 'Suge' Knight to be released - Young white rap fans in danger ?
Building your dream PC. What the experts don't tell you.
The Democratization of Status. Rap music is to blame.
World Trade Center - Capitalizing on terrorist atrocities.
You are not Irish, They are not Republicans. Please stop sending them money and guns.
A Taliban Warlord answers YOUR questions.
Anthrax - Please, PLEASE change your name.
The US Constitution - past its sell-by date ?
Anthrax - Some factual corrections, but no apology.
Some help for all you aspiring Santas.
Fuck Cunt Shit Piss Cocksucker Motherfucker Tits
DMG's spicy chilli-lemon chicken with toasted cashews
The Semiotics of modern 'Popular' music - Symbolism and Discourse
Linux Zealot - The Internet's most controversial cartoon superhero
My Vacation Dilemma. How can I be an ethical tourist ?
Linux Zealot learns a valuable lesson.
Internet Licenses: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?
Linux Zealot sticks to his guns.
Great Britain must keep the pound.
Torture - it's inevitable, so lets do it right !
The supposedly civilized Europeans. (A WARNING TO ALL AMERICANS)
Sigmund Freud, Linux and The Narcissism of Minor Difference
America - Land of the free ? Or home of the DEPRAVED ?
British engineering genius and the Homosexualist Socialist conspiracy
Linux Zealot attempts to get laid.
Which is the best way to predict the future ?
God Bless you your Majesty, adequacy.org salutes you!
The History of Rap.
Theater Review: My Fair Lady
Linux Zealot contributes to the Open Source Community
Linux Zealot vs the RIAA.
A Guide to the United Kingdom for Americans.
If you have read this far, it is safe to assume you are the kind of person who feels comfortable tinkering with things. What I am going to describe is not exactly rocket science, but it involves a fair amount of technical fiddling about so please bear with me.

If you are like me you have probably seen those guys who tune up their automobiles and thought to yourself: "Well, they may have better performance, but what is their gas milage like ?"

It is the same with PCs. For some time now guys in the office where I work have been tweaking their PCs, making all sorts of modifications (in nerdspeak: "Overclocking their CPUs") in the name of performance. They are hell bent on squeezing every last MHz from their PC investment. This is to be admired. It is, in fact, the American way. They even have their own websites dedicated to extracting every last ounce of performance from their machines. However, like those guys with the customized Civics and Accords, we have to wonder what is the environmental impact of these modifications, and even more importantly how will it affect the lifespan of the PC ?

Before I explain how you can improve the longevity of your PC I need to explain what overclocking is, and the negative effects it can have. We can then see how my solution adresses these issues.

Overclocking in a nutshell is the illegal act of running a computer's CPU at a higher clock speed than that mandated by the manufacturer. By altering the settings on the BIOS of your motherboard, it is possible to fool your computer into running faster than the manufacturer's permitted speed limit. This results in a short term gain for the overclocker, but it is not without risk to the wallet, or the environment.

To quote the US Dept of Energy and the EPA: "Staying within the speed limit is not only a matter of safety and obeying the law, it can also save you money."

The sound advice above applies equally to Personal Computers as it does to automobiles, which is hardly surprising, since both are complex pieces of machinery requiring their users to behave in a responsible manner.

Anyway enough preaching, its time to get down to the technical nitty-gritty. For the purposes of this article, it is useful to draw an analogy between PCs and Automobiles. If you tune up an auto by adding a turbocharger, or remapping the fuel injection and timing, you may well get a small increase in performance. However it will be at the expense of wear and tear on your engine, more greenhouse gas emissions, increased insurance premiums, and ultimately the lifespan of your vehicle will be shortened. So it is with PCs.

The overclocked PC consumes more electricity than the unmodified PC (due to the higher clock speeds, and the additional cooling that is required). This causes higher running costs (just take a look at your electric bill if you don't believe me), more damage to the enviroment, due to the emission of more poisonous greenhouse gasses, and worst of all, reducing the lifespan of your CPU.

A CPU is a delicate piece of electronics. Illegally increasing the clock speed by just 2MHz can remove 6 months from its working lifespan.

Modify your PC to improve its longevity
OK, so we have seen the causal link between higher clock speeds and early CPU failure. But what can we do to improve the lifespan of our PC ? Its simple. The same equation that governs the process of "overclocking" can easily be reversed. It is the logical next step. If a faster CPU has a shorter lifespan, costs more to run and damages the environment, by the same token, an underclocked CPU will be proportionally cheaper to run, more environmentally friendly and will last longer. Follow the simple steps below to underclock your CPU and improve the lifespan of your PC

Basically there are three steps to underclocking your CPU. The first step is to get into the computer's BIOS. This can normally be done by pressing DEL as the machine boots up.

The second step is to locate the CPU clock multiplier in the BIOS menus, and modify it. Suppose you want to increase the lifespan of your CPU by a factor of two. The thing to do is to halve the clock multiplier in the BIOS.

The third step is to save your changes to the BIOS and reboot. VOILA - you are now the proud owner of a longer-lasting, greener, cheaper to run PC.

Now you might be wondering what the downside is to all this ? Good news. As it turns out, there is no downside. For years and years PC manufacturers have been telling us we needed faster and faster CPUS. This is simply not the case. I run Microsoft Word just as easily on my underclocked Dell machine, with the bonus of knowing my PC will probably outlast that of all my friends, and is saving me money to boot.

For any reasonably competent DIY enthusiast, underclocking is a no-brainer, and the sooner you do it, the sooner you can start saving money and join the ranks of those who are doing their bit to reduce global warming.

There is some evidence to suggest that if just 5% of America's PC-owning population underclocked their PCs by a miniscule 5% then the Californian power crisis would have been averted, and we would be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a significant amount.

We have to start protecting our environment somewhere, so what better place to start protecting it than at home ?


Interesting, but .. (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by seventypercent on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 09:28:21 PM PST
.. I'm not sure what the point is.

All decent PCs that a person can buy today have a "good enough" lifespan. They're designed to operate for the forseeable future, well beyond the point at which they become obsolete. Oh, sure .. there are some upgrades that you can do to an old PC in order to speed it up (such as adding extra RAM, ROM, or RIMM.) But the fact of the matter is that with today's technology, PCs become obsolete a year or so after they are purchased. They can continue to be used for (maybe) a couple of years past that.

At that point, it's your duty to purchase another one.

The advances in technology that we've seen in the past decade have not come for free. They've taken a lot of research and development (R&D) dollars. Hardware corporations are not going to be able to do this R&D if people purchase one PC from them and keep it for a decade. If you want to keep the industry and the economy moving in the proper direction, it is your obligation as a moral person to procure another computer from these companies on a regular basis (say, once every three years.)

Personally, I think it's a bit irresponsible to suggest that people ought to "underclock" their computers to make them last longer and consume less power. If any modifications are to be made, it should be overclocking; furthermore, people should leave all of their overclocked computers turned on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The energy companies are a vital component of the modern economy, and ensuring that they get a steady cash flow is just good common sense. Furthermore, oil and gas CEOs need to feed their families just as much as you need to feed yours .. perhaps you're being selfish?

At any rate, your article sounds like it's dangerously close to environmentalism. You might want to think twice before you advocate a full frontal assault on American business in the name of eco-terrorism. Reality check: A couple of thousand dollars to the computer companies every three years is not that much to ask. When the stability of the economy is at stake, it's the duty of all moral citizens to consume conspicuously.

--
Red-blooded patriots do not use Linux.

No, I must correct your fallacious arguments. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by dmg on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 05:03:50 AM PST
PCs become obsolete a year or so after they are purchased. They can continue to be used for (maybe) a couple of years past that.

You are incorrect. What happens is that the operating system becomes obsolete, and people are too lazy to go to the store and buy an upgrade, so they simply replace their machine.

While you are correct in your assertion that "it's the duty of all moral citizens to consume conspicuously", there are other ways to spend money on your PC without replacing it.

A well known American corporation exists which can take up the slack in terms of any reduced consumption were people to follow my underclocking guide. Simply sign up for a Microsoft subscription. This will ensure you have the very very latest in cutting edge computer science advancements right on your desktop, delivered straight to your door, and without the need to upgrade your PC. And the beauty of it is, you are helping America stay out of recession.

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

 
GNU/Linux and processor life. (3.00 / 3) (#7)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 09:33:18 PM PST
Isn't it true that using GNU/Linux will result in a cooler CPU, less energy usage, and a longer computer life? As a matter of fact, it IS true, but since this site is extremely biased against GNU/Linux, I'll probably get moderated down for saying this. But I challenge anybody to prove me wrong.

Most of the time, a system's CPU is running at between 2% and 20% of maximum capacity. Some CPU-intensive activities such as heavy number crunching, complex rendering, IDE disk access, loading large applications, etc., can cause the CPU usage to spike to 100%, but during a day of typical use, the CPU should average AT MOST 30% of maximum usage, with 10% being a more common average.

Now, the interesting thing about CPUs is that normally, when they have nothing to do (70% or more of each second will be spent doing nothing), they continue spinning around aimlessly, generating heat, and consuming electricity. Thus, a completely idle computer system is using just as much CPU electricity and the CPU is working just as hard as an identical system doing rendering for Toy Story 3. The latter system will be using electricity for hard drive access, but that's a different issue.

Now, Intel introduced a helpful CPU instruction called HLT. Each CPU cycle (a 1GHz system has 1 billion cycles per second, at least 70% of which are usually wasted because the system has nothing to do) consists of one instruction being executed. If a HLT instruction is executed during a CPU cycle, the CPU will actually shut itself off for the duration of that cycle.

It's possible for a computer operating system to issue a HLT instruction on every CPU cycle that would otherwise have been wasted. If a 1GHz CPU was running at 10% of capacity, 900,000,000 HLTs would be issued per second, causing the CPU to use 10% as much electricty, do 10% as much work, release 10% as much heat, and greatly extending the life of the CPU.

Linux does this. Windows does NOT. A HLT thread has been shown to lower a CPU's temperature by up to 30 degrees C, and a Linux system's CPU will generally be up to 30 degrees cooler than an identical machine running Windows.

I know you're going to say "that's Communist and evil," but it looks like the "Communists" actually managed to out-fox the Capitalists this time. Suck on those lemons.


communist propoganda... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by error27 on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 10:29:41 PM PST
This is simply untrue, even your own communist web sites will attest to this. All recent versions of windows are able to able to invoke the HLT command. With Microsoft Windows NT and Microsoft Windows 2000 this feature is turned on by default. Previous versions of Microsoft Windows did not have this feature because it was deemed too experimental. At Microsoft stability comes before fancy sounding but worthless features.

The thing about Linux (and communism) is that it looks nice at first, but after you try it you find that it just doesn't work. The thing is that Microsoft has litterally billions of dollars to invest in usability testing, but communism is an economic failure and so has nothing to invest in research.

Btw, at the top of the article it said that this was an article for Americans. I was therefore, measurably upset to see the number of .uk links. It is well known that the UK has not fully adopted American ideals of capitalism.


They are getting there. Slowly. (4.00 / 2) (#9)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 3rd, 2001 at 11:40:18 PM PST
They have started exporting trashy TV just like us Americans. A country which can produce 'who wants to be a millionaire?', and 'the weakest link' does not sound like a touchy-feely socialist utopia to me.

I have had the misfortune to visit the UK on several occasions on business, and I have to say things have changed a lot over there in recent years. There is a starbucks on every corner. There are homeless people sitting on the streets begging. The UK shows all the signs of becoming almost as capitalist as the USA.

Of course, they have some work to do, (they need to get rid of the free healthcare for example) but on the whole I found London to be reasonably tolerable.

Of course, some things have not changed at all. Their dental hygiene is appaling, as is their plumbing, and British automobiles still suck (and leak oil all over the place). London seems to have solved its fog problem (which was particularly bad earlier in the century).

An American can visit the UK and feel at home. Apart from the strange accents (you have to get them to speak very very slowly) and the stupid convention of driving on the left of the road, and the fact that the male population seems to consist of 50% effete homosexuals and 50% psychopathic "football" hooligans.


 
Certainly Communist. (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by Craig McPherson on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 12:46:31 AM PST
Microsoft's flagship operating system, Windows NT, and all following versions of it (Windows 2000 and Windows XP, including workstation and server versions of each operating system) do HLT threads. The Linuxer who started this thread was just spouting propoganda: all enterprise-grade operating systems, namely Windows NT, Windows 2000, and Windows XP, feature idle HLT threads, as well as some toy operating systems such as Linux, FreeBSD, and the Sony Playstation.

It's true that the Windows 9x line doesn't use a HLT thread, but this is actually intentional on Microsoft's part. Unlike the Sociocommunist Linux philosophy, which spouts "everyone should get the same quality software, no matter how much they pay for it," Microsoft practices sound consumer principles like "you get what you pay for." The Windows 9x line is intentionally degraded in many ways to ensure that those customers who pay the additional fee for the Windows NT line receive a product that's greatly superior to the lower-priced offerings. The degraded Win9x line is available for low-end users with limited resources who therefore don't deserve top quality, such as low-income families, charitable organizations, and people on minimum wage (namely GNU programmers). These people can not pay as much as businesses and more affluent individuals, therefore it would be unfair to the people who CAN pay to give the poor people the same level of quality as the well-to-do.

You mentioned Debian GNU/Linux, and that's one of my biggest peeves with the Lignux crowd: Debian has to be the most useless and Communistic of all the Freeware operating systems extant. Debian was originally created by the GNU/Linux principal developer Richard Stallman, who as I've already discussed in other threads is a self-avowed "democratic socialist," or if we're to use terms that more closely reflect reality, "Communist." Debian was the official distribution of the Freeware Software Foundation for a number of years, which should give you a preview of what Debian users might be like: dogmatic, filled with vitriol, and unquestionably intolerant of others. Technically, the distribution is a failure: it has no manual and hence is used mainly by self-proclaimed "leet hackers", it doesn't follow the official and superior "RPM" package management system (meaning that programs must be compiled by hand, requring fairly advanced programming skills and a lot of luck), the the distro is unwieldingly huge, filled with nearly 10,000 different useless Freeware programs.

In short, although Debian fits the mold perfectly for insecure, immature hacker-types sitting in front of a computer in their parents' basement in cheeto-stained underwear, it's an even further step backward in terms of real-world usability than the other freeware Lignux operating systems.


--
If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

goodwins law (1.00 / 2) (#11)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 03:33:16 AM PST
the term 'democratic socialist' is rather more similar to the Nazi party than anything Communist.

are you saying the thread is finished?


Yes, the FAQ is terribly difficult to read. (5.00 / 4) (#12)
by Craig McPherson on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 03:49:25 AM PST
Does this website support Godwin's law ?
No. Absolutely not. we are pro-freedom of speech and view the invocation of Godwin's law as a barrier to the free and frank exchange of views which is one of the core aims of adequacy.org. Face facts, some behaviours simply are Nazi like, there is no reason to cut down a whole line of reasonable argument because of some stupid 'Usenet' rule. We trust our readership will argue responsibly. After all Godwin's law is only needed when the discussion is immature and unsophisticated. Neither of these is likely here at adequacy.org



--
If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

 
Good Lord....... (1.00 / 3) (#25)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 02:04:07 PM PST
tell me something........ why would the average user need to purchase windows NT for their home box. They don't need the "rock solid" system that is supposedly NT. They don't need to spend that much money on something that THEY WONT USE. i frankly find this entire thread to be rediculous. if you're going to pull this "underclock" shit..... why the hell did you not just buy a SMALLER, LESS POWERFUL processor in the first place?? Or, how about this...... the people that do OC their computers know what they're doing, and why they're doing it. be it for compiling a large program, or running a Q3A server. they see the need, you all should butt out.
And for the record..... i have an amd duron 750mhz which i plan to OC soon, it has 3 ide hdd, a high speed cdrom and a high speed burner, every PCI slot filled, 4 case fans, and i leave it on 90% of the time. Add to that the fact that i drive a car that gets 8 (countem 8) miles to the gallon, i feel you all can shove this right up your ass.
Send all flames to x0001AThotmailDOTcom
(don't worry, asbestos suit)


 
Don't like it?? (1.00 / 4) (#26)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 02:21:57 PM PST
DONT USE IT!!!!!!


 
Meanwhile: Back at Rancho McPhearson... (2.20 / 5) (#28)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 11:05:38 PM PST
By golly Martha them dangd ol' commies have gone and snuck The Debian Project History on to the world wide web.

Jesus H. Christ! They've filled it full of decietful misinformation about some red named Ian Murdock founding that pack of heathens. And, would you get a load of this, the FSF's GNU project sponsored them for one year, fork tounged devils.

Heh, everybody knows they are a bunch of idiots.. Why heck they don't even have a manual. How in the h-e-double-hockey-sticks are they supposed to indoctrinate us humble (and tolerant) Americans.

They are so low, they've gone and infiltrated The Linux Standard Base. They say what's what in a Linux distro. Yup even the packaging format for LSB packages. Gee whiz, Martha, they've even slipped in a footnote saying that as long as there is a tool for installing these packages the distribution can use whatever packaging format they want. Those Free software people are lower than a snakes belly in a wagon rut. Heck, just because Debian has been around longer than Red Hat or the Linux Standard Base is no reason for them to go off and get uppity with their own packaging format. At least RPM's don't petrify our women, while dishing out all their useless Freeware

Cletus, pass the strycnine, all this snake handling has got me a might parched.


About the Pro-Linux images on my webspace. (3.66 / 3) (#29)
by Craig McPherson on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 11:23:10 PM PST
First, I can't help the fact that my Internet Service Provider uses a UNIX OS. It used to be a decent Windows-only ISP, but then it got bought out by Earthlink, which also happens to be owned by a UFO cult. The ISP gives me 5MB of space and I use it to host images and documents that are of interest to me.

Secondly, I put those pro-Linux images on my webspace for two reasons:
  • I found them on the Internet and thought they displayed how dogmatic and fanatical Linux users are, and decided to display them on my website.
  • I like collecting pictures of cute women, and this "genre" of image interests me on a personal level.

    If you find any other pro-Linux material on my webspace, then you can be assured that my ISP was hacked by vengeful 12-year-old Linux users who placed the material there. The fact that the ISP's webserver is running UNIX explains why it's so easy to hack.

    As for Debian history, "Ian Murdock" may be listed as the "official" creator of Debian, but Debian was originally the official operating system of the Free Software Foundation, which pretty much makes RMS the guy behind Debian.


    --
    If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

  • whatever... (1.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 12:06:19 AM PST
    I notice that you didn't bother to comment on the bit about RPM and it's "official and superior" nature. Could this be because it's neither?

    Could it be that Ian Murdock is listed as the creator of Debian, because it's the truth? I hope that we can atleast agree that it is named after he and his wife Debra. Coincidence, hmm?

    Could it be that Free software is such a good thing that even Microsoft use it for thier HotMail service?

    Could it be that you are confusing Slashdot's obsession with petrified models with some sort of free operating system?

    Could it be that you complain about the thousands of freeware programs included with Debian because you've been brainwashed.

    Could it be that even a UFO cult knows more about webservers than even you?

    Could it be that after you've collected a few "pro-linux" images that personally "interest" you there's a mess to wipe up with some toilet paper?


    Get a haircut, get a real job... (4.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Craig McPherson on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 12:30:55 AM PST
    ... use a real OS, don't be a slob.

    "I notice that you didn't bother to comment on the bit about RPM and it's "official and superior" nature. Could this be because it's neither?"

    The Linux Standards Base lists RPM as the interim official package format. If you want to interpret the LSB's statement a different way, that's your right. But you'll be wrong.

    Look at the market share of Redhat versus the market share of Debian, and I think you'll see what package format is superior.

    Not that any Linux package management is "superior." Microsoft brought us the world's first TRUE advanced package management system with Windows Update and the Windows Installer. it works a lot better than any of the Linux offerings, too.

    "Could it be that Ian Murdock is listed as the creator of Debian, because it's the truth? I hope that we can atleast agree that it is named after he and his wife Debra. Coincidence, hmm?"

    I won't deny that, but can YOU deny that Debian was once the official OS of the Free Software Foundation? Your own Debian history page says that.

    "Could it be that Free software is such a good thing that even Microsoft use it for thier HotMail service?"

    That's an absolute lie. Microsoft BOUGHT Hotmail which was using UNIX OS's at the time, but quickly upgraded it to the enterprise-grade Windows NT over the past couple of years. You posted statistics for "ad.law3.hotmail.com", but that's NOT Hotmail. Hotmail is "www.hotmail.com", which is running Windows 2000 and IIS.

    Some of the back-end servers like the one you listed may still be running legacy OS's, but it's impossible to upgrade thousands of servers in less than a year's time while still keeping the high-volume Hotmail service up and running the entire time. The fact that you probably searched through HUNDREDS of servers to find one still running a UNIX OS just proves that Linux users will do ANYTHING to make Microsoft look bad, but it's usually just themselves who wind up looking bad.

    "Could it be that you are confusing Slashdot's obsession with petrified models with some sort of free operating system?"

    Could you rephrase your question in the form of a question that makes sense?

    "Could it be that you complain about the thousands of freeware programs included with Debian because you've been brainwashed."

    Freeware software is free because it's not good enough to pay money for. If Debian were good enough for people to buy it, it wouldn't be free. Debian tried to sell a retail box (they even gave away a free Loki game with it), but, wonders of wonders, nobody bought it!

    "Could it be that even a UFO cult knows more about webservers than even you?"

    Oh, are you sad that I insulted your precious Xenu?

    This was SUPPOSED to be an article about the advantages of CPU underclocking, but you had to turn it off-topic with your "Linux uses less electricity than Windows" post which flies in the face of physics.

    The REAL way to underclock your CPU is to run a Freeware OS on it.


    --
    If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

    surely you jest... (1.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 01:10:03 AM PST
    RPM is the packaging format for the LSB packages. That's saying nothing. Kinda like the UN resolutions you like to wax poetic about.

    Marketshare, what's that? We're commies. Maybe you could do something like a ratio of marketshare to marketing budgets? I'm certain Debian would trounce all the other distros, because they don't market anything.

    Erm.
    me@mybox$grep "official" ch1.html
    The Debian Project was officially founded by Ian Murdock on August 16th, 1993.
    The official pronounciation of Debian is 'deb ee n'. The name comes from the


    I didn't catch the part about the "official OS" could you provide a link?

    Actually all of the servers at hotmail that actually house any email are still FreeBSD because Win2k couldn't keep up.. and sorry, that was the first one I tried.

    la la la... it must be nice to live in fantasy land... where nobody buys free software.
    I hate to make you look like a moron, but you just said that Microsoft paid (a pretty penny to) for FreeBSD servers, kinda ironic.

    heh.. I didn't post that comment. I was actually laughing my ass off at the whole thread until I got to your horribly misguided diatribe about Debian.


    Why do you have all those funny little "Vim" icons on your Bootleg Pokey pages? Probably because you are one of the better trolls around. I like your style. Keep up the good work.


    I'm "JEST" about tired of you complainin (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Craig McPherson on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 02:48:48 AM PST
    RPM is the packaging format for the LSB packages. That's saying nothing. Kinda like the UN resolutions you like to wax poetic about.
    So you go and check my comment history on other stories to try to "dig up dirt" about me? That's mature. And I don't "wax poetic." I "rant like a drunken sailor." Please don't confuse the two.

    RPM is the official packaging format, and Debian does not use RPM. Is there something I'm missing? Debian is not in compliance with the official standard. The only distribution LESS in compliance is Slackware, which is boycotting the entire LSB.

    Marketshare, what's that? We're commies.
    Now you admit it.

    Even a Communist has to admit that in the real world, one of the ways to measure the success of an operating system is by the number of people who using it, right? The better it is, the more people will use it, right?

    Why, then, is Linux use at 0.5% of all PC usage, and why is Debian usage at 5% of all Linux usage. Check the statistics yourself if you don't believe me.

    Actually all of the servers at hotmail that actually house any email are still FreeBSD because Win2k couldn't keep up.. and sorry, that was the first one I tried.
    So you at random decided to guess that a machine called "ad.law3.hotmail.com" existed, and, wonder of wonders, it happend to be running a Freeware OS?

    Wonder of wonders.

    More likely, you read a +5 rated comment on Slashdot saying "I found one Hotmail server still running UNIX! I am so leet!" Wonder of wonders.

    At least a year ago, Microsoft issued an official response to the allegations that Hotmail servers ran UNIX operating systems, but I guess you can't be bothered to research the facts.

    Microsoft paid (a pretty penny to) for FreeBSD servers, kinda ironic.
    No, Microsoft bought Hotmail and all the servers it was currently running on. They bought it because they wanted to modernize it and turn it into a productive service. The OS the servers were running was one unfortunate aspect of the foetal Hotmail, which Microsoft quickly set about correcting.

    Microsoft didn't want the FreeBSD servers, it wanted Hotmail, which just happened to be running on UNIX boxes at the time because the original owner could not afford high-end hardware and high-end OS's. And Microsoft only paid money for the hardware itself and for the proprietary Hotmail software, they paid nothing for the hunderds of copies of FreeBSD.

    So much for "buying free software"!

    la la la... it must be nice to live in fantasy land... where nobody buys free software.
    Yes, freeware sales are doing very well. They look like a great investments. But since you're such an expert on successful businesses, maybe you can tell me what does the flat line at "zero" on this graph represent?

    Why do you have all those funny little "Vim" icons on your Bootleg Pokey pages?
    I don't know what you're talking about. CEASE YOUR UNERUDITE RANTINGS KNAVE OR YOU WILL THEREFORE BE VICTIM TO GUN!!!!!!!.

    Probably because you are one of the better trolls around. I like your style. Keep up the good work.
    This web site does NOT allow trolling, and you're informed of that fact every time you post a comment. The Editors and Trusted Users delete or hide upwards of 30 troll-posts per day, and they do it with great alacrity, so you can rest assured that anything you read on this site is NOT a troll, or else it would have been deleted.

    If you still doubt my true feelings towards Linux (especially towards Debian), a little bit of Google research and other fact-checking should make it absolutely clear what my opinion on Linux is. If you're still in doubt, e-mail me.

    I didn't catch the part about the "official OS" could you provide a link?
    Why of course, my friend! Search (or as you would say, "grep") for "official distribution" on that page.

    That IS your precious Slashdot, right?

    I know what you're going to say in your next reply, so I'm going to go ahead and quote your next post which you haven't made yet.

    But that's a quote from an Anonymous Coward! Why should I believe a so-called "fact" posted by some faceless, anonymous person on some message board!
    *ahem*


    --
    If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

    Cat got your tongue? (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Craig McPherson on Fri Sep 7th, 2001 at 09:33:48 PM PST
    Or did you finally give up in defeat, oh Anonymous Reader? I noticed you haven't replied to this after several days; probably because you're ashamed at having been so wrong in your previous posts.


    --
    If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

     
    Your wording makes you sound dumb (1.50 / 2) (#57)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 9th, 2001 at 12:20:33 AM PST
    <<That's an absolute lie. Microsoft BOUGHT Hotmail which was using UNIX OS's at the time, but quickly upgraded it to the enterprise-grade Windows NT over the past couple of years. You posted statistics for "ad.law3.hotmail.com", but that's NOT Hotmail. Hotmail is "www.hotmail.com", which is running Windows 2000 and IIS.>>

    Yet they continued to use them for quite sometimes until they were found out. Also Hotmail was not using Unix OSs. Examples of these would be Hewlett-Packards HP-UX or IBM's AIX. I believe it should have read Unix-like OSs. For your information the hotmail servers in question ran FreeBSD.

    Also if open-source, freely distrinutable, "communist code" is such crap to that founf in Windows was does MS used code from FreeBSD in its TCP/IP stack? You can read the BSD license to find that it's perfectly OK to use BSD licensed code however you want as long as you give credit to those who actually did the work.

    Don't even get me started on the fact that TCP/IP was a protocol developed for UNIX by researchers at the University of Claifornia at Berkeley and NOT a MS innovation.


     
    Is Windows 9X communist? (2.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 7th, 2001 at 02:11:18 PM PST
    An analogy to this, Open Unices, such as GnuLinux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and Minix, are to Commercial Unices, AIX(IBM's Unix), HP_UX(HP), Irix(SGI), A/UX(Apple), and Solaris(Sun), as the Windows 9X(Microsoft) are to Windows NT and it's successors(Microsoft). This is to say, that each has it's uses, and while GnuLinux and the BSD's are not intentionally degraded, there are commercial Unices.

    The Open Unices, (I hate to use the term 'Free' as it is ambiguous, and usually construed as 'Free as in beer', as opposed to 'Free as in speach') came about as the result of a need for Unix on the Intel x86 platform. This is due to the fact that not everyone can/could afford the expensive hardware (PDP-7/11, Vax, Honeywell, 360/370, et cetera) required to run commercial Unices.


     
    Been doing this for years (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 04:54:01 AM PST
    I replaced the 2khz Z80A processor on my Sinclair ZX80 with the 1khz version and it has been serving all my web pages for the past 20 years without needing to be rebooted. And I use the heatsink as a heater for my room....

    You guys are always on about Linux versus MS versus Apple. Use a real, proven operating system like CP/M...




    CP/M on the ZX80 (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by localroger on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 07:54:37 PM PST
    d00d cp/m on the Sinclair ROCKS. I didn't know what I was missing until I got the controller that let it read 90k single side Osborne disks, man it is such a relief not to have to tab around the screen any more like on the Osborne in Wordstar (though the screen does blink whenever I hit a key, seems with the CPU handling the video you can't get around that).

    Oh, and you know you can now get all the info you need online now to write and burn your own Atari 2600 VCS carts! Technology is just busting loose all over the place. Do you know, they have modems now that plug straight in the wall and don't use acoustic couplers, and they actually do 1200 baud? Imagine cutting your long distance bill 75%, or getting 4x as much warez. What a wunnerful world, I can hardly imagine what they will think of next.


    Don't use fancy acoustic couplers (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 02:45:23 AM PST
    I just whistle the binary down the phone line as any real hacker should....


    I used to do that, but... (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by localroger on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 04:29:37 PM PST
    ...I lost the damn whistle and they aren't giving any more of them out in Cap'n Crunch boxes any more. And don't tell me about doing it without the whistle, I never could carry a tune.


     
    if I'm ont mistaken (none / 0) (#15)
    by motherfuckin spork on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 06:30:46 AM PST
    a lot of processors in our computers are already underclocked by default and/or design, so we should be thanking Intel, AMD, ,IBM, and Motorola for helping keep the world a cleaner place.


    I am not who you think I am.

    Well yes, but not enough. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by dmg on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 07:49:40 AM PST
    I mean, take the 1GHz thunderbird from AMD. I've heard reports that it can go as fast as 1.1 GHz, which means AMD appear to be doing their bit for the good old environment. However, as with all corporations, it is a case of too little, too late.

    If you care to read my instructions once more, you will see that I recommend halving the clock speed. Not reducing it by a paltry 100Mhz in order to seem 'green'.



    time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
    -- MC Hawking

    well then, why not pull the chip altogether? (none / 0) (#17)
    by motherfuckin spork on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 07:53:48 AM PST
    that way, you won't be consuming any power at all? God forbid we actually use our hands to write a letter, or pick up the phone to call someone, or for that matter, actually go and visit with someone in order to partake of conversation.

    By simply rendering your computer "useless", you can convert it from a source of heat for your room to a nice end table or lamp stand.


    I am not who you think I am.

    You are missing the point. (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by dmg on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 08:21:47 AM PST
    It is pointless consumption of the Earth's resources which I am worried about. Of course we need to use our computers for useful things, like typing our resumes or reading an important email. What we don't need is an overclocked PC wasting electricity for no good reason.

    I am not a luddite, I am merely suggesting ways in which we could all do our bit to reduce global warming.

    Finally with regards to your sig. Who do you think I think you are. Unless you are a mind reader you are being a bit complacent there aren't you ?

    time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
    -- MC Hawking

    pointless consumption (none / 0) (#20)
    by motherfuckin spork on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 09:27:39 AM PST
    Ah, there's the magic phrase... sadly, it is a very subjective thing to determine what is needed and what is peripherial. I do indeed agree that overclocking can be wasteful, but underclocking can indeed be no better. Why not suggest that people dig out old 486 based computers for simple tasks like word processing and e-mail? I've got two old 486 based machines currently up and running, and they are fine, reliable machines that are still quite functional. Can't play Q3 on it, but I can write a letter just fine.

    As far as my sig goes, as it is something that I can shange quite easily, it is not something that I usually bother to discuss. It is not a matter of who I think you think I am. It is simply that people gain very little insight about me by reading on-line comments.


    I am not who you think I am.

     
    wouldn't it make more sense (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by alprazolam on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 12:36:32 PM PST
    to prepare all your 'computer word' offline (on paper), and then run the computer at full speed for the shortest time possible? running a 500 MHz processor for 30 minutes consumes less power than say a 100 MHz for 5 hours.


    Thats another great idea. (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by dmg on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 01:12:37 PM PST
    You see, thats what I like about adequacy, every comment is insightful, and there are no trolls!

    time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
    -- MC Hawking

     
    You mentioned God (none / 0) (#38)
    by Adam Rightmann on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 07:59:15 AM PST
    clearly, he gave us the Earth to use, but not to abuse, and if underclocking your PC uses less resources than running it at rated speed, we should all consider doing it.


    A. Rightmann

    underclocking using less power.... (none / 0) (#70)
    by DiaphramPlatypus on Sat Oct 27th, 2001 at 07:58:04 PM PST
    Actually, if you underclock your processor you still use the same amount of power resources, it is just not all allocated to the data and processing components of the computer. The power source pulls in X amps/volts for every Y seconds. It just sends it through a series or electrical routers and such to the motherboard, hard disks, flopy disks, etc.

    This is why they recommend you turn off your computer when pluging in new drives, as it is sending power through the cables even though there is nothing connected. There is no way for the power source to tell that there is actually a device on the end of the cable, it just knows that there is an on and an off state and that it needs to send power to all its output lines.


     
    Overclocking Illegal under DMCA!? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ruri on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 09:04:07 AM PST
    If it is, perhaps I should move to another country where I still am allowed to do whatever I want with goods I buy in a store for my personal use. I payed money for it, didn't I?

    If I overclock my processor, it is my responsibility to pay my higher electric bill and deal with the problem if I ruin my chip. I don't need the government telling me that I can't overclock my chip just because some greedy companies bribed off Congress to pass an unconstitutional law.

    If overclocking is illegal, then I guess underclocking is too, under the DMCA.


    neither of the illegal (none / 0) (#23)
    by alprazolam on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 12:37:33 PM PST
    because neither is an attempt to circumvent copyright protection. both however will void the warranty of the computer.


     
    Not illegal (none / 0) (#71)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 16th, 2001 at 10:49:36 PM PST
    Over and underclocking is not illegal. It mearly invalidates your waranty


     
    Great article! (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by twodot72 on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 10:43:07 AM PST
    I must tell you how happy it makes me to see someone finally challenging the MHz craze, thank you for the sound advice.

    However, you seem to have failed to realize the true potential of underclocking. What harms your CPU is heat, which is tied to power consumption, but also external factors. Let's start with the power consumption.

    Now, power consumption varies linearly with clock speed; halving the frequency will, approximately, halv power consumption. So far so good.

    The true savings, however, comes from lowering the supply voltage to the CPU. Power varies by the square of the supply voltage. Lowering the voltage will make the transistors slower. But, and this is the real kicker, if you are already underclocking, the transistors are operating faster than they need! On a good motherboard you can change the supply voltage in BIOS. By lowering the supply voltage, you'll achieve cubic reductions in power consumption! This is how expensive low-power CPUs already work, but you can do the same with your regular desktop CPU.

    Some additional power efficiency and lifespan improvement tips:
    • To save power; instead of using case fans, simply leave the case open.
    • To maximize lifespan, keep the temperature down; preferrably, put the motherboard in the freezer instead of in a computer chassis, or use liquid cooling.
    • RAM memory also consumes power, don't put in more than you'll need. If you're getting a new computer, remember that DDR memory consumes less power than regular SDRAM or Rambus.
    • Turn down the brightness of your screen, and buy a 15" or smaller. If you're a good typist, switch off the screen while working.
    • Buy a Pentium III, not a Pentium 4 or AMD Athlon, as they have more transistors and therefore consume more power.
    • Save your work less often. This will allow your harddrive to spin down while you are working, saving another 5 Watts.
    • If you don't like the freezer thing, at least turn down the heat in your apartment; this will keep your computer running cool.



     
    Utter BS. (3.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 06:37:17 AM PST
    First of all, I saw nothing on the DMCA page about overclocking. Yes, it is illegal for resellers to overclock a chip and falsely present it as a higher-speed unit, but it is totally legal for end-users to do so if they wish.

    Second, the part about 2 MHz increase removing 6 months of life? Absolute bullshit.
    1) you can't overclock any CPU *just* 2 MHz. That would be 0.2% on a 1 GHz CPU. Overclocking raises a chip's speed by at least 33 or 50 MHz at a time, often 100 or more. The most famous overclockable chip of all time-- the 300 MHz Celeron A-- shipped at 300 MHz and ran fine at 450.
    2) Do you understand overclocking at all? Here's WHY it works: most chips are capable of running faster than the speed at which they are shipped. When Intel wants to make a batch of, say 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 GHz, they make a bunch of chips and see how fast they run. If a chip runs fine at 1.3 GHz but produces errors at 1.4, it is sold as a 1.4. However, chipmakers are getting too good. If Intel wanted to make 50% 1.3s, 30% 1.4s, and 20% 1.5s (to keep supply low, and prices high, for the higher-end units; remember, because of how they're made, they all cost the same to make), but they wind up with 60% of their chips able to run at 1.5, they just take these perfectly good 1.5s and sell them as 1.3s or 1.4s. So, if Intel makes and successfully tests a 1.5 GHz chip, sells it as a 1.3, and the buyer runs it at 1.5, is he causing undue damage to the chip? In a word, no.

    Besides, you fail to recognize one little thing: REALITY. If chips are so delicate and overclocking is so damaging, why is it done so much, so often, and so successfully? Because chips are not that delicate and overclocking is not that damaging. You can argue all you want that the sun is not hot but, in fact, cold, but if you step outside and it's warm, then you're wrong.

    Also, very few computers have CPU multipliers in the BIOS. Most are set with jumpers on the motherboard. Also, you completely ignored the other half of the CPU speed equation. Why do they call it a multiplier? Because you're multiplying your bus speed! Have you dropped your Dell from a 100 MHz FSB to 66, or 60, or 50, or 33?

    If you really want to save the world then sell your CRT and buy a flat panel display. I traded a 20" CRT (which would make my room 10-15 degrees warmer in a few hours) for an 18.1" flat panel and I can leave on all day and add nearly nothing to the room's temp. Just don't let that CRT go into a landfill-- they're half lead by weight.


    Are you sure ? (4.00 / 4) (#37)
    by dmg on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 06:58:52 AM PST
    If a chip runs fine at 1.3 GHz but produces errors at 1.4, it is sold as a 1.4.

    Are you sure about this ? It would certainly explain a lot of the problems a friend of mine has with her 1.4GHz machine.

    but they wind up with 60% of their chips able to run at 1.5, they just take these perfectly good 1.5s and sell them as 1.3s or 1.4s.

    No, they dont do this. That would be stupid. What they do when the yields go up is reduce the price of the faster chip. You clearly understand nothing about the CPU market.

    As for overclocking being 'safe' - well you cannot just go into the bios and up the clock speed. You have to remove the pathetic excuse for thermal compound that AMD supply, replace it with some real stuff, make sure you have adequate cooling, and even then you are still taking the chance that the chip you have is one of those that will actually run faster.

    Believe it or not, Intel and AMD give their processors a speed rating to HELP the consumer, not to rip them off.

    Let me guess. You are a slashdot reader, aren't you ? I can spot your type a mile off - hiding behind the cloak of anonymity, the ill-informed technical "knowledge", the insulting language of a 14-year old, the self-righteous whining, coupled with an astonishing ignorance of the facts. Perhaps you should stay away from the Internet's most controversial site if you cannot handle controversy in a mature fashion. Leave adequacy to the grown-ups, and run along to your slashdot playpen, junior.

    time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
    -- MC Hawking

     
    Do YOU understand overclocking? (4.00 / 2) (#40)
    by twodot72 on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 10:00:11 AM PST
    Do you understand overclocking at all? Here's WHY it works: most chips are capable of running faster than the speed at which they are shipped.
    There are well known dangers associated with overclocking. How harmful it is varies from chip to chip, but a rule of thumb is that a 10 degree (centigrade) temperature increase of the chip surface will halve the lifetime of your cpu.

    Now, my own Intel Celeron CPU gets 10 degrees hotter if I overclock from its original 500, to 550 MHz (given the same cooling). Expected lifetime of a regular desktop CPU is no more than 15 years. Therefore, those 50MHz will cost me about 7.5 years of usage. If the decrease in lifetime was linear with frequency, 2MHz would mean 3.6 months in my case. Unfortunately, it is not that simple; decrease in lifetime is actually exponentially related to frequency increase. Still, the author's approximation is not that bad, and could actually be true for some chips.

    Furthermore, your whole rant has no bearing on the validity of the article. Even if a processor is able to run faster, it will still consume more power, and have a shorter lifetime (unless you improve cooling) than the same chip running at a lower speed. If you underclock, the chip should work for longer than the nominal 15 years.

    Oh, and finally, all good motherboards have all important settings in BIOS, not on jumpers; and they allow you to change bus settings in 1 MHz increments.


     
    j00 4r3 14m3 (none / 0) (#53)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 09:39:43 AM PST
    Actually, yes you can OC a processor by 2Mhz. You would just have to start with an 8Mhz processor.




     
    Good Humor, Man! (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 09:55:22 AM PST
    Great article! I laughed, I cried, I 'll use parts of it in technical conversations. It's too bad that there are so many people here that can't take a joke.

    Looking forward to other great works. Keep 'em coming.


    Careful what you say here. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 11:27:46 AM PST
    You laughed ? You cried ?

    All because of a technical article ? I hope you are not trolling, or worse still, accusing the author of trolling ? The adequacy editors will delete your post if you are trolling.


    Trolling? Moi? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 12:29:02 PM PST
    I'm stunned! I'm shocked! That anyone here would ever troll, much less make such a claim about anothers post. For shame! This is, after all, a forum for the serious viewpoint.


     
    god knows I'm no techie (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by jsm on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 11:25:01 AM PST
    But it's always struck me that the biggest waste of electricity in a computer is that silly little fan. Fans are useful in mechanical equipment, because the heat generated internally by friction can build up and warp the metal due to uneven expansion. But a computer is, by definition, an electronic device. It has no moving parts, therefore there is no friction, therefore it generates no heat. In any case, fans cool you down by the evaporation of sweat and since microchips don't sweat, it wouldn't do any good as a cooling device anyway. Is there any way in which one can remove the fan from a computer? It also makes an annoying noise.

    ... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors
    ... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

    you could always just buy a Mac (none / 0) (#43)
    by motherfuckin spork on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 12:03:49 PM PST
    they've no fans inside them to make that annoying little hum/buzz.


    I am not who you think I am.

     
    I am a techie... (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by iat on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 01:32:32 PM PST
    But a computer is, by definition, an electronic device. It has no moving parts

    Not true, otherwise how would electricity pass around the circuit? Everyone knows that electricity is due to the flow of electrons, but what they don't teach you in A-level physics is that the metal tracks which connect transistors on the chip also move.

    It's due to the law of conservation of momentum - because the negatively charged electrons move against the direction of electric fields in the chip, the positively charged metal ions have to move in the opposite direction (or else your humble PC would be a perpetual motion machine).

    Over time, all the interconnecting metal tracks will start trying to escape from the processor chip by leaking out into the silicon, as this picture shows. So, although most people don't realise it, their PC is actually full of moving metal parts.


    Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

    That's worrying (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by bc on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 02:31:54 PM PST
    How fast do these metal pieces move at? Can they escape? Is it dangerous?

    What happens if I cut a hole in a chip by mistake? Do you get leaky chips? It is all very complicated.


    ♥, bc.

    Enlightenment (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by iat on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 02:55:40 PM PST
    How fast do these metal pieces move at? Can they escape? Is it dangerous?

    Normally, they move very slowly. Since electrons move at only a few centimtres per minute and are considerably lighter than metal ions, the law of conservation of momentum implies that the metal moves even more slowly.

    The real danger is that the metal is contained within the chip's casing, which starts to become pressurised as the amount of escaping metal increases. Eventually, the chip becomes so pressurised that it may explode with enough force to destroy a whole block of flats!.

    What happens if I cut a hole in a chip by mistake? Do you get leaky chips? It is all very complicated.

    This is actually the best way to eliminate the risk of potentially fatal CPU explosions. By letting excess metal inside the chip gently drain away through carefully drilled holes in its casing, there is no danger of the chip becoming over-pressure and exploding. A standard Black and Decker hammer action drill should be sufficient for drilling your chip.


    Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

    Informative (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by bc on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 03:19:35 PM PST
    I had no idea my computer was a POTENTIAL DEATH TRAP!

    I am extremely worried about this, and intend to write to my member of parliament and enact you helpful, informative advice immediately. Thank you.


    ♥, bc.

    Glad I don't drive a lexus (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by dmg on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 04:32:04 PM PST
    Sounds like Toyota have a big problem there...

    time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
    -- MC Hawking

     
    Friction (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by twodot72 on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 01:54:38 PM PST
    (Warning, lame EE joke attempt)

    I know you're a bright lad, so you should be aware of the fact that electronic devices in fact do have moving parts. They're called electrons, and they bounce around inside the metal traces of the chip. All of this movement generates heat inside the chip; that's why chip designers are so concerned about the fan in and fan out of all their billions of tiny gates.


    Please apologise... (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by iat on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 02:03:37 PM PST
    For that lame EE joke:

    All of this movement generates heat inside the chip; that's why chip designers are so concerned about the fan in and fan out

    You really should be ashamed of yourself for that :)


    Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

    I do apologize... (none / 0) (#47)
    by twodot72 on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 02:25:10 PM PST
    ...but with a z. I must learn to resist lame geek jokes :)


     
    Computers do produce heat..... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed May 15th, 2002 at 07:34:51 AM PST
    If you've ever seen an electric heater/stove/oven you should know that an electric current will produce heat. Its to do with the metal resisting the electricity going through it. Just like to say your wrong, computers make heat without the fan... I hope your being sarcastic, the fan is only there because it needs to be (duh).


     
    only skimmed this article (1.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 9th, 2001 at 12:33:11 AM PST
    I won't even give this article a second read. After reading DMG's article "Build Your Dream PC" (or something to that affect I feel that DMG simply CLAIMS to know anything technical about PCs.

    Seems more to me that dmg simply reads some articles or overhears something said and then writes about it in a vain attempt at being smart.

    Also for those who posted that I should use a real OS like Windows please answer these questions:

    Why is it that MS has NEVER been able to successfully break into the University (UNIX) market?

    Why is it that Windows, which MS has claimed is more stble that ANY other OS, is consitantly SO EASY to hack?

    Why is it that 80% of the web servers run UNIX and a majority of the remaning servers run Apache, Linux, FreeBSD or NetBSD? Why not run Windows?

    Why is that whenever MS comes out with a NEW INNOVATIVE feature nobody seems to remember the other companies that have been doing it for the last 5-10 years?


    Revenge of the nerds. (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Craig McPherson on Sun Sep 9th, 2001 at 01:43:48 AM PST
    Thank you for sharing your wisdom with us, oh Geek God! Your supreme technical wisdom is as rare and precious as gold to those of us who actually shower. We're not worthy to bask in the musky odor of your long-haired presence, Oh Great UNIX Guru!

    "Why is it that MS has NEVER been able to successfully break into the University (UNIX) market?"

    You are SO right. Of the 7 major Universities that were primarily using UNIX systems in 1995, 5 of them are still primarily UNIX shops today! Wow, that's impressive! I wonder what's going on with the ~5000 major Universities that HAVE migrated to Enterprise-grade Microsoft technologies.

    C'mon, there are Universities still using NETWARE for Pete's sake -- I suppose you're going to tell me that makes Netware a decent OS too?

    Also, might I remind you that Universities are charnel houses of Communism, pot-smoking, and pre-marital sex? Saying "Universities use UNIX" is as much a ringing endorsement as saying "Paedophiles prefer Coca-Cola."

    "Why is it that Windows, which MS has claimed is more stble that ANY other OS, is consitantly SO EASY to hack?"

    Wait a second -- when did stability and security become the same issue? I'll just address security at the moment.

    More Windows machines get hacked for two reasons:

    1. More Windows machines exist.
    2. Most hackers and other high-tech criminals use UNIX OS's out of terminal jealousy towards Microsoft and will willfully engage in any criminal act to make Microsoft look bad.

    Microsoft products actually have one of the best track records when it comes to security. Of course, any system is only as secure as its administrator. On server systems, any system maintained by a good administrator will be secure, and one that isn't won't. On home systems, however, Microsoft Windows definitely wins out in terms of security: Linux includes hundreds of "services" that allows hackers to enter the computer over the Internet, while (the home versions of) Windows includes no "services," thus it's 100% impossible for an attacker to get into the machine over the Internet.

    "Why is it that 80% of the web servers run UNIX and a majority of the remaning servers run Apache, Linux, FreeBSD or NetBSD? Why not run Windows?"

    You're making up statistics. While it's true that 45% of web servers run a Microsoft OS and 50% of web servers run a UNIX OS (which INCLUDES Linux and all of the BSDs), that's only because the statistics include web servers in college dorm rooms that serve nothing but pornography and MP3s to other systems in the dorm. If you exclude those, Windows has a slight advantage.

    And Apache is NOT an operating system, it's an HTTP program. Moron.

    "Why is that whenever MS comes out with a NEW INNOVATIVE feature nobody seems to remember the other companies that have been doing it for the last 5-10 years?"

    Can you give ONE real example of this, or are you just FUDing?


    --
    If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

    here's your example (1.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 9th, 2001 at 02:43:30 AM PST
    Active Directory. It's so new an innovative. Never been attempted before. Have you ever seen an NDS tree?

    And for your information the statistic about web servers comes from the most recent MSCE Certification literature.


    one more thing (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 9th, 2001 at 02:50:32 AM PST
    It can also be found in many Network+ Certification literatures.


     
    Revenge of the Nerds II (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Craig McPherson on Sun Sep 9th, 2001 at 02:56:22 AM PST
    More FUD. Did Microsoft ever say that Active Directory was innovative? No. Is it innovative? Not really. Is it cool? Yes! Is it an improvement over NT4's Directory Services? Yes! I don't see why Active Directory should be disparaged just because Novell implemented a primitive, watered-down version of the concept years before.

    Your precious Linux (or BSD, you folks all are identical to me) is certainly nothing innovative. It's just yet another reimplementation of 1969 technology.

    "the statistic about web servers comes from the most recent MSCE Certification literature."

    And what's a "Leet Linux Guru God Hacker Dood" doing reading MCSE literature? If you're not lying (which you are), why don't you tell us what literature you're talking about. Oh, wait, you made it up.

    And if UNIX is so great, why is nobody using it?


    --
    If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

    why? (1.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 9th, 2001 at 11:36:15 AM PST
    Why was Linux or Unix not included in the poll? I have your answer. Because they "computer specialist" at adequacy.org are the real dumbass teenage boys who have nothing better to do then but CRAP on the net. It amazes me that adequacy.org once sported a POWERED BY SLACKWARE button at the bottom of every page.


     
    your grammar SUX! (1.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 9th, 2001 at 08:43:02 PM PST
    Firs off it's DUDE not DOOD
    Also LEET means let

    <<More FUD. Did Microsoft ever say that Active Directory was innovative? No. Is it innovative? Not really. Is it cool? Yes! Is it an improvement over NT4's Directory Services? Yes! I don't see why Active Directory should be disparaged just because Novell implemented a primitive, watered-down version of the concept years before.>>

    You could say that about the first whell too as you sit there looking at your Michellin tire.

    <<And what's a "Leet Linux Guru God Hacker Dood" doing reading MCSE literature? If you're not lying (which you are), why don't you tell us what literature you're talking about. Oh, wait, you made it up.>>

    Here's the literature you should take a look at:

    All of them published by Course Technology ->

    Network+ Guide to Networks
    MSCE Guide to Microsoft Windows 2000 Server

    Also you must be the same person that proclaimed that everyone that uses Linux is a teenage boy sitting around in their parent's garage. For your information I am 45! The literature in question belongs to my SON!

    You now have my permission to proclaim to the world that you are an idiotic moron who makes uniformed, unitelligent, and otherwise STUPID ASS assumptions and then proceeds to shoot off his mouth.

    You also have my permission to put a shotgun in your mouth a blow your brains out the back of your head.


    Revenge of the Nerds III (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Craig McPherson on Sun Sep 9th, 2001 at 11:06:26 PM PST
    Wow, the Linux kiddies are really out in force tonight.

    "Firs off it's DUDE not DOOD Also LEET means let"

    I was parodying the way you propellerheads speak. You call yourselves "leet doodz" and use words like "sux."

    "You could say that about the first whell too as you sit there looking at your Michellin tire."

    Could you please rephrase that in the form of a properly-formed English sentence? I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

    "All of them published by Course Technology"

    Course Technology is NOT Microsoft.

    And Network+ is not a Microsoft certification, it's CompTIA.

    "Also you must be the same person that proclaimed that everyone that uses Linux is a teenage boy sitting around in their parent's garage."

    I said NO SUCH THING, and I will not tolerate such lies and slander. I said that all Linux users are teenage boys sitting around in their parents' BASEMENT, not garage.

    Now, do you have anything INTELLIGENT to say?

    No, I thought not.


    --
    If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

    corrections to your stupidity (1.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 10th, 2001 at 07:11:06 AM PST
    If you new ANYTHING all of CompTIA's certifications are nationally recognized based on standards set by multiple organizations, including MICROSOFT. Maybe it would make your brainwashed ass feel better if it were called the Microsoft Network+ Certification.


    You're WRONG and you're a GROTESQUELY UGLY FREAK! (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Craig McPherson on Mon Sep 10th, 2001 at 07:31:50 AM PST
    Okay. I'm still waiting for you to prove how a STUDY GUIDE written by a THIRD PARTY for an OBSCURE CERTIFICATION is entitled to have the FACTS THEREIN regarded as ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

    I'm sure there's some study guide somewhere on the planet that says George Washington was a female Chinese baker who married Columbus and invented Opium, but that doesn't make it true. I prefer to get MY statistics from a reliable source: a company whose gross revenue is higher than that of most countries and would therefore have no reason to lie.


    --
    If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

    sure (1.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 10th, 2001 at 09:41:19 AM PST
    I do that when you get your head outta your ass! I am so tired of you adequacy.org morons that wouldn't even except FACT if it came from Bill Gates mouth.


     
    Thank you! (none / 0) (#72)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 06:26:50 PM PST
    I am so glad somebody had the gumpsion to say this! You finally realized that having your computer at half speed will make it last twice as long! Of course, at that time it will be four times as old as it would have been at normal speed, and probably will run the new Microsoft (which of course is the only program maker in the world) products. And it helps the environment! Tell those damn hippies to put that in their pipe and smoke it!


     
    Another Idea (none / 0) (#74)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed May 15th, 2002 at 07:44:50 AM PST
    I think if you dont use your computer at all it would be better for the environment... Or if you planted flowers in the case or grew algae.... You could even use the heat produced to look after small baby sparrows left alone by their parents..


     

    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.