Re: Laptop producing more heat in Linux
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 14:45, Klistvud <quotations@aliceadsl.fr> wrote:
> Yes, there is. When designing hardware, vendors work hand in hand with
> Microsoft to optimize their hardware for Windows. Drivers have to be
> certified by Microsoft for the hardware to be allowed to run Windows at all
> (at least this was the case when I last used Windows). ACPI is particularly
> known for being optimized by many vendors to be Windows-compatible *at the
> expense* of following standards. Corners are cut in order to make Windows
> look better. In the name of that, industry standards, transparence and
> compatibility get (forgive the pun) thrown out the windows.
>
While your statement of ACPI eschewing standards is correct, it is not
in order to make Windows look better. It is to make computers running
Windows perform better. And an optimisation that improves a machine's
performance for 99% of the users while sacrificing the 1% who modify
their machines makes sense. It does not need to be worded in an
accusatory tone. I expect Mazda to flow their intake ports for optimal
performance, gas mileage, and emissions on new vehicles, not sacrifice
those parameters to improve performance for the 1% of users who add a
K&N air filter and Splitfire sparkplugs.
> As opposed to that, free software developers are intentionally *prevented*
> from knowing the nitty-gritty of -- with the exception of a handful of
> vendors -- almost any hardware produced nowadays.
>
Ah, _this_ is the problem! I would love to know which vendors to avoid
in this sense. From what I understand, it might be more of a
model-by-model problem than a manufacturer-by-manufacturer problem.
> Free Software Foundation has just started an "open-hardware" certification
> program. Let's hope it succeeds; in the meantime, the best we users can do
> is follow the Linux Hardware Compatibility List whenever we go shopping for
> new hardware.
>
Thanks, I will be googling that!
--
Dotan Cohen
http://gibberish.co.il
http://what-is-what.com
Reply to: