News Windows 11's new energy saver mode in Insider builds limits background activities to increase battery life

[Admin]

Microsoft is actively testing a new power-saving technique that kills off uncontrolled background applications that are consuming too much power.

Windows 11's new energy saver mode in Insider builds limits background activities to increase battery life : Read more

 

[kyzarvs]

They can come in any form, including Windows updates, browser tabs, uninterrupted background video playback, backup programs, and more.

The irony of reading that whilst the screen is crowded by 3 auto-playing ad videos...

 

[Amdlova]

I'am downgrading the 13500T for the 13100T to save some power. That's new function will become handy. Trying to shave all power and heat possible. Energy in my country become high expensively in summer.

 

[1_rick]

"In modern Android and iOS devices, background apps are constantly kept in check to ensure that processes are not unnecessarily draining battery life."

Great. Now we get to deal with the downsides of that, too. Nothing like having your fitness tracker get shut off after 30 seconds of running in the background, which I had a phone do. Samsung phones are well known for aggressively killing apps, too, and they keep changing the UI for the things you want to disable the power saving on.

 

[BillyBuerger]

I'am downgrading the 13500T for the 13100T to save some power. That's new function will become handy. Trying to shave all power and heat possible. Energy in my country become high expensively in summer.

Do you see any real difference in power between those two CPUs? While the T series CPUs sound like a good thing, I thought they really didn't change anything on the low/idle power usage. Just means they're limited on the max power they can use. Which can end up using more power to do the same task if it takes 2x as long as a more powerful CPU which can get to idle sooner.

 

[TJ Hooker]

I'am downgrading the 13500T for the 13100T to save some power. That's new function will become handy. Trying to shave all power and heat possible. Energy in my country become high expensively in summer.

I really doubt you'd ever notice a difference in your electricity bills between those two processors, even with very high rates. Plus, if you really want a lower power limit why not just set one in the BIOS rather than getting a new (weaker) CPU?

Edit: Or even just set the turbo limits to respect Intel's recommendations, if you happen to have a board that defaults to unlimited turbo power and/or duration (as some do in order to make their product appear more performant).

 

[DavidC1]

I'am downgrading the 13500T for the 13100T to save some power. That's new function will become handy. Trying to shave all power and heat possible. Energy in my country become high expensively in summer.

If you really wanted to save power, you'd get a laptop.

Also another thing is just use your computer less.

Energy saving and using more power frugal devices kinda work counter to each other. Often, you don't end up saving much if at all because your mind kicks in.

The New York Times Square ball used incandescents and were on only 1 night out of the year. They switched to LEDs which are maybe 7-8x less energy but now have it on for 365 days.

365/7 = 52x more energy

So is your goal to save real energy or a token gesture like 99% of people? Try living on less than 1,000 watt a day. Once you reach that goal you'll really know how to save energy.

 

[kyzarvs]

If you really wanted to save power, you'd get a laptop.

Also another thing is just use your computer less.

Energy saving and using more power frugal devices kinda work counter to each other. Often, you don't end up saving much if at all because your mind kicks in.

The New York Times Square ball used incandescents and were on only 1 night out of the year. They switched to LEDs which are maybe 7-8x less energy but now have it on for 365 days.

365/7 = 52x more energy

So is your goal to save real energy or a token gesture like 99% of people? Try living on less than 1,000 watt a day. Once you reach that goal you'll really know how to save energy.

1000w isn't a unit of capacity.

Do you mean 1 kw/hr? If so, then I'm not sure that's possible. I would say my fridge would consume a significant portion of that for example, then my shower and then I'm left sitting in the dark. IF you mean draw no more than 1000w at a time, well that is much easier if you are at 240v than 110.

 

[ezst036]

They can come in any form, including Windows updates, browser tabs, uninterrupted background video playback, backup programs, and more.

The irony of reading that whilst the screen is crowded by 3 auto-playing ad videos...

Microsoft has competing interests here.

Ads are increasingly video-based. Yet, through Co-Pilot they are making the Windows OS more and more an adware OS.

If Microsoft wants to save power, how about this? Just stop transforming the OS into foundational adware?

But they need the money. You see who wins and it isn't the energy savings.

 

[TJ Hooker]

IF you mean draw no more than 1000w at a time, well that is much easier if you are at 240v than 110.

Why would 240v make that easier?

Edit: I guess some of your appliances/devices might get a modest efficiency boost from 240v, but I can't imagine that being the make or break factor.

 

[kaalus]

1000w isn't a unit of capacity.

Do you mean 1 kw/hr?

I don't understand why people are so confused about power and energy units. Here, one baffled person is trying to correct another.

1kw/hr? First of all, that would be 1kW/h. But that unit does not make sense - what was really meant was 1kWh. Something completely different, like 1 mile is different from 1 mph.

 

[Amdlova]

I will make some test

 

[kyzarvs]

I don't understand why people are so confused about power and energy units. Here, one baffled person is trying to correct another.

1kw/hr? First of all, that would be 1kW/h. But that unit does not make sense - what was really meant was 1kWh. Something completely different, like 1 mile is different from 1 mph.

1kw/h (or hr) is a capacity. It's 1000w usage for one hour, you could divide that up into 500w for 2 hours or whatever. Which is a very different total amount to a cap of 1000w total peak usage giving a maximum of 24kw/h - hence why I was asking the question. I wasn't trying to correct, I was asking what was intended - if you want to lord it over someone, that's fine by me - wasn't my objective.

 

[DavidC1]

Do you mean 1 kw/hr? If so, then I'm not sure that's possible. I would say my fridge would consume a significant portion of that for example, then my shower and then I'm left sitting in the dark. IF you mean draw no more than 1000w at a time, well that is much easier if you are at 240v than 110.

Sure you can.

You'd cut the shower to once every few days lasting no more than 5 mins including the time took to soap yourself and dress/undress and since the original talk was about buying a new computer chip to save a tiny amount of power, a smaller+chest freezer would slash that right down.

It's like scifi movies where countries fight over energy. You are willing to kill yourselves but not save energy in a hypothetical future where Fusion and other advanced sources exist? Talk about priorities.

 

[TJ Hooker]

1kw/h (or hr) is a capacity. It's 1000w usage for one hour, you could divide that up into 500w for 2 hours or whatever.

I'm afraid you're still mixing up your units. What you describe is a kilowatt-hour (kWh), not kilowatt per hour (kW/h).

"The notation "kW/h" for the kilowatt-hour is incorrect, as it denotes kilowatt per hour."

Kilowatt-hour - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

kilowatt is a unit of power, which is energy per unit time. Multiplying power by time gets you back to energy. E.g. drawing 2 kilowatts for 3 hours is equal to 6 kWh (or 21.6 megajoules) worth of energy.

Power per unit time (i.e. kW/h) would be energy per time^2. Which is not a useful or applicable unit/metric in this context, or any other context that I've seen.

 

[kaalus]

1kw/h (or hr) is a capacity. It's 1000w usage for one hour, you could divide that up into 500w for 2 hours or whatever. Which is a very different total amount to a cap of 1000w total peak usage giving a maximum of 24kw/h - hence why I was asking the question. I wasn't trying to correct, I was asking what was intended - if you want to lord it over someone, that's fine by me - wasn't my objective.

1000W for one hour is 1000Wh, not 1000W/h.

"Watt per hour" does not make sense in any real world usage. Just like "1 mph per hour" does not make any sense.