Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   Why running Google Chrome is killing your laptop   (forbes.com) divider line 31
    More: Interesting, Google, lithium-ion battery, browser, Microsoft Windows, clock ticks, Google Chrome  
•       •       •

6124 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 Jul 2014 at 12:45 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



31 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-07-15 09:29:42 AM  
A review of Mavericks said it tried to improve battery life by changing scheduling and ticks and such. Does chrome suck Apple batteries too?
 
2014-07-15 09:42:18 AM  
...battery.

/finished that for ya, subster
 
2014-07-15 09:43:33 AM  
as a recent chrome convert i haven't noticed that it's draining my batteries any worse.  i'll tell you this; it's a hell of a lot more stable a reliable than firefox.
 
2014-07-15 09:43:57 AM  

xanadian: ...battery.

/finished that for ya, subster


Subby was just trying to build some antici
 
2014-07-15 09:45:35 AM  
So basically, Windows sucks...
 
2014-07-15 09:49:42 AM  

IgG4: So basically, Windows sucks...


That's the conclusion I reached.
 
2014-07-15 09:58:10 AM  

ZAZ: Does chrome suck Apple batteries too?


The article said not...
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-07-15 10:02:58 AM  
labman

So it does. I searched for "Apple" and didn't find it. Should have searched for "Mac".
 
2014-07-15 10:19:29 AM  
what's a laptop ?
 
2014-07-15 10:37:48 AM  
That, and funnelling your search results right into Google's master brain.....
 
2014-07-15 10:37:48 AM  

BizarreMan: Subby was just trying to build some antici


Say it SAy iT! Say iT!
 
2014-07-15 10:39:08 AM  

ZAZ: A review of Mavericks said it tried to improve battery life by changing scheduling and ticks and such. Does chrome suck Apple batteries too?


not according to that article
 
2014-07-15 12:47:42 PM  
Chrome on my iPad seems to work just fine.
 
2014-07-15 01:01:47 PM  

mcreadyblue: Chrome on my iPad seems to work just fine.


I quit using it. The memory bug in Chrome (where it will refresh tabs when you go back to them) just got to be horribly annoying. It wouldn't fully load pages if the tab wasn't active either... it just annoyed me to where it was easier to go back to Safari.
 
2014-07-15 01:17:26 PM  

BizarreMan: Subby was just trying to build some antici


img.fark.net
 
2014-07-15 01:46:24 PM  
This is interesting to me.  My laptop usually just sits on my desk plugged in, but it's a cheap Acer which I never should have been such a cheap bastard to buy such a thing.

I prefer Chrome to Firefox, but I've learned that if I play an even halfway resource intensive flash game on it, I risk having the whole thing overheat and suddenly just shut itself down completely.  It's funny when I'm knee deep in aliens that I'm frantically trying to kill and then suddenly there's this weird sound and the screen goes blank and I sit there stunned for a split-second wondering what happened and then it's like GODDAMMIT!

So I use Chrome for things like Fark and e-mail or even watching movies, but if I want to play a game I'll go with Firefox.
 
2014-07-15 01:46:46 PM  

The Crepes of Wrath: BizarreMan: Subby was just trying to build some antici

[img.fark.net image 500x252]


Thank you, I needed that.

37.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-07-15 01:58:24 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-07-15 02:17:13 PM  
As a developer, that article didn't make a lot of sense.

If you need 1ms resolution, you use the multimedia timers. That's what they are there for. I have never seen a mechanism for changing the "ticks" that are 15.xxms - and I suspect that author may have been confused. The timer doesn't "wake" the processor every time while you are using it.

Maybe this is about how the system sees events that happen when it is sleeping, but that is a different issue. I'm not sure why anything in Chrome should be looking at events while the system is in sleep mode, but power consumption still shouldn't  be that bad.
 
2014-07-15 04:23:40 PM  
LesserEvil, and others to whom this didn't make sense:

Try this link  http://randomascii.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/windows-timer-resolution- m egawatts-wasted/

Last I knew all WebKit/Chromium/Blink browsers that run in Windows have suffered from this problem.

There are dozens of other programs that do the same thing.  While it's not technically a Windows problem, it theoretically could be resolved in Windows.  It may have been resolved back in one of the Win 7 fixes or in Win 8, though.
 
2014-07-15 04:28:29 PM  
So this is more of a Windows problem then a Chrome problem. Got it. My Chromebook has fantastic battery life, so at first this didn't make sense to me.
 
2014-07-15 04:51:46 PM  

IgG4: So basically, Windows sucks...


If you are a retard.
 
2014-07-15 04:52:38 PM  

doublesecretprobation: as a recent chrome convert i haven't noticed that it's draining my batteries any worse.  i'll tell you this; it's a hell of a lot more stable a reliable than firefox.


Sort of wondering why people would convert TOChrome these days given how impossible it is to switch off Chrome Notifications especially if you ever full-screen a youtube video. Guess you haven't dealt with that creepiness/poor coding yet.
 
2014-07-15 05:11:16 PM  

LesserEvil: As a developer, that article didn't make a lot of sense.

If you need 1ms resolution, you use the multimedia timers. That's what they are there for. I have never seen a mechanism for changing the "ticks" that are 15.xxms - and I suspect that author may have been confused. The timer doesn't "wake" the processor every time while you are using it.

Maybe this is about how the system sees events that happen when it is sleeping, but that is a different issue. I'm not sure why anything in Chrome should be looking at events while the system is in sleep mode, but power consumption still shouldn't  be that bad.


The article is talking about the period of the fundamental system clock (aka the scheduling period), which greatly impacts how different threads can share a processor. Suppose you have two equal-priority processes sharing a processor, and a scheduling quantum of 10ms. Call these processes A and B, and suppose process A has just been scheduled onto the processor. With a quantum of 10ms, process A will execute for that full 10ms unless it suspends itself voluntarily, terminates, or is interrupted by a higher priority process. Suppose that a message or task arrives for process B immediately after A starts executing. Then, process B will have to wait for 10ms before it can process that message.

That may or may not be acceptable, depending on what A and B are doing. In particular, if B has to respond to the event quicker than 10ms, then it won't be able to make that guarantee with a scheduling quantum of 10ms.  So the scheduling quantum fundamentally trades off between system responsiveness and processor usage. If the quantum was much lower, like 1ms, then A and B would alternate execution every 1ms instead of every 10ms. This incurs 10 times the system overhead for scheduling calls and context switches.

When you use the multimedia timers in Windows it modifies the scheduling quantum to be lower than normal, so those multimedia tasks can be more responsive. (Suppose, for example, you have a hardware sound buffer that can only hold 2ms of data. A 1ms scheduling tick would be completely reasonable in this instance.)

So, Chrome apparently sets the scheduling frequency to be very low even when it doesn't really need to, is the whole crux of this article. I'm not totally convinced this is a problem, and it really depends on a lot of factors. Does Chrome *actually* wake up every millisecond and check for events? If not, and if Windows implements a tickless scheduler, the actual power consumption could be no worse than normal. However, if your processor takes a long time to wake up or go to sleep, setting a very low system scheduling rate could prevent your processor from ever going to sleep, just because the OS doesn't want to risk not being able to wake up your process in time.

So I dunno. Maybe you already know all this though, I'm pretty tired, and I couldn't tell from your post.
 
2014-07-15 05:19:29 PM  

Intrepid00: IgG4: So basically, Windows sucks...

If you are a retard.


A quick Google Search seems to indicate that Windows didn't get a tickless scheduler until Windows 8. Tickless schedulers have been thought about for a long time, and in particular have been implemented in various OSes since at least the late 1990's, so if the above factiod is true, then Windows is indeed late to the party on this one.
 
2014-07-15 05:53:50 PM  

Fubini: Intrepid00: IgG4: So basically, Windows sucks...

If you are a retard.

A quick Google Search seems to indicate that Windows didn't get a tickless scheduler until Windows 8. Tickless schedulers have been thought about for a long time, and in particular have been implemented in various OSes since at least the late 1990's, so if the above factiod is true, then Windows is indeed late to the party on this one.


Sloppy developers are also needlessly increasing the resolution and not ending timers when no longer needed. MS itself is guilty as hell of this.

Also tickless was added in 2007ish for Linux I think. According to Red Hats power guide it arrived on RH 6 which was released 2010-11-09. There really wasn't much need for it in the late 90s as processors simply didn't support the needed states. Microsoft might be late but not that late.

Enabling a hypervisor will kill all this too.
 
2014-07-15 08:41:55 PM  

IgG4: So basically, Windows sucks...


Oh, super hard. BTW, what build of ubuntu do you use?
 
2014-07-16 12:07:10 AM  

doublesecretprobation: as a recent chrome convert i haven't noticed that it's draining my batteries any worse.  i'll tell you this; it's a hell of a lot more stable a reliable than firefox.


I've used FF for about ten years now and have never had a non-Flash related problem.

I believe that people who make comments such as yours (and it happens with every Firefox thread here) don't know how to use a computer.

// Pale Moon user for the last two years.
 
2014-07-16 08:44:05 AM  
 
2014-07-16 10:57:32 AM  
Good for Chrome.  About time someone fought back.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/07/allergic_to_your_ipad _r eport_says_nickel_in_electronics_may_cause_rash.html


uttertosh: BTW, what build of ubuntu do you use?


14.04, Trusty Tahr.

/waiting for Uppity Unicorn
 
2014-07-16 04:45:53 PM  
MBooda:
uttertosh: BTW, what build of ubuntu do you use?

14.04, Trusty Tahr.

/waiting for Uppity Unicorn


well, thanks for clearing that up. I's just easier to tell why 'windows sucks 'from another perspectuve. if you know which build of ubuntu they currently wank over. ;-P
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report