XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-10, alt.comp.os.windows-11   
   From: nospam@needed.invalid   
      
   On Tue, 9/2/2025 8:25 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:   
   > On 2025/9/3 0:16:4, Paul wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 9/2/2025 3:55 PM, John B. Smith wrote:   
   >   
   > []   
   >   
   >>> Can you tell me a safe way to stop those processes in Taskmaster that   
   >>> aren't needed without crashing the machine?   
   >>>   
   > Ah, a plaintive question which has been around for a Very Long Time, and   
   > to which no _simple_ answer has ever been given!   
   >   
   > []   
   >   
   >   
   >> Microsoft has done a lot already, to optimize things. They have   
   >> had studies running on machines, to find things they can turn down.   
   >   
   > Because of who is saying it I have to believe that, but for anyone who   
   > has been using the various Windows versions for a lot of years, it's   
   > very _hard_ to believe: the number of background tasks which anyone with   
   > less than Paul's (or possibly VanguardLH's, or one other) level of   
   > knowledge just has to, for practical purposes, _accept_ running, has   
   > risen significantly with each version, from about 9x on. (I'm not sure   
   > if 3.1 had any.)   
   > []   
   >   
   > What's snipped in my two []s in this post is _very_ knowledgeable. But   
   > beyond my capability to understand now. This is no criticism, just an   
   > acceptance that _my_ processing power is declining!   
   >   
      
   I'm suggesting it isn't particularly practical to get stressed about this.   
      
   If you're off the grid, you would shop for a low power machine in the   
   first place, and then most of the work is already done for you.   
   Like one of those $250 mini-PC that are making the rounds right   
   now, and have a quad core "6 watt" CPU inside. There are probably   
   a few tablets that would make good candidates for the same reason.   
      
   All I can suggest for the carefulness of the power consumption,   
   is run Linux and do some reproducible stuff, then run Windows and   
   compare, and you might find windows is a bit better. I haven't   
   tried this, so I have no numbers to offer. I can tell you, that   
   for some performance tests, Linux can be a few percent better   
   (I did a head-to-head video transcode test once, and Linux was   
   a few percent better, using mostly the same hardware path).   
      
   You can also see Linux perform better, when running a browser,   
   as the browser does not "bog" like it does for javascript adware on Windows.   
      
   But the power issue, is a bit orthogonal to the performance testing,   
   and you will find small mistakes make a big difference (running   
   Nouveau for the video driver versus NVidia). On a recent distro,   
   with the Nouveau driver, in the "top" display I watched as the   
   desktop rendering used 400% CPU (four railed CPU cores) to replace   
   what the graphics card should have been doing. This is one reason   
   you have to hand-tune the box a bit, before you have your   
   "head-to-head efficiency test". Don't assume Linux has made   
   the absolutely best choices, and some things you do may need   
   a "firm hand on the tiller". Part of what they do, is   
   "they want the box to start". Which is fine. Additional work   
   may be required.   
      
   The 400% doesn't happen everywhere. There are 500 distros, and   
   whatever I was using at the time, that's what it decided to do.   
   I was just shocked (jaw dropped) when I was seeing this. There have   
   been cases before of one core (100%) railing, it was more than a bit strange   
   to see it using 400% (almost like it was using OpenMP for some purpose).   
   It wasn't any application I was running at the time, doing it.   
   I wasn't running the "3D Pipes Screen Saver" :-) I would be a bit   
   concerned if the $250 mini-PC had that OS on it (4C 4T processor).   
      
   You *might* be able to save some power on Windows, by disabling   
   all the security features. I don't know if I could manage that   
   on my own, or not. Like the Virtualization Based Security,   
   maybe just one setting in bcdedit could smother that.   
      
      Paul   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)