On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Bob Friesenhahn <bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, James Cornell wrote: > >> > > Agreed, profiles aren't the best way. For now it's the easiest to > > implement, but for the long-term I really like your idea about hooking > > certain power-hungry programs to adjust the frequency, etc. > > This sounds like a move toward's the Microsoft model where the > application or OS is in charge rather than the user. Do you really > want to move in the Microsoft direction? > > In my opinion the user should always be in charge.
The only reason the user would need to be in charge is because the OS is doing it wrong. The OS has more information and is better able to determine exactly what the best performance for a system is. Especially when the OS is provided proper information by applications, etc. That isn't to say that a user shouldn't be able to say "disable power-saving features"; but I don't think it is a good use of resources to attempt to build a profiles system. I would venture to guess most users can't be bothered to mess with power profiles; I know I can't on my laptop. About the most I ever do is dim the screen slightly. -- Shawn Walker "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben
