3 ms·

> If, as tested, this setting makes a double-digit percentage difference, I'm glad Microsoft exposes it in the UI. I'd rather them write more performant code.

> If, as tested, this setting makes a double-digit percentage difference, I'm glad Microsoft exposes it in the UI. I'd rather them write more performant code. This feels like your car having the option to burn motor oil to show a more precise clock on the dash; you don't get kudos for adding an off-switch for that.

minitech 1y ago
> I'd rather them write more performant code. In keeping with the theme of the comment you're replying to, writing better-performing code and providing performance options are not mutually exclusive. Both are good ideas. > This feels like your car having the option to burn motor oil to show a more precise clock on the dash; you don't get kudos for adding an off-switch for that. (Sounds more like you're arguing that it should be forced off instead of being an option? Reasonable take in this case, but not the same argument.)
- jjj123 1y ago
  No, I think they’re arguing that showing seconds in the system tray shouldn’t be so inefficient that turning it off gives back double-digit percentage energy savings. I think we all agree there needs to be some additional power draw for the seconds feature, but it’s unclear how much power is truly necessary vs this just being a poor implementation.
  - ants_everywhere 1y ago
    there's a dramatic increase in how frequently you interrupt the CPU to update the display. That is true at the OS level no matter how efficient you make the second display code.
    - troupo 1y ago
      How about web views throughout the OS? The new start menu written in React? There's an ungodly amount of CPU and GPU spikes throughout the OS which make the "omg seconds" invisible in comparison
- morganherlocker 1y ago
  It shouldn't take any noticable power/cycles to accomplish this task. Having flags for "performance" littered through the codebase and UI is a classic failure mode that leads to a janky slow base performance. "Do always and inhibit when not needed".
aksss 1y ago
Better analogy would be reducing your MPGs (fuel efficiency) to show a more precise clock, and arguably we all make that sacrifice to get CarPlay. Energy isn’t free. Even if they wrote more performant code, it would just mean less relative loss of energy to show seconds but still loss compared to not showing seconds.
- pavel_lishin 1y ago
  Of course it's not free - TANSTAAFL - but it should certainly not increase energy consumption by 13%!
orangecat 1y ago
This feels like your car having the option to burn motor oil to show a more precise clock on the dash I actively don't want to see seconds; the constant updating is distracting. It should be an option even if there were no energy impact. (Ditto for terminal cursor blinking).
- p_ing 1y ago
  ...Did you not see that it is an option, off by default?
- _9ptr 1y ago
  Doesn't the blinking cursor tell you it's ready for input and not still running the previous command? Seems useful.
  - eviks 1y ago
    There are better shape/color alternatives for that
  - lucb1e 1y ago
    I have cursor blinking off anywhere I can. The prompt is what tells me I can type something, or in a GUI program, you can always type if there is a cursor no matter if it's solid or blinking. At least, that's my experience, perhaps you're familiar with another system or piece of software where the blinking is what tells you that you can enter something?
criddell 1y ago
> I'd rather them write more performant code. My expectations of Microsoft software aren't terribly high. I'd say Windows is performant (ie it works about as well as I expect).
daveoc64 1y ago
It's really an on switch. The feature is off by default in Windows 11 and was not offered in any previous non-beta Windows version.
- anonymars 1y ago
  But you could open the clock flyout and see it on demand. Now it's all-or-nothing (unless they changed it, again) (Have I mentioned how much I loathe Windows 11?)

minitech 1y ago

> I'd rather them write more performant code. In keeping with the theme of the comment you're replying to, writing better-performing code and providing performance options are not mutually exclusive. Both are good ideas. > This feels like your car having the option to burn motor oil to show a more precise clock on the dash; you don't get kudos for adding an off-switch for that. (Sounds more like you're arguing that it should be forced off instead of being an option? Reasonable take in this case, but not the same argument.)

jjj123 1y ago
No, I think they’re arguing that showing seconds in the system tray shouldn’t be so inefficient that turning it off gives back double-digit percentage energy savings. I think we all agree there needs to be some additional power draw for the seconds feature, but it’s unclear how much power is truly necessary vs this just being a poor implementation.
- ants_everywhere 1y ago
  there's a dramatic increase in how frequently you interrupt the CPU to update the display. That is true at the OS level no matter how efficient you make the second display code.
  - troupo 1y ago
    How about web views throughout the OS? The new start menu written in React? There's an ungodly amount of CPU and GPU spikes throughout the OS which make the "omg seconds" invisible in comparison
morganherlocker 1y ago
It shouldn't take any noticable power/cycles to accomplish this task. Having flags for "performance" littered through the codebase and UI is a classic failure mode that leads to a janky slow base performance. "Do always and inhibit when not needed".

aksss 1y ago

Better analogy would be reducing your MPGs (fuel efficiency) to show a more precise clock, and arguably we all make that sacrifice to get CarPlay. Energy isn’t free. Even if they wrote more performant code, it would just mean less relative loss of energy to show seconds but still loss compared to not showing seconds.

pavel_lishin 1y ago
Of course it's not free - TANSTAAFL - but it should certainly not increase energy consumption by 13%!

orangecat 1y ago

This feels like your car having the option to burn motor oil to show a more precise clock on the dash I actively don't want to see seconds; the constant updating is distracting. It should be an option even if there were no energy impact. (Ditto for terminal cursor blinking).

p_ing 1y ago
...Did you not see that it is an option, off by default?
_9ptr 1y ago
Doesn't the blinking cursor tell you it's ready for input and not still running the previous command? Seems useful.
- eviks 1y ago
  There are better shape/color alternatives for that
- lucb1e 1y ago
  I have cursor blinking off anywhere I can. The prompt is what tells me I can type something, or in a GUI program, you can always type if there is a cursor no matter if it's solid or blinking. At least, that's my experience, perhaps you're familiar with another system or piece of software where the blinking is what tells you that you can enter something?

criddell 1y ago

> I'd rather them write more performant code. My expectations of Microsoft software aren't terribly high. I'd say Windows is performant (ie it works about as well as I expect).

daveoc64 1y ago

It's really an on switch. The feature is off by default in Windows 11 and was not offered in any previous non-beta Windows version.

anonymars 1y ago
But you could open the clock flyout and see it on demand. Now it's all-or-nothing (unless they changed it, again) (Have I mentioned how much I loathe Windows 11?)