I love my t400 and I love linux!

Was working while in class and happened to check power manager and what I found made me happy. 8.6 watts while actually working rather heavily in a browser and I just closed my ssh session.

 

Seems like I average between 8.5 and 11 depending on the wifi load.

 

Yup, between the SSD and Linux I've got nothing else to ask for.

BTW, check here for some neat tweaks for 10.10!

 

Lucky you...
Due to Nvidia's crappy GPU, I can't get below 17 watts in my R61

 

What are the specs for your T400?

 

My system specs are as follows:

p8600 (not undervolted), 3GB ram, 250GB cyclical HDD, WXGA+ CCFL screen, intel 5100 wifi, ati 3470.

If only I had an SSD and LED screen I think I could shave a few more watts maybe even hit 6 watts. If only those 2 upgrades weren't so expensive Id install those and get an ultrabay battery and see if I can get 15 hours. Oh well Ill have to settle for 8.5+

 

I absolutely despise linux because it's C based.

Renee

 

Nice one.

At least I hope you were joking...

 

I was not joking at all. I'm a former OS developer and I think linux stinks.

Renee

 

Good for you. I love c/c++ and I love linux.

liquidxit2

 

See, everyone is hitting really low wattages. On my X200 (and former T400), I was never able to hit anything below ~12W consistently (unless I do NOTHING and set the screen brightness at 1). With my newly installed Intel SSD, my X200 consumes around 9W to 12W browsing the web in Ubuntu at a brightness level of 4.

 

So... uh... what exactly do you think NT, (most of) xnu, and the various BSD kernels are written in?

 

My record is something like 5.8W on an X200s when idle with wireless on and screen brightness at about 3/14. Provided I wasn't pushing the CPU too hard, it could last through a trans-Atlantic flight and still have a good bit of juice left over. I spent far more time and money than was reasonable getting a configuration that could do that -- but I was traveling internationally quite a bit at the time, so it did come in handy on more than one occasion. (Edit: Found my thread over at ThinkPads.com. It was actually 5.7W.)

Currently I'm using a 14.1" T60 which gets about 4-5 hours on an aging extended battery. Not the greatest, but as it's a desktop replacement-ish machine for me, I don't really need all that much in the way of battery life. I can't run powertop to check right now since I'm running a hardened kernel, but when I last remember running it, my draw was around 12-14W in use, which isn't too bad for a T7200-equipped machine of this age.

 

I usually prefer 10-20% brightness. Easier on the eyes for prolong use. but 12w isnt terrible, I mean I average 8.5-11 doing work and get pretty good battery life.

8.4 is my current record, but like I said I have a CCFL screen and an old cyclical HDD. Those 2 replaced alone would yeild nice gains. Under volt the CPU and Im pretty sure I could come close to that. If only money weren't an issue, oh and the ultrabay battery didnt kill itself so fast by depleting first.

Thats not too bad. Im at 82-85% capacity right now on my 2+ year old t400. I dont get the 10 hours I used to when new, but still pretty close and that aint bad for doing actual work. I just wish that the ultrabay didnt drain first killing the battery in the process or Id invest in that until I can afford a new 9 cell.

 

With my config below I can reach 7watts. I'm sure Linux can help a bit but the T400 is great with any OS!

 

"So... uh... what exactly do you think NT, (most of) xnu, and the various BSD kernels are written in?"

The chief engineer of NT worked for the same company I did and I supported two of his operating systems there before I was a developer. I liked NT. But I'd like it better if it were not developed in C. I don't even think of the BSD kernels because they are written in C.

Renee

 

Could you explain the disadvantages of C?

 

C++ is just a superset of C. Can't have C++ without C, plain and simple.
Don't listen to Renee, she's just blowing out hot air.

 

I'd like to hear Renee's opinion

 

This might be a noobish question but how do you think power usage on a thinkpad?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Cutler still works for MS, doesn't he?

I really don't get your (apparently quite strong) dislike of C. Sure, it's probably not the best choice for, say, rapid development of web apps. But there's a reason that it's still used extensively, and it ain't just nostalgia.

As far as shunning an entire operating system solely due to the language that the kernel and some of the userland is written in... well that just seems silly. Perhaps I'm missing something though -- can you explain why you hate C as much as you do?

 

C is the reason we have such portable operating systems on the market and to be quite frank I do not see another language that could do the same for the os as C or any variant thereof.

 

I worked for Digital which was the second largest Computer company in the world in the 70's, 80s and ninties. We had our own operating systems of which I was a part as well as our own languages. I liked those langages and operating systems. Digital people were known for not liking C or Unix for that matter.

Noone has ever said Digital has anything less than outstanding cutting edge engineering. Unix and C were a marketing ploy by the telephone company that was successful.

And Dave Cutler did work for Digital before he worked for MS. I know because before I developed I supported two of his operating systems and I went to work developing on the second.

"But there's a reason that it's still used extensively, and it ain't just nostalgia."

Yes, it's called marketing.

Renee

 

C is free. Linux is free. Both work well at what they do and I still have yet to see another language that can do what C does effectively. Marketing ploy or not, no other language has done as much for the OS community and as open source has shown if there is a better alternative out there it would be out.

Using marketing as an excuse for C dominating is lame. They didnt market the language they market the OS. Nobody outside of computer scientists care about which language a kernel is compiled with, nor would they even have a clue as to what was used. It was what bell labs created and it worked and still works to this day and again if there was something better out there it would have replaced C. Honestly I think its a little bit of bitter resentment that your proprietary languages and OS' didnt muscle out C based OS'. Just what it sounds like to me in your posts.

 

Are you a PL/I programmer?