Google

[catocom]

anybody else getting a black Google?
if so...do you know whaz'up?

 

[Gonz]

We've turned the lights out. Now it's your turn - Earth Hour.

PC idjits.

 

[catocom]

oh, I see it now....Doh!

it looks kiiida cool. and I like things not to change that dramatically.
It freaks people out, that I consult...to.

http://www.google.com/intl/en/earthhour/

 

[Nixy]

I like it.

 

[Luis G]

I don't get the black google and the link cat posted is a 404

 

[catocom]

I'm using IE6
Dunno if other browsers might differ...I don't have any other installed ATM.

 

[Gonz]

google dot com had it...their homepage

 

[A.B.Normal]

Blackle

In January 2007 a blog post titled Black Google Would Save 750 Megawatt-hours a Year proposed the theory that a black version of the Google search engine would save a fair bit of energy due to the popularity of the search engine. Since then there has been skepticism about the significance of the energy savings that can be achieved and the cost in terms of readability of black web pages.

We believe that there is value in the concept because even if the energy savings are small, they all add up. Secondly we feel that seeing Blackle every time we load our web browser reminds us that we need to keep taking small steps to save energy.

 

[Nixy]

Blackle

Actual Google is Black today for earth hour.

Blackle isn't really a benefit anymore...with LCD monitors it doesn't make a difference. I suspect Google's change today is more to raise awareness rather than directly decrease energy use.

 

[Luis G]

with LCD monitors it doesn't make a difference.

It does make a difference because LCD monitors need to apply more current to pixels in order to block light (i.e. display black).

 

[Nixy]

It does make a difference because LCD monitors need to apply more current to pixels in order to block light (i.e. display black).

Actually, according to tests of google vs blackle the average across all LCD monitors tested is that blackle uses slightly more energy than google (but so little that it should be called even). If the LCD monitor is over 24" then there is a slight savings by using blackle (and really, how many people have LCDs over 24"?)...the major savings however is on CRTs.

http://techlogg.com/content/view/360/31/

 

[Gonz]

I have to turn on the light to read. With white irritating google, it gets left off.

 

[Nixy]

http://www.google.ca/intl/en/earthhour/

 

[Luis G]

Actually, according to tests of google vs blackle the average across all LCD monitors tested is that blackle uses slightly more energy than google (but so little that it should be called even). If the LCD monitor is over 24" then there is a slight savings by using blackle (and really, how many people have LCDs over 24"?)...the major savings however is on CRTs.

http://techlogg.com/content/view/360/31/

Bigger LCDs probably adjust the intensity of the lamp light when displaying darker images. So according to that article, us mortal LCD < 22" users are better off using google.

 

[Nixy]

Bigger LCDs probably adjust the intensity of the lamp light when displaying darker images. So according to that article, us mortal LCD < 22" users are better off using google.

Exactly. Which was my point from the beginning...black screens have no benefit on LCD screens on average (the article goes a bit deeper than that and breaks it down by size...but over all, when you look at ALL LCDs there's no benefit either way).

 

[JJR512]

Actually, according to tests of google vs blackle the average across all LCD monitors tested is that blackle uses slightly more energy than google (but so little that it should be called even). If the LCD monitor is over 24" then there is a slight savings by using blackle (and really, how many people have LCDs over 24"?)...the major savings however is on CRTs.

http://techlogg.com/content/view/360/31/

If Blackle uses "slightly more energy than Google", how can there be a "slight savings" by using it? Doesn't more energy equal more cost? Something doesn't add up here.

 

[Nixy]

If Blackle uses "slightly more energy than Google", how can there be a "slight savings" by using it? Doesn't more energy equal more cost? Something doesn't add up here.

An average of the energy usage differences over ALL LCD monitors tested shows blackle use slightly more energy (but hardly enough to be worth mentioning).

When ONLY the LCD monitors that are 24" are greater are considered then Blackle does use less energy than google. But, again, the savings is not nearly as significant as with a CRT.

Do try to read all of the words in my post before you tell me that what I've said doesn't make sense. You could also try reading the link, which actually has a table that breaks it all down.

 

[spike]

Oh snap!

 

[fury]

It would be interesting to see how they calculate that "xxx,xxx,xxx megawatts saved so far" - do they account for those LCDs on which it takes more power to display Blackle?

 

[Nixy]

It would be interesting to see how they calculate that "xxx,xxx,xxx megawatts saved so far" - do they account for those LCDs on which it takes more power to display Blackle?

I highly doubt it. They have no idea what kind of monitor a person is using. I assume they use a fairly standard formula, probably similar to the one below...

#visits*average length of visit*savings per minute