- Thread starter catocom
- Start date
catocom
Well-Known Member
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/
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/
A.B.Normal
New Member
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.
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/
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
New Member
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.
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