Underclocking, Baby; Slow It On Down

Just finished reading this month's Wired. As usual, they tend to overhype the stupid, commercial aspects in which I have little interest, and totally downplay the few nuggets that one would find no where else. Buried in a story about the Chinese takeover of IBM's PC division was a description of a machine designed with gamers in mind. A red dial controls the CPU clock; turn it up, and fans kick on to cool the overflopping machine, so one has the most processing power when one needs it.

Well, then, here's an interesting question: Why the hell are all computers running at fan-required speed as a default?

Bear with me. As I type on the Notepad, I'll bet my machine is in no way near it's upper processing limit, yet the muffin fan is whirring away, cooling the chip. That's because this is a non-adjustable chip which runs at (whatever speed, I really don't care) whether it needs the power or not. That's why I depower my system when it's not in use. The thought of heating the office when I really don't have to -- and paying for the priveledge -- just irks me.

If I can get a machine with such a knobby thing, I could have it set way down for my little Notepad sessions, say, under 100 megaflops. My P-75 kept up with my typing with no problem, and still could, should I decide to fire it up. My Palm IIIxe does, likewise, a fine job, and at 16 bits. It's battery lasts a month or two with the light use I give it; another benefit.

When I need the power, like when my level 81 Necromancer is cursing a tomb full of baddies and resurrecting their remains to fight with me, yes, I would like something more meaty than IBM Selectric mode. An Up dial would be nice. For that matter, video cards should have the same adjustability.

So, hardware boys and girls, why can't machines be detuned for low-impact computing? Let the little fans rest. Think of how much more battery pack oomph laptops would be able to deliver, how much lighter on the budget the household power bill could be.

I think I know a bit of the answer.

We are living in the States, a place that places little value on those that even want to conserve. The fastest are celebrated. That's great for athletes, but for machines? It's an attitude that carries over into tech, especially into tech, because that makes everyone who owns such tech a star.

(Still, Max didn't firewall his Interceptor all the time. The supercharger only kicked on when it was time to put distance between himself and Toecutter's or Humungous' toadies.)

Now for computers. Think of the person who doesn't use the Notepad.

Think of the Word user.

Word is one of those bloated power sucking programs that uses more computer than it delivers in product. I won't compose on it, just because I hate being interrupted by "suggestions". "It looks like you're writing another death threat", it chimes. Hey, it's less irratating than the Paperclip Yogi, but it still sucks. I earned my English degree, and don't need my backlighted typewriter telling me what I may or may not or should not or must not be writing. Bill has no right to blithely fight my writing rite, right? His insights incite my rioteous writheing.

Overpowered programs suck more than the workforce of the user, they drain processing power, requiring more and more flops to keep pace with the software flops being published. I'm hoping works like Firefox will show that there is a demand for clean programs that don't bog even the newest machines.

So, for the record, in the future I would very much like a machine that I could detune and overclock. Think of a dial with 320 degrees of control. The North or High Noon position registers factory settings as advertised. Dialing clockwise gives the user more processing power for high-end work; dialing counter gives less for the rote and banal, but with a significant power consumption savings.

True, I have yet to use it, but I still like it.