Currently Being ModeratedMay 12, 2012 12:43 PM (in response to Howe Qiu)
If you utilize only part of your CPU, don't you think that it will take longer to process a given item of data and that there will be no effective savings of battery resources? It may very well be that more energy will actually be required because real energy 'hogs' like the HDD will be needed for longer periods of time. I have faith in Apple engineers who have designed the CPU to be as efficient as possible and I see no virtue in pursuing this avenue. A SSD would be a better possible solution for extending battery life.
I know of no applications that you are seeking.
Currently Being ModeratedMay 12, 2012 1:15 PM (in response to OGELTHORPE)
A SSD would be a better possible solution for extending battery life.
It certainly is. I bought one for my son for better performance. He said it made a slight improvement, but that his Mac was so much cooler and not spinning the motor in the drive meant that his battery lasted MUCH longer that way.Mac Pro (Early 2009), Mac OS X (10.6.8), & Server, PPC, & AppleTalk Printers
Currently Being ModeratedMay 12, 2012 2:48 PM (in response to Howe Qiu)
Bad idea, but read on:
Currently Being ModeratedMay 12, 2012 3:18 PM (in response to wjosten)
I am definitely open to all suggestions, I have xcode installed, and just installed the preference pane, I was just wondering why this would be a bad idea in your opinion?
I am a college student, and oftentimes I will spend 5 hours in a row on battery reading a pdf document in preview, or typing an essay in pages. I believe that during this time, when even my airport is off and I am not connected to the internet, I may be able to save battery life while disabling cores that are almost inactive anyways.
Currently Being ModeratedMay 12, 2012 3:24 PM (in response to Howe Qiu)
The power management built into Mac OS X verges on amazing.
Unix and Windows users sometimes complain because those others do nowhere near as good a job as what comes standard on your Mac.
I am not sure you are going to see a dramatic improvement over what is already in place in your Mac running Mac OS X.Mac Pro (Early 2009), Mac OS X (10.6.8), & Server, PPC, & AppleTalk Printers
Currently Being ModeratedMay 12, 2012 4:04 PM (in response to Howe Qiu)
This whole thread reminds me of some of the nutty ideas American carmakers came up with during one of the first gasoline shocks back in the 70's. Don't remember whether it was Chrysler or GM, hellbent on keeping their huge gas guzzler engines, came up with the idea of disabling one or more cylinders when "not needed". A totally Rube Goldberg-ian contraption ensued, more prone to failure than any potential gas it may have saved.
And while on topic and following Señor Grant's lead, last Wedneday decided to take my MBP to the edge. 8% battery charge remaining, that is. That took the whole of 7:15, while running at 50% backlight, WiFi, MS Word and two browsers going (all four cores, too). Then on Thursday 10.7.4 + Safari 5.1.7 came out. So, back to the drawing board on Friday. 7:20 and 6% remaining, got tired of waiting and all this mine is bigger than yours BS and plugged it back in...MacBook Pro (15-inch Late 2011), Mac OS X (10.7.4), 2.4GHz, 8GB, Widescreen/Anti-glare
Currently Being ModeratedMay 12, 2012 4:18 PM (in response to Courcoul)
disabling one or more cylinders when "not needed"
Still available on several models, and not just American cars. The Honda Oddesy 2011 V6 has it, according to wikipedia.Mac Pro (Early 2009), Mac OS X (10.6.8), & Server, PPC, & AppleTalk Printers
Currently Being ModeratedMay 12, 2012 5:21 PM (in response to Grant Bennet-Alder)
Goes to prove that some things just refuse to die (see here: http://www.itworld.com/hardware/270936/living-computing-fossils-old-tech-holding -dear-life ). At least now the "selectable piston" engine is much more doable, given modern all-electronic engine management, including drive-by-wire.