[linuxhansl]

My experience is exactly the opposite. If that make me a "Linux apologist" I don't really care.

Install TLP, uninstall thermald, and make sure turbo mode is off (it's on by default in Linux - probably applies to Intel only).

Under light load the system is using 6-8w (about 9-10h of usage on the 80WH battery), under 4w when completely idle. This is latest Fedora on a ThinkPad X1 Extreme with KDE. I want to see that with Windows.

You have to invest a bit more time with Linux (for example the fingerprint reader on my Laptop prevented the CPU from going into lower power modes), and that part is unfortunate.

On the other hand I never experience things randomly not working like it was with Windows.

Your mileage may vary.

[ChuckNorris89]

>Install TLP, uninstall thermald, and make sure turbo mode is off (it's on by default in Linux - probably applies to Intel only).

Sorry, but that's not a good argument in favor of Linux when basic power management is not part of the OS and you need to set it up yourself manually. Can you imagine Microsoft or Apple shipping their OSs without power management? I need an OS to work out of the box so I can get to work/entertainment, not a hobby to tinker with. I still enjoy tinkering with Linux but it should be only when I want-to, not a need-to.

> I want to see that with Windows.

Yeah, you can get Linux to be more economical than Windows by manually installing a bunch of tools that throttle down the CPU into its lowest power mode and running it at 600MHz fixed all the time, and now you have a laptop that's super slow, all for the sake of battery life and winning online arguments. Good job. /s You can force that in Windows as well, but why would you?

I want to see Linux automatically scale the CPU power and frequency based on the load put on it like Windows does: idles at 600MHz when doing nothing, click on the Firefox tab and it shoots up to 3,6GHz, then back down to 800MHz. That's what any sane OS should do out of the box, not have you install and fiddle with a bunch of tools and maybe still not be as good.

>On the other hand I never experience things randomly not working like it was with Windows.

I have way more things randomly not working on Ubuntu 22.04 Gnome at work than on Windows 11 at home (none actually on this one).

And I'm saying this an Linux/FOSS user and fan.

[_piif]

> Sorry, but that's not a good argument in favor of Linux when basic power management is not part of the OS and you need to set it up yourself manually. Can you imagine Microsoft or Apple shipping their OSs without power management? I need an OS to work out of the box so I can get to work/entertainment, not a hobby to tinker with. I still enjoy tinkering with Linux but it should be only when I want-to, not a need-to.

That entirely depends on the distro you use. Any "mainstream" distro should already have power saving tools set up properly. Of course if you use something more DIY like Arch you will have to set those up yourself. You can't just group every distro together as "Linux" when you will get a different experience on each one.

> I want to see Linux automatically scale the CPU power and frequency based on the load put on it like Windows does: idles at 600MHz when doing nothing, click on the Firefox tab and it shoots up to 3,6GHz, then back down to 800MHz. That's what any sane OS should do out of the box, not have you install and fiddle with a bunch of tools and maybe still not be as good.

Unless you are using the performance or powersave governors (except with intel-pstate active) that's already what it should be doing. Once again you shouldn't have to tinker with that stuff on any sane distro.

[ChuckNorris89]

>Once again you shouldn't have to tinker with that stuff on any sane distro.

OK, the thing is that even on sane distros, if you don't tinker them, out of the box, they have less battery life than on Windows on many machines. Out of the box Linux is just not that great with battery life.