Nobody asked about what company you work for, no clue where you got that from.
I can’t think of a single website I use on the daily that uses webgl, if it’s not a web game or something, most websites are relatively light weight and static once loaded. Hell, even Reddit (which is notorious for being slow) doesn’t use any resources after it’s done loading. There is no website that constantly re-renders stuff out there, except it’s a shitty niche project. Makes no sense at all, you load HTML, CSS and JavaScript, but you don’t re-render the DOM all the time except when things change.
CPU is the most important stat if we actually talk about energy savings. Using more RAM costs pretty much zero energy. GPU rarely used on the web (except we go back to 3D rendering or watching videos). If you use up actual wattage it’s mostly CPU related.
Yes, current applications are slow and bloated, but the original conversation was about pdf viewers. And even the most shitty pdf viewer I can think of uses no extra power after opening the pdf (pretty much zero CPU usage, just some RAM, which again is “free” in terms of power consumption). So if you compare pdf viewers I’d bet pretty much any of them could earn that reward if they applied for it.
I could have easily given an example of a web page that uses a ton of CPU while idle. But a contractor built it on may company’s website years ago and it’s not a priority to fix it. While I don’t know or care if it truly “maxed” the CPU, that wasn’t the point at all. The point was that it was a WEB PAGE, which a lot of people noticed that while sitting practically idle (a very simple animation playing) caused laptop fans to spin up like crazy.
But my slight exaggeration (using the word “max”) aside, the point was that any software can run inefficiently and that even small differences could add up to significant energy waste when deployed to millions of users.
I’m not sure why you’d make a claim that a PDF viewer could never be inefficient enough to matter. Of fucking course it could. Unless you have completed a study proving otherwise, you’re just talking out of your ass, and it’s a really weird hill to die on.
Mate, we are talking about international / widely used websites here. Of course you can build a shit website that eats up resources, I can do that in a single line of code. But the average website out there doesn’t burn up resources for no reason at all, most content is static and just sits there after being loaded.
Open up any PDF viewer you like, whatever you think is the heaviest or shittiest one (Probably Adobe). Load a big pdf file, now check the resource usage. It’s going to be absolutely nothing, any Electron app (like Discord) eats up way more RAM and CPU time.
Now get out with your straw man argument, you derailed this whole conversation by going from pdf readers to websites with this comment:
You say this but devs are making webpages that max out cpu usage when nothing is actually happening to render the webpage, it’s just rerendering stuff unnecessarily because hardware is cheap and no one is calling them on it.
Nobody asked about what company you work for, no clue where you got that from.
I can’t think of a single website I use on the daily that uses webgl, if it’s not a web game or something, most websites are relatively light weight and static once loaded. Hell, even Reddit (which is notorious for being slow) doesn’t use any resources after it’s done loading. There is no website that constantly re-renders stuff out there, except it’s a shitty niche project. Makes no sense at all, you load HTML, CSS and JavaScript, but you don’t re-render the DOM all the time except when things change.
CPU is the most important stat if we actually talk about energy savings. Using more RAM costs pretty much zero energy. GPU rarely used on the web (except we go back to 3D rendering or watching videos). If you use up actual wattage it’s mostly CPU related.
Yes, current applications are slow and bloated, but the original conversation was about pdf viewers. And even the most shitty pdf viewer I can think of uses no extra power after opening the pdf (pretty much zero CPU usage, just some RAM, which again is “free” in terms of power consumption). So if you compare pdf viewers I’d bet pretty much any of them could earn that reward if they applied for it.
I could have easily given an example of a web page that uses a ton of CPU while idle. But a contractor built it on may company’s website years ago and it’s not a priority to fix it. While I don’t know or care if it truly “maxed” the CPU, that wasn’t the point at all. The point was that it was a WEB PAGE, which a lot of people noticed that while sitting practically idle (a very simple animation playing) caused laptop fans to spin up like crazy.
But my slight exaggeration (using the word “max”) aside, the point was that any software can run inefficiently and that even small differences could add up to significant energy waste when deployed to millions of users.
I’m not sure why you’d make a claim that a PDF viewer could never be inefficient enough to matter. Of fucking course it could. Unless you have completed a study proving otherwise, you’re just talking out of your ass, and it’s a really weird hill to die on.
Mate, we are talking about international / widely used websites here. Of course you can build a shit website that eats up resources, I can do that in a single line of code. But the average website out there doesn’t burn up resources for no reason at all, most content is static and just sits there after being loaded.
Open up any PDF viewer you like, whatever you think is the heaviest or shittiest one (Probably Adobe). Load a big pdf file, now check the resource usage. It’s going to be absolutely nothing, any Electron app (like Discord) eats up way more RAM and CPU time.
Now get out with your straw man argument, you derailed this whole conversation by going from pdf readers to websites with this comment:
What a fucking moron