How does NOT changing the screen-saver picture “Save Power”?

[ChrisGreaves]

SavePower.png

I consider the process of changing the picture (say, every ten minutes) to be a saving in power, but pretty insignificant.

I can see a point in sleeping/hibernating during inactivity. But not in not changing the wallpaper.
Just curious ...

[HansV]

The picture has to be loaded from disk into memory. If the hard disk has stopped rotating because of inactivity, it has to spin up again. That uses power which you may not want to expend if your laptop is on battery power.

[ChrisGreaves]

The picture has to be loaded from disk into memory. If the hard disk has stopped rotating because of inactivity, it has to spin up again. That uses power which you may not want to expend if your laptop is on battery power.

Thanks, Hans. I'll have to think about this.

There is a worm in my brain that suggests that I'd be better powering off the laptop while I'm out on a two-hour lunch/walk rather than depending on a suppressed screen-saver to save battery power.
But that if it's just a quick trip to the Loo, the amount of power saved is infinitesimal.

[Rudi]

But that if it's just a quick trip to the Loo, the amount of power saved is infinitesimal.

Unless it's a #2

[HansV]

But then it's not a quick trip...

[Rudi]

Exactly...Chris refers to #1, but if its #2 I'd recommend powering off the laptop...

[Max]

Have the Screen Saver set to Blank. Not only is it saving power, but it prevents pixel burn.

[HansV]

Pixel burn used to be a problem with CRT monitors; it hardly occurs with LCD monitors - you'd have to display the same static image for months on end to "burn" the image into the screen.

I do use the "Blank" screensaver myself, by the way, but that's a matter of personal preference.

[Max]

I didn't know that - thanks

[ChrisGreaves]

But then it's not a quick trip...

You've not been following my posts in the Cooking Forum, obviously ...