|
I really don't need a machine (yet) to tell me when to switch lights on or off. 
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Philpott wrote: £560/year
Ha! At our old house, gas and electric combined was close to that per month! 
We're currently on a £100/month DD for electricity alone - no mains gas in these parts! - and it looks like we used around 350kWh in August, which is the only full month we've been here.
On the plus side, we now have 20 solar panels, and we inherited the "feed-in tariff" which pays based on how much you generate rather than how much you feed back in to the national grid. During the summer months, it looks like we're generating over 480kWh per month, so they're paying us over £340/month for that. Which is nice. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
modified 8-Sep-23 3:13am.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: Ha! At our old house, gas and electric combined was close to that per month!
Ouch. That's serious.
Richard Deeming wrote: so they're paying us over £570/month for that
That's insane, and quite interesting. I know a few people who have panels and the gist of it seems to be they can sell 1KWH for 10p or something, then buy it back later at 35p.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Philpott wrote: I know a few people who have panels and the gist of it seems to be they can sell 1KWH for 10p or something, then buy it back later at 35p.
Yeah, the new FIT is not a patch on the one we inherited. 
As I said, we get paid for everything we generate, even if we don't export any back to the grid. And then we get paid an extra pittance for anything we do export, so if we don't use it all, we end up getting paid twice.
It pays to buy a house from someone who was an early adopter. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
You sure about
so they''re paying us over £570/month
?
Your numbers don't look too different to mine (if I pro-rata them for the fact that I have a smaller array) but my payment only comes once every three months - not monthly. I guess you may have a much better deal than I, but three-fold?
Better not hit "Send" on that super-yacht order quite yet . . .
Treading on the toes of giants . . .
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I mis-read the dates on the statement. It was actually for 2½ months, so just over £340/month.
Still not a bad little perk though.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Phew. For a moment I was worried that I got signed up to a really bad deal.
At least it will cover your standing charge, with some left over.
Just in case anyone else has read this far and is still interested, Richard and Rob's observation that the current deals are much worse than the ones offered in the past is spot on.
Treading on the toes of giants . . .
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Philpott wrote: fridge-freezer,
I would be surprised if the major user was not that. Especially if you do in fact have one of each.
And the older it is the more likely it is that it uses more power.
I believe you can buy a device that monitors it at the plug level. You plug it into the wall and the device plugs into that.
|
|
|
|
|
Gold providing cold ? hole (7)
I've got to go to Shepperton to collect my car from the repair shop so I'll be AWOL for a while
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
modified 7-Sep-23 5:09am.
|
|
|
|
|
No matter how much memory I threw at my computer VS 2022 will use all of it...
"If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization." ― Gerald Weinberg
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. For me, Chrome and VS consume all my PC/laptop's memory, for sure. Not exactly sure why, but it does appear to get worse with newer versions and as time goes by.
|
|
|
|
|
Preloading, caching, and garbage collectors.
All of which contribute to vary aggressive allocations. The upshot is better performance.
Think of it this way - even when your RAM isn't being used, it's still drawing the same power regardless, but it's not doing any useful work.
This way, applications put the RAM to good use - application acceleration essentially - rather than it just sitting idle.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: The upshot is better performance
for the application doing the work but maybe not for everything else
The road to madness starts when every application takes the same route
|
|
|
|
|
There is no "everything else" when you are squeezing out the next dev action.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, all versions prior to VS2022 were 32-bit, so they would have been limited to 4GB per instance.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Do you mean - good old days? 
"If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization." ― Gerald Weinberg
|
|
|
|
|
By which you mean "the days when VS would crash with an out-of-memory error"?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
I can't remember that happening so much that to became so annoying as the current situation... Now the computer as whole is stranded...
"If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization." ― Gerald Weinberg
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's an essential application for older apps on modern PCs. You can do things like run cranky old games (I'm looking at you, Saints Row franchise) on processors with eleventy billion cores by only giving the game two so as not to confuse it, for example.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
Cool
Recoil [^] here we go ![Jig | [Dance]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/jig.gif)
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
They do that on purpose. The point is to preload pretty much everything, and then the .NET GC likes to aggressively allocate gigs at a time ahead of time for its heap.
The upshot is the more RAM you pig out on, the better the performance you can get from an otherwise monstrous application.
It's not fair to say it requires all that RAM. If you gave it less inside say, a VM, it would still run fine, just not be quite as snappy.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
All of this sounds reasonable but what about swap? If VS is consuming more than it truly needs and Word is running without enough memory then parts of VS get swapped out, heading back to VS does another swap, disk is slow even ssd. So I agree with everything so far if all I'm doing is VS. That's never the case for me. I'm probably out of the loop on most of this stuff so take this with a grain of salt.
Jack of all trades, master of none, though often times better than master of one.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem it takes gigabytes of memory for no any reason... The combined size of all the binary files, the source, the resources is less then 100th of the memory VS takes... It also force anything else paging intensively... I would except from a good application taking only the memory it really needs...
"If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization." ― Gerald Weinberg
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: The combined size of all the binary files, the source, the resources is less then 100th of the memory VS takes
Perhaps you are over simplifying with that statement?
Allocation is not the same as use.
If it allocates 100 gig but only uses 10 then the 10 is the only thing that can impact the performance. It doesn't swap a 100 gig chunk. Swapping is handled at a much smaller size. So it breaks the total into pieces. And it only swaps what is actually being used (writing/reading) and when it is not already in memory.
But also keep in mind that your code and libraries is not all that it loads.
There use to be a tool that allowed one to actually track everything that an application loaded. Use to be under 'sysinternals' (many tools) although that was subsumed by Microsoft at some point.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
