Talk:ACPI

message: "The other important feature of ACPI is in bringing power management features currently only available in portable computers to desktop computers and servers." This sentence is some kind of missleading. As the name says ACPI is an "interface" not a feature list. Of course ACPI defines system states and many things more but it is not mandatory that they exist. But if they have do be as defined in the specification.
--mac_c 10:30, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interface not Feature 

message: The currently exiting APM model ...: sounds like APM is what is sold with today's computers, while ACPI  is still under development. Is this correct ?? -- Frau Holle 20:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest the following "This stands in contrast to the ACPI predecessor, APM, which assigns power management control to the BIOS..." Bpeckham (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The BIOS controls everything! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quantum Burrito (talk • contribs) 00:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: It has been suggested that the ACPI article be merged into this one. I agree. Discuss. - dcljr (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: apparently this has happened. --MarSch 16:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: The section recommends unplugging the desktop, whereas I have read that it is advisable to leave the desktop plugged in, but the power supply off to ensure that it is properly grounded. I don't feel qualified to change the article myself, but I do feel that it might deserve another look. Tyler 06:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  G2 Soft Off - Possible disassembly issue 

message: I've been seeing quite a few blogs about heat problems under Windows-Vista. Last week I purchased a system with Windows-Vista preinstalled and noticed that the Pentium-D in it runs about 10C degrees hotter than a similar system which also has a Pentium-D but runs Windows-XP. After installing "PC Wizard 2008" I noticed that the processor fan speed on the Vista machine was only 1000 RPM whilst the processor fan speed on the XP machine was 2200 RPM. After much investigation which included BIOS updates, I am now convinced that this is not a hardware problem but may be caused by VISTA overriding the BIOS ACPI fan + temperature tables.
Why would they slow down the fans? Perhaps to extend battery life but this only makes sense on laptops but not PCs or workstations. To fix this, customers require access to the ACPI stuff via the "power profile" panel. This whole thing reminds me of something that happened back in 1995. Many BIOS routines were 16-bit and windows was wasting a lot of time thunking between 32-bit and 16-bit so the good folks at Microsoft just wrote a bunch of 32-bit BIOS drivers to replace the 16-bit ones discovered at boot. It took some time to get it debugged but it was worth the effort. I think this ACPI/OSPM stuff will eventually work too. --Neilrieck (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Microsoft just wrote a bunch of 32-bit BIOS drivers." - I've never heard of this before, unless you're talking about the kernel introduced in windows 95? 75.100.154.197 (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows-Vista, ACPI, Fans, and Heat 

message: acpi.info is gone?
Minusf (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  acpi.info is gone? 

message: I removed the Bill Gates paragraph. After going through the linked articles and the PDF copy of that email, it seems to me that it's irrelevant and quite impossible to level any sort of charge against Microsoft over that. There are implementations of ACPI for both Linux  and the BSDs , and like the Windows one, they all vary in effectiveness depending (mostly) on the hardware manufacturer. I'm not sure what OS X uses.
 APM is also a Microsoft-created (in concert with other HW manufacturers) open standard, which has essentially the same problems as ACPI.
Unless someone can come up with an email from that doc repository or some sort of other evidence that Microsoft somehow deliberately crippled ACPI to prevent it from working in other operating systems, the paragraph is superfluous at best. That email reads to me more like the musings of a man whose company just spent a lot of money with partners to develop something, only to see it adopted by its main competitor for free. It's an interesting general comment on how Gates thinks perhaps, and even on Microsoft culture, but it proves nothing and is irrelevant to ACPI. Thoughts? §FreeRangeFrog (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section edited 

message: It says "Where hardware does not conform to ACPI, but claims to do so, the software interoperating with that hardware is faced with a dilemma" and so on, but is this really a criticism against ACPI? Won't we face the same problem everywhere there's a standard? If I write a buggy Quicksort implementation, is it the Quicksort algorithm that is the problem or is it my implementation of it? Why not just say something along the line of that it's tricky to implement correctly?
Hamag (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism on the Criticism section 

message: DSDT redirects to this article, yet there's no mention of DSDT here. Confusing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.148.201.38 (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All ACPI Tables used to be named, but I removed them for as long as there were no adequate descriptions as it was excessively verbose with little content. I will likely add Major ones like the DSDT amongst others again though, so the redirect is appropriate and I will add them as soon as possible. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All, also, as you seemed to be asking somewhat, DSDT stands for, "Differentiated System Description Table". - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: DSDT=??

message: I wanted to know when ACPI first appeared. The external links say 1999, the 1.0b specifications release. 
I like knowing the history because it helps me position the technology.
Writers with reliable, even first hand, knowledge might want to add a short background to that date. Ozga (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ozga 177.224.225.219 (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The article says "ACPICA is written in ANSI C and released as free software under the terms of the GNU General Public License." But the souces have a header with an intel license. --82.83.81.119 (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. This however, is a problem with Wikipedia, not this page. There is an assumption (born of Free Software bias mostly) that code has a license. In reality, a specific release of code or binaries is licensed for that release. This concept is approached by the idea of Dual licensing, but has still left us with this incoherent box with a field for a "license" that just doesn't exist. ACPICA is indeed available under the GPL, as well as other licenses, so the statement isn't incorrect, so much as it is meaningless. I'll remove it, and the Infobox in it's entirety. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 12:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACPICA license 

message: Under what circumstances does the AML bytecode get interpreted and what can it do? Could you give some examples of how it's used?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bytecode 

message: Under OSPM responsibilities:
"ACPI requires that once an OSPM-compatible operating system has activated ACPI on a computer, it then takes over ..."
What is "it" - the ACPI, the OS or (grammatically), the computer? 
The antecedent of "it" is ambiguous.
ArtKocsis (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous antecedent 

message: Excuse my ignorance but it seems to me that an article about ACPI should at least attempt to convey its purpose and usefulness to those who might lack the technical know-how to interpret what purports now to describe it. That is something I cannot do. If you can do it, I suggest that you give it a whirl. QuintBy (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  First, tell the reader why? 

message: I won't add this to the article because I've not found independent commentary on that email (yet). Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite interesting, it's a great find!  I wouldn't be surprised by even more of such examples. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting  

message: Bill Gates e-mail is missing in the article how he suggests to use EEE. The German Wikipedia have it in it. 78.35.200.57 (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it. Apparently this email came before the court for Comes vs. Microsoft: The article at golem.de says, "Microsoft wanted to prevent, as early as 1999, that the ACPI standard for power management of computers can be exploited by open operating systems" (such as Linux). I see no reliable sources in English, except perhaps . Prhartcom (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: @Prhartcom It is completely fine to use sources of a different language on the English Wikipedia. I have added this item to the history section. PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gates missing 

message: You are lulling yourself into fantasies, if you start quoting people like "Linus Torvalds" and "Mark Shuttleworth" on this. They have been wrong in many things. Remember 1000hz timer in the kernel. That was Linus. Remember Shuttleworth talking about "ultrasmooth graphics"? That was always possible, but he doesn't know how to configure the kernel for it. To give a hint, it has nothing to do with increasing kernel timer HZ. Rather in my tests 90 hz was optimal for smooth graphics, and low jitter. Imagine all the wasted cpu cycles, with vain calls to interrupts, hardware etc, with a smashing 1000 HZ. Ubuntu kernel from the time I tested, wasn't even low-latency configured, which is the first you turn on, for smooth graphics. Logic goes that you also need to decrease nice level for X, to reduce its bottlenecking. And so forth. But Opensource is for hippies anyway.
There is a lot of vain people in the world, who has gained status, due to that people lack of knowledge of facts. Even Einsteins E=MC2 is really based on pantheism, and might just aswell be a schizophrenic writing GOD=MC2.
Please just try to present the dry facts, without bias, and person-cults.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.129.18 (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lullaby 

message: The only thing I could do right now was update the external link to the spec. For all the rest, I hope someone actually knows about the technology and updates the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgios Tsalikis (talk • contribs) 22:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACPI is now at its 6th rev and UEFI has taken over 

message: The latest is 6.1, not 6.0, right?: http://uefi.org/specifications --Diblidabliduu (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  6.1? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Seems to be uncontroversial, closing my own request and move.  PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 3 November 2022