Sign up ×
Ask Ubuntu is a question and answer site for Ubuntu users and developers. It's 100% free.

I am the happy owner of an Asus EeePC 1005PX with very low-end hardware and a pretty big battery. I am looking for the most power-saving distribution of Linux, and/or kernel attached, because I can't go over 4h20 of battery-life, and I used to do more before (like 6 to 7 hours. "Before" was always better, you know it).

My specs :

  • 10' - 1024x600 LED screen (maybe it's LCD, 'cause I had to change it, and ordered one from Czechia or something like that on Ebay)
  • CPU Intel Atom N450
  • Integrated graphics
  • 2Gb DDR2 SDRAM (I can go back to 1Gb if it means more powersave)
  • HDD 250Gb SATA 5400rpm
  • Integrated : 2x USB2.0 | 1x SDcard | 1x VGA | 1x Webcam + Microphone

My typical use :

Only on battery :

  • Class notes (nano would clearly be enough... although italics and bold are useful)

Always :

  • Web search (+ Flash for youtube/streaming video)

Only on charge :

  • Watching movies (with headphones)
  • Listening to music (with headphones)

My choices :

I was thinking... maybe I could use two distributions :

  • one for travelling and class, which would be veeeery lightweight and energy-saving, something like minimal arch installation with xfce and only mousepad/midori installed.

  • another one "regular" for movies and stuff, like Ubuntu with LibreOffice, Firefox, Flashplugin, blablabla.

My questions :

1) Would the power-consuming really differ from one configuration to another ?

2) What would be, factually, the most power-efficient kernel, desktop environment and web-browser I should use ?

3) Among these packages, programs, ideas, which are good (for power-save, of course) :

pm-powersave, "powertop recommended settings", "2D environment", "32 bit architecture instead of 64 bit", linrunner/tlp, laptop-mode-tools, "High contrast mode", "downclock hardware", "CONFIG_MATOM used in kernel)"

4) Bonus question : Can I achieve "Deep Power Down Technology (C6)" with my Netbook and/or tweak voltage, if my BIOS doesn't let me touch anything except global stuffs ?

share|improve this question

closed as too broad by Braiam, falconer, Eric Carvalho, BuZZ-dEE, Alvar Jan 24 '14 at 10:16

There are either too many possible answers, or good answers would be too long for this format. Please add details to narrow the answer set or to isolate an issue that can be answered in a few paragraphs.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

1 Answer 1

up vote 0 down vote accepted

1) Even if you had libreoffice, Firefox, etc installed, but not running, that would noy make much too difference to battery life.

2) With the kernels, power usage it probably based more on how you use them.

LXDE or Xfce seem the most efficient desktop enivroments to use - if you are using nano, why don't just not login to the graphical desktop environments, and just use the tty's (Ctrl+Alt+F1-F12) - works for me :-)

Midori or Seamonkey (like Firefox) are fairly efficient.

3) & 4) dunno

Basically, use the minimum amount of things as possible, and stop any power hungry processes - you can find them using top, and kill them in top by using k and typing the PID. Keeping CPU usage to a minimal, and use non Graphic intensive programs.

You may also want to remember that hardware other than RAM uses power - namely the Wifi and screen backlight. You can usually activate and deactivate these using keyboard shortucts, like Fn+F2 and Fn+F7

Just thought I would add this - I find indicator-cpufreq useful on my work laptop, as setting it to power seems to add an extra hours battery life. In 13.10, you can install it with:

sudo apt-get install indicator-cpufreq
share|improve this answer
I can't only use nano because I have to use a web-browser at the same time. – MrVaykadji Jan 6 '14 at 23:01
It is useful during lectures and things anyway. – Wilf Jan 6 '14 at 23:37
It is useful even if the full desktop runs in tty7 ? – MrVaykadji Jan 6 '14 at 23:40
It can be, as it seems to pause some processes in the graphical desktop - it would probably then have similar performance as it would if it was being run in a terminal anyway. – Wilf Jan 6 '14 at 23:43
Following Ubuntu wiki, black pixels are more power-needing to display than light ones. So I'm gessing tty is not a good idea. Maybe use a non-graphic session would, but certainly not a tty AND a session running together. – MrVaykadji Jan 7 '14 at 12:13

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.