Talk:PC power management

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Original research?[edit]

This article is not orignial research. PC power management is a field that is well established, with the first power managment software being produced in 1999 - ten years ago. There are only a small number of companies operating in this field, but from information taken from company websites, there are probably in excess of 10 million PCs running PC power management programs worldwide (this number is obviously impossible to verify objectivley as it owuld require verification of each companies sales, which are not publically available, hence this aspect is not referred to in the article.

References are current references as this field is changing constantly. However, up to date references do not violate Wikipedia's no original research policy. Envirogeek (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment[edit]

Based on the nature and frequency of the edits to this page, it appears that several authors of PC power management software are using this article as advertising space. What is the best way to keep what is probably a notable topic, while removing the commercial? Jminthorne (talk) 07:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has greatly expanded over recent days. For much of the last six months it included a basic table of software vendors which was growing over time and included many notable and un-notable software products. What has happened now is a feature-by-feature table has appeared - this is a positive thing because it allows the readers to see the type of features present and relavent. This clearly has a commerical aspect but is also offering significant insight into the subject matter. We can already see a divide between agent-based and agent-less solutions. This will likely be an emerging area of the technology. On this basis I wouldrecommend that the comparison table stays at least for now. There are many other pages that include such tables and they are useful to many people. One thing I would say though - the table contains few references. We need to watch this aspect/ Hnobley (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the table should stay, there should be clear inclusion guidelines regarding the products compared. I'd suggest the most obvious: only those software that have a current Wikipedia article. — Scientizzle 17:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This sounds like a good way forward. However, since the table only appeared this week I would suggest we wait a few weeks to see how its content evolves. At the moment it is getting much longer which is (a) good because it expands the knowledge/comparison available but (b) bad because it may become a commercialized free-for-all. One other thing I'm wondering is that their are actually several different power management / energy management / computer power management articles - perhaps it would be better to merge them and then split the table (if it stays) into a new 'PC Power Management Software' article./Hnobley (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The table can be good but as a note, agent vs. agent-less is not a new development it has been around for many years and normally used by those vendors that want an initial foothold in a market. (Comment here based on 15+ years in Systems and Asset Management). As my removal of the table and reversion to a simple list was classed as vandalism (which it wasn't since as a vendor I re-added a raft of other vendors that had also been removed) we will continue to update and expand this. I suggest though that the growing list of vendor-owned articles/references be trimmed. I won't do it in case it is misconstrued. Mgmcginn (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-arranged the table in alpha order to aim for fairness. My view remains the expanding table with more vendors is a positive thing and agree that links to vendor specific articles should be on merit only. I have removed one PR link which was expired. Perhpas in the future the categories in the table could be condensed as it is now getting quite long. Hnobley (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is getting quite long but this is essentially a feature list. Each product has different features and each of these is good or bad in a particular situation. I refrained from adding a bunch of others that we have because while they are valid, their application is difficult to understand without an associated explanation of how it impacts. If you are going to have this table it cannot be shortened only extended unless each individual feature is to get its on article to discuss what it means. On a related note, Hnoble, I am a vendor, one that operates with PC Power Management in multiple countries but my removals on this and Green Computing have been to undo significant edits by someone promoting only Data Synergy products. That is where this table came from and why I originally removed it due to its selectinve use of features against the products they decided to retain. Mgmcginn (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished adding another vendor (Faronics Power Save) for completeness as well as a couple of new categories (such as Wake-On-LAN capability), but I agree that the table is getting lengthy. There are a number of features listed which do beg for further explanation as well - even someone familiar with PC power management may wonder what exactly these features refer to. I would be in favour of condensing the table (perhaps collapsing items like Wake methods, Policies, Exceptions, etc. to make it easier to navigate. Overall, it is nice to see a comparison like this - which serves a purpose for anyone looking for PC power management info - even if it was orginally created to tout a particular vendor. Thanks, Mgmcginn, for helping to correct the original slant to the table. Danderson68 (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The table seems to have expanded greatly since I last looked. I think this is generally a positive thing although it is getting very long now. I can see that every vendor will want to show their own best features so it would be good to condense feature list or come up with a way of grouping related features better. Fionacambelly (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fionacampbelly (talk • contribs) [reply]

Everytime I look the table has grown! Perhaps we could keep this sensible by only including vendors of note and ensuring that (at least some) feature claims are backed up by evidence. Hnobley (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only a handleful of the potential vendors are listed here so some just haven't noticed it yet and 'vendors of note' could be a debatable definition for sure. Personally I'd be happier if I didn't have to keep watching this to make sure someone isn't saying we do something we don't, don't do something we do, or add some new obscure capability that we need to respond to. While it remains I will keep our section up to date but suggestions to compress certain areas can be defeating the object since these are areas of of potential differentiation that people may need to know. Meantime I'll keep updating. P.S. We operate direct and via partners in Americas, Europe, and Asia, we are sponsors of Climate Savers Computing Initiative, approved for a number of US Utility Vendor Rebates, listed as a commercial package by Energy Star; amongst other things I hope some of this means we are 'notable' at least :)Mgmcginn (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will likely be difficult to determine who is considered a "vendor of note" just as it has been difficult to determine which features warrant being included in the table. In the end, there is no real unifying criteria for either. I must agree with Mgmcginn that, as it stands now, this page will require constant monitoring to ensure that it's kept up to date and that the information is kept accurate. This seems unwieldy and to be honest, even though I'm familiar with PC power management (I am part of the Faronics Power Save team) there are a number of features presently listed that seem confusing as to their exactly meaning. I'm not sure if this really serves those who want to learn more about PC power management...

I'd like to get everyone's feedback, but I suggest that the simplest approach may be to change the table back to listing vendors down the vertical (so that others can be added if desired) and that we only keep the first three categories (Tech Ref, OS & License type). This way all vendors can still be featured with links to where readers can go for further information. A few more of the features presently listed could be added to the introductory paragraph to give readers an better idea of the main/general functionalities of PC power management software. Thoughts on this? Danderson68 (talk) 9:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Stops this thing growing too far to the right and makes for a more manageble list avoiding the PC Power Management arms race. I'm just sad that we picked a company name starting with V! Perhaps this would be fairer in descending rather than ascending??? <grin> Mgmcginn (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in, Mgmcginn. As suggested in my previous post, I will change the table back to listing vendors down the vertical (so that others can be added if desired) and retain only the first three categories (Tech Ref, OS & License type). I will add a few more of the major features presently listed in the table to the introductory paragraph (to better describe the main/general functionalities of PC power management software), and I will also remove any vendor-specific references (which constitute advertising). I'll plan on doing this by end of tomorrow (May 11) to give time for any further editor feedback today with valid reasons/arguments to the contrary. Keep in mind that this article is intended to be informative and helpful and not confusing and unwieldy. All presently listed solutions/vendors will be retained. Sound good with everyone? Danderson68 (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The feature table is a valuable addition if the contents are accurate. I would suggest that all (or at least the majority) of features are backed by references. Ideally this should be from vendors own documentation. Please keep the basic features table even if it has to be cleaned up and some convention established about additions. One last thing - One of the products (Verismic ?) stands out as not having public documentation. I appreciate your honesty about being a vendor but how can we compare products if there is no public documentation? Fionacampbelly (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching, and occasionally contributed to, this table for a couple of weeks now. I see that there is a potential conflict here with some editors making it plain they are involved with vendors of such products and clearly wanting to see their products in the fairest light. I can't fault this approach but can see that there has been a negative 'arms race' between competing products with ever more esoteric features being added to increase differentiation. This isn’t good. As I've already said I would prefer to only include 'notable' products but clearly this is a subjective thing - so the next best thing for me is to include a *relevant* feature comparison table.

This avoids the principle problem with the original article that a vertical list of vendors was ever expanding with more and more peripheral products. This was just cheap advertising and didn’t contribute knowledge. The advantage, as I see it, to a feature table is that it sets a standard for any included product. This isn’t perfect but if it is reasonably accurate and verifiable then it will at least keep the article informative and serve as a substitute for a definition of ‘notable’ products.

I wouldn't disguise my true preference for open source software and my bias against commercial products. However, I live in the real world so an accurate feature-by-feature table seems a reasonable compromise. I sympathise that this needs to be monitored by industry participants for accuracy and fairness but would argue against removing the majority of the feature comparison. It may be easier for you to monitor and maintain but this article exists for public information. There is a difference between blatant advertising and fact-backed comparison, and if you are a quality vendor, you shouldn't have a problem with comparing yourself to others.

There is precedence for this type of table such as Office_suites and Windows_7_editions.

I would propose the following compromise:

a. Trim the more esoteric features to make the table more usable. My personal candidates for removal or changes are:

  • License Duration
  • Min Cost
  • 64-bit Support – Possibly add to OS support field
  • All Client Communication HTTP/HTTPS
  • Multi-Language + Currency
  • Systems Management Integration (beyond agent deployment)
  • Customizable User Prompts
  • Configure Wake-on-LAN BIOS
  • Exceptions - Condense to a single field
  • Independent Battery Settings
  • Customize Hardware Buttons
  • Report Hardware Capabilities
  • Reporting - Condense to a single field
  • Reporting Resolution

b. Discuss any new products or additional features before amending the table. I can already see that the 'arms race' had becoming self-limiting. I'm sure a consensus can be found on what features are relevant.

c. I agree that it would be good to expand the introductory paragraphs to explain more about the overall features available and reason they exist. If this allows a group of features to be condensed then great (but I would keep the generalised feature field so products can be visually compared). Perhaps the last row could contain an 'Additional features' box for any truly vendor specific features.

d. I also agree that more references would be good. Surely all commercial products will have some documentation we can link to? I would propose that a verifiable public feature guide is the minimum standard for inclusion in the publically available table. I can’t see why this should give any legitimate vendor cause for concern.

So in summary – please let’s not go back but forwards. The 'arms race' needs to stop but a relevant feature comparison table is a good thing. I’m happy to make these changes and try to give the introductory paragraphs some attention. Is this okay? Hnobley (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further Discussion on Page Changes. Good to see the discussion on this continue. Hnobley, I am fine with you making your suggested changes, but I do have a few further comments/questions:

a. As in the Office_suites precedent that Hnobley mentions, I would continue to suggest that providers go down the vertical. I think that the likelihood of adding further providers may be greater than the addition of new features going forward and it's easier to expand downward than across.

b. I think that a discussion over any newly proposed features is an excellent idea! It will at least attempt to provide some sort of consensus over feature validity.

c. With regard to features, I am fine with your list of deletions and would agree that 64-bit support can be rolled into the OS category. For the Exceptions, perhaps a combination of clarity and condensing could be used - three categories like "User/Time Exceptions", "Computer Activity Exceptions", "Open Application/File Exceptions"? (these are quite distinct). For Reporting, remove the present last four categories and replace with "Savings/Environmental Reporting"?

d. One further "feature" category that I would consider expendable is the "Cost per Seat". While I'm fine with having this information out there, I don't see this as fitting the article as it doesn't help explain PC power management. The previous "Type of License" category should suffice as to whether the solutions are free or commercial, and readers can visit specific vendors for pricing info. Remove?

e. I also think that a link/reference regarding a public feature guide is a good required minimum. Would this be a new row/column in addition to the "Technical Reference" or would the TR category suffice? In short, I think outside links should generally be kept to a minimum as this ends up being less about clarification and more about advertising and traffic generation for vendor sites. From further research, Wikipedia generally prefers links to other Wiki pages, particularly in the main article.

f. I agree that references are good, but that being said, I don't think that each feature needs to be individually referenced (see outside link objection above). We already have a number of vendor-specific references in the list and this could be covered by the one public feature guide link/reference. Further to this, references 1-5 and 7-12 are vendor-specific and reference a term (PC Insomnia), a feature or internal research. To me, these should be removed and replaced (if possible) by valid 3rd party references that define/explain them (See Scientizzle's links from 27 April 2010 for possibilities). We have to keep in mind that Wikipedia stipulates references should come from verifiable 3rd-party sources and not original research/opinion (press releases, blogs, sales sheets). We have to make sure the article doesn't get flagged for deletion because of "advertising". Thoughts?

g. An "Additional Features" category could be added, though again, the single link/reference to the aforementioned public features list should suffice.

Thanks again for suggestions, Hnobley and Fionacampbelly. I see us as coming close to consensus here! If you would like help making some of these alternations, Hnobley, let me know, Danderson68 (talk) 1:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be broad consensus now. I would propose to change the article tomorrow along these lines. I have requested that the recently added product be moved to the correct alphabetical position. One thing that does concern me is that at least one product vendor does not currently make documentation available. I don't want to remove this product and create an edit war. Please can that vendor respond to this and, ideally, reference their features. Hnobley (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add an extra variable ... I would suggest offloading the table to its own list article, such as List of PC power management solutions or similarly named article - linking to that article from this one. Those types of tables are frequently in their own articles anyway to avoid clutter in the main prose article (granted, this is not always the case, and WP:LISTS supports either method). Of course, even in its own article, inclusion criteria should be defined based on consensus. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that there is a fundamental difference between this article and the one used for comparison at Office suite; namely, each software entry on the other list has its own article. I'm not saying that each entry must have an article; but if it doesn't, then to be listed it should at least be listed with multiple refs that meet the verifiability requirements of WP:N#General notability guideline. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to HNobley, Verismic does make documentation via the download of the software. The user manual is a detailed document that goes with the specific version downloaded. Information about the solution is on the webite but it is not unusual for a software vendor to list main items on a website but not put a full user manual available spearately for download. The different vendors in this table all work in different ways. Verdiem for example list some technical references but it is by no means a full user manual or even feature list; we have a pretty detailed demonstration of the soultion in comparison to most other people so should we be penalised because it is video rather then text-based? Some do this, some don't, it is not an industry or even general standard so maybe simply stick to the older model of providing links to the vendor page to allow people to investigate themselves.Mgmcginn (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Couple of comments based on HNobley's possible feature kill list.[reply]

  • License Duration - makes sense
  • Min Cost - makes sense
  • 64-bit Support – Possibly add to OS support field - makes sense
  • All Client Communication HTTP/HTTPS - communication method can be important if an organisation needs to support systems over the internet or does not have the ability to open ports between locations (more common than you might think)
  • Multi-Language + Currency - Pretty certain the French amongst others might be upset if this isn't classed as important since many products are english only or assume a single currency in use within an organisation
  • Systems Management Integration (beyond agent deployment) - Leveraging existing data/investment in systems management is often asked for. Deployment of an agent using one of these tools isn't really integration, whereas leveraging a system for targeting or radditional reporting granularity is.
  • Customizable User Prompts - If an event is scheduled to occur while a user in at the PC, a specific message can be important along with different options of how to proceed. User interaction is important although perhaps how it is referenced here might be different
  • Configure Wake-on-LAN BIOS - Whoever provides this will be severely limited on what systems they can do it to since it is heavily dependent on the hardware vendor
  • Exceptions - Condense to a single field - exceptions is a very important part of a solution to allow it to go beyond the basics. This is an area of major differentiation between 'basic' and 'advanced' solutions
  • Independent Battery Settings - makes sense
  • Customize Hardware Buttons - makes sense as this is an unusually specific feature
  • Report Hardware Capabilities - uncertain, if you don't know if your machine can hibernate how do you know your policies are likely to work?
  • Reporting - Condense to a single field - do you mean reporting Yes/No? We spent time creatig over 100 reports, doesn't really sit right if having a single report allows this to be checked, perhaps 'number of reports'?
  • Reporting Resolution - makes sense, this in here really means how frequently do clients send in their data or posibly what level of detail can you see. Neither one is amazingly important even though we cover this to the minute

Some items like Group Policy support are a little confusing since answering Yes to this appears to be a positive thing whereas I think this means that settings are deployed via Group Policy. Is this necessarily a good or a bad feature? We see it as limiting as we adapt and change based on events that GPO can't handle but what do others think? How could these feature titles be better defined so that their purpose is better understood.

Regarding the Office Suites and Windows 7 versions mentioned. These tables are pretty different. I do prefer the features across the top with the products listed vertically, this is much better for expansion. However, Windows 7 is a single vendor product with a single set of vendor controlled features and Office Suites has maintained a very generic set of features/compatibility items. We don't see the saying anything about customisable columns, truetype font support, support for different object types etc. It is more about main capabilities which is different to what this table set out to do in this format. The office suites table doesn't really give a 'feature' comparison, it gives a 'function' comparison. To be the same here we would have granularity to the level of 'Agent Required', 'Report Activity', 'Send Policy', 'Reporting' etc. No problem if this is done but it won't be a feature table anymore. Mgmcginn (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must disagree with Mgmcginn on couple of things:

  • Surely publicly available technical documentation (without registration) should be the minimum entry criteria for inclusion on this table? I'm not sure about Lan Desk but I'm pretty sure Verdiem does have this freely available. This allows people to make up their own minds and keeps the features table honest. Hiding behind a registration system means that we have no way of knowing if these features are really available. I would propose that any vendor who is unable to provide this should not be included in the table.
  • To build upon previous comments I would propose that the features be reduced to only those that are related to actual power management. Everything else should be in a single 'product notes' field. Without this restriction everyone will have different views about important features, and as we have seen, vendors will want to make the best of their own products. I would include the following, in addition to those already proposed, for removal on this basis - All Client Communication HTTP/HTTPS and Multi-Language / Currency.

Fionacampbelly (talk) 09:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree with the last comment too. Public verifiable information should be the entry criteria for the table. I think most of the other changes seem to have consensus but I'm holding off changing the table because I don't want to start a disagreement with anyone. Please can I call a vote on the issue of public documentation?

Hnobley (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a vote is going to happen I'd like this to be specific on what it calls for. What does 'Public documentation' really mean? If it means the full user manaul then this is not standard by any means and as a commercial organisation we reserve the right to withhold this information as it provides competitive information about how we have designed the solution. It is not withheld from those that are truly evaluating and is simply one request step away. We are commercial as are most products in this list. If public documentation means a feature list then we are more than happy to list something like that on our website but the layout and format would not be dictated by anything placed here. We provide information in written, recorded, and in full functional evaluation form so that anyone wanting to evaluate can do so. A vote for this documentation needs to be making the decision as to whether this is truly a measure of 'a notable vendor' or simply a personal preference from people that have open source software preferences. Commercial in most cases means proprietory and too strict a definition here means you would need to strike off most vendors in this list including those that commercially would be considered market leaders due to not meeting this specific requirement. We operate based on the revenues generated from our software, it is not a bad thing that we'd like to know who is interested in using our software so that we can assist them in their evaluation for both our benefits.

Is this article meant to be information about the market or trying to dictate to the market? This is meant to be a source of information about a topic, not a soapbox. As an organisation we listed ourselves along with others, we have completed the feature lists as requested by others, but this article and contributors are beginning to demand and dictate and from what I understand of Wikipedia this is not what it is for. Mgmcginn (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia guidelines and policies, the inclusion criteria for listing products and companies is documented at WP:N#General notability guideline. As yet, I'm yet to see evidence that the products being listed in this article meet that standard. If any do meet it, the refs should be added so that the entry can be kept on the page (or, better yet, the referenced article about the product created). Any that do not meet that standard need to be removed.
Seriously, please read that guideline. It's fairly straight-forward. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see in that link it talks about notability regarding a separate/independent article whereas this discussion is around the content of the article. It is clear in those guidelines that they do not relate to the content and that should be referenced elsewhere. The topic itself (PC Power Management) has plenty of independent coverage therefore no problem there and since the listing of vendors is content rather than an article in and of itself then it doesn't contravene these guidelines. Mgmcginn (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does apply. Per WP:ELPOINTS, "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article." The product names should be internal wiki-links - if the product does not have an article of its own, then refs that can meet the general notability guideline should be added into this article to justify the red-linked internal link until such time as someone does create the article. By not being notable enough for their own article and not having refs available that can meet the notability guideline, they would likewise not be notable for listing in the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few recommendations:

  1. Consider removing the table completely. It detracts from the article and serves to promote products. There's nothing notable here.
  2. Remove the external links in the column headings. These are inappropriate external links as discussed above.
  3. Remove the "Technical Reference" row completely. Again, these external links are inappropriate.
  4. Remove the "Approx per-seat Cost" and "Min Cost" rows. Highly promotional.
  5. Remove the notes following the table. The first is unsourced. The second is a dead link, and I think it's a good guess that the article is self-published. The third is unsourced - the link appears to be WP:REFSPAM only.

--Ronz (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entire "software solutions" section appears like a spamhole and it should be removed in its entirety per WP:IINFO unless there are enough products on the chart that have their own articles. In that case we could limit the chart to bluelinks only and cite WP:WTAF. Comparison tables have had a long history of being used for spamming purposes and I've found the only way to make them usable in our articles is to limit them to items that already have Wikipedia articles. Currently there don't appear to be enough notable products on the table to keep it around (keeping it with only one or two products would be promotional as well), so it looks like removal is the best option. ThemFromSpace 20:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Table[edit]

Following the discussion here over the last few weeks I have now updated the table. I continue to believe that the table itself is a good thing provided it is not abused by those with a conflict of interest and is accurate. I have removed many of the more peripheral and controversial fields and moved the external links to the references section. I have also followed the suggestions that in-line links to vendor pages should be removed. These are now included as red/blue links. I hope everyone will see this as an improvement to be built upon. As discussed here over recent weeks I would propose that further changes to the range of fields present be discussed first here. --hnobley (hnobley) 19:053, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Big improvement. The table is much less cluttered now. Thank you to everyone who has offered improvement suggestions. Fionacampbelly (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's still problematic. The entries continue to fail to establish notability. The only refs to attempt support it are primary sources, and need to be third party reliable sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added articles about two more notable products. Hopefully this adds depth to this interesting article. Fionacampbelly (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modified PowerMAN Safe Shutdown entry from 'Yes' to 'No' based on data available on their website. "PowerMAN FAQ" Only talks about sleep modes protecting documents rather than a tool-specific feature to handle closure and saving of docs. The user "Administration Guide 5.1" also does not mention the feature. If this is incorrect please provide reference update. Mgmcginn (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ability to perform custom actions on shutdown was added to PowerMAN about 18 months ago. I don't know why this important feature isn't covered in the manual better. It is explained in the PowerMAN Group Policy reference that ships with the product. Fionacampbelly (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm then, does it have included scripts to handle safe shutdown for specific apps, or just a scripting capability that requires the admins to write the scripts? Mgmcginn (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed Enpower's online demo. Updated with findings. No Hard Disk power down. No option to connect to active directory as this is purely hosted with no integration points. Modified Busy Apps feature to Busy PC as the feature does not check if a process is busy, just if cpu or disk activity is present (this is a difference as a background indexing is not as critical as visual studio compiling). Also removed the Network check as it is not present in the product or on the features page that was referenced. Wake On LAN is present, but not a scheduled wake up facility working without LAN connection. No predictive reports to assess probable savings. Mgmcginn (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing the removal or at least the clarification of the 'Group Policy Management' section. What exactly does this mean? Does it mean that policies are deployed via Group Policy, that the tool creates the policies for you, what? I know for a fact that some of those saying they support this don't really do this and a Yes means Green-Good when the possible definition of 'policies deployed via Group Policy' could easily be considered Red=Bad because of the limitations associated with Group Policy targeting and inability to change settings based on local conditions. Mgmcginn (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that section is quite important. Software management through Group Policy is a significant feature that means enterprises don't need to learn new management paradigms and can quickly integrate new technology into their existing systems. The best example in this class is probably EZ-GPO which was designed to be managed by GP. Surely most of these software products wouldn't exist if Micro$oft had done a better job of providing out-of-box, policy managed, power settings. This software sector exists because of these original omissions and therefore this category is totally relevant. Perhaps to avoid any confusion it should be renamed Supports management via Group Policy. Which products in the list can't be managed by GP but say they can be? hnobley (hnobley) 15:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you clarify what you mean by limitations associated with Group Policy targeting and inability to change settings based on local conditions. Group Policy is a powerful technology that offers very granular control. If you are associated with a product that doesn't support this technology that is fine but please say so very clearly to avoid any hint of WP:CONFLICT Envirogeak (talk) 06:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough question. Consider the following: An example organisation has three types of working environment; adminstration where normal working hours are 8:30 to 17:00 Mon-Fri, distribution which is 24/7, and shared computer labs that are available Mon-Fri 8:00 to 18:00 and Sat 8:00 to 13:00. If a solution is 100% reliant on the delivery of a power policy via Group Policy then there is a good chance that is does not contain the granularity required to change the power policy behaviour of systems to match these working hours. Admin could be aggressive outside of working hours but less aggressive during, Distribution aggressive during known shift changes, and Computer Labs take into account saturday differences. We are talking about the intelligence within the system to adapt to location, business, hours, and then beyond that into decision making based on what is happening on the device as well as who is using it. In a distributed corporate environment there are significant additional savings to be made if this type of thing is taken into account. Active Directory as the only delivery mechanism also creates difficulty in custom targeting since it restricts to a single structure. It is very common to have user accounts or computer accounts held in a structure that does not lend itself to the targeting of policies e.g. the Payroll machine in finance that should relally have a different policy to any other machines in that location. Limiting to delivery only via GPO can remove the ability to use alternate targeting mechanisms as well. Perfect example, try using GPO when you have an environment that has distributed, disconnected domains/directories, and then see what you are able to do about those machines that aren't even a member of the directory. This is a pretty common scenario to find these days and a badly designed AD structure is even more common. If you get stuck using only what already exists with no way to work around it, then you don't have flexibility.

This table and the article does not lend itself to discussing the finer points of these items, instead restricts itself to headline points (which is an agreement that a number of people have come to); however my question here is regarding an item that is at best vague in its definition and a Yes answer highlights in Green which makes it appear to be a good thing which is highly debatable. Of course I have a conflict of interest here considering I am from a vendor, but I have argued against changes in this article that would pander to other people's interests since every item updated here by anyone from a vendor could be considered a conflict of interest but vendors and product champions are by far the most active on this article. This particular item is not clear and the Green/Red distinction highly questionable. A product in this space that is reliant on Active Directory to deliver settings and potentially to decide what to apply is less advanced that a solution that delivers its own settings and applies those according to its own logic. I believe in this case the definition is confused and the benefit unclear. EZGPO is a perfect example of one that does have this dependency and it is not a positive aspect, it is a negative aspect in exactly the same way that a dedicated software distribution solution will leverage an Active Directory structure but will not depend on it to perform the actual delivery because of its inherent limitations. In summary, Group Policy is a powerful technology, but it is limited to what is was designed to do, this is why many products use AD as a structure rather than a delivery mechanism. By all means include it, but don't class it is a benefit when 'in some cases' (my belief is in this case) it is a sign of a less evolved solution - this is why I raised it here for discussion. Envirogeak please note that I have never hidden my association with a particular vendor as can be seen in this thread but would rather not have to repeat it each time especially since others decline to mention theirs at all ;) Mgmcginn (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on hnobey's suggestion I have modified this entry to 'Settings Deployed Using Group Policy' which is clear in its definition. Have modified Autoshutdown manager and GreenTrac based on information visible on their websites. I still believe that this should appear in red for a yes rather than a green since it is a solution being reliant on something else to deliver a service rather than having the capability built into it, but can't see how to do that. Mgmcginn (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a positive change. The field clearly means 'settings can be deployed by Group Policy'. However, I'm afraid I don't agree with Mgmcginn's idea that Group Policy is inherently unsuitable for more flexible power management. I agree completely that it does impose certain restrictions on how settings can be made but don't see any reason why it couldn't be used to configure different power settings for different times or locations. Indeed I have recently been testing a new product that does just this in a very flexible way. On the flip-side Group Policy is the most common way to configure these type of things and is already well-known to many network admins. Therefore there is a conflict - sure Group Policy imposes certain limits but also it means that an admin doesn't need to learn a whole new tool (and then another and another). The field in the table means 'Can settings be deployed by GP' - it doesn't claim that GP is better or worse. I think the reader should be able to make up their own mind on this. Put another way - If the field was removed because the community felt GP was an unsuitable technology for doing power management it would remove the clear differentiation between the various products. I say let the reader (and the market) decide. hnobley (hnobley) 16:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it is inherently unsuitable, I'm saying that it is not as flexible as a specifically developed solution 'could' be. When someone develops a solution, reliance on an external mechanism for delivery can be considered as avoiding the work required to develop that mechanism since it takes effort to develop and maintain. In some cases this could make sense, but if it means that management gets split between consoles then administration gets more difficult and becomes a negative. There are some solutions that are less flexible even though they deliver content themselves (those that still rely on a machine being online at a specific time to receive a setting for example) which is why I say green for GPO and Red for no GPO is highly debatable. In our case at Verismic, the work we have done gives us far more flexibility can we could get with a GPO, but this does not go for everyone but I can't help feeling hard done by for making this a simple and powerful process when someone requiring multiple interfaces and complex administration steps gets a green in this table. I'm happy with the clear definition now and pleased you agree. I also agree that readers should have the option to make up their own mind, but Green Good, Red Bad is pretty much universal and in this case is visually making a pre-judgement for the reader. Perhaps if this was like the exclusions part? Colour makes this look nice but is a good/bad visual comparison wouldn't you agree with that? Mgmcginn (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison table in the article now contains many products some of which probably fail Wikipedia:Notability. I would propose removing those that do not have their own article on this grounds. Envirogeak (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm no, you do not need an article on wiki to be notable. Just reliable sources. mark nutley (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see any reason why the table shouldn't have as many products in as possible. Everybody will have different ideas about what is notable and this would surely end in lots of arguments. Hnobley (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The table really needs to be changed then to have product names on the Y axis and features on the X axis (if possible). As more products get added, it becomes difficult to view.Mgmcginn (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent change by Fionacampbelly not entirely accurate. 'Busy' may be implied for CPU, HDD and so on, but is not implied in Program. Most tools protect if an application is in memory but this does not mean 'busy'. Only using what is in memory can lead to apps causing insomnia. Verismic links CPU utilisation specifically to an App as well so a particular process can be detected as busy and this is a significant difference between what is in memory and what is actually doing something. Have modified to list program, cpu, and program cpu to highlight difference. Also, what is Integration API? Couldn't see that in datasynergy docs. Mgmcginn (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies that is a subtle difference I didn't think of. I stand corrected. The Data Synergy Integration API is a method for external programs or scripts to modify the products behaviour. I noticed that there is very little information available on the Verismic product because the technical documents aren't available to the public. Perhaps you could influence the vendor to correct this so every product is on a level playing field~:) Fionacampbelly (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, docs are available. i have worked with the website owner to get far more technical information about the solution and how it works up on the website. I think you are referencing the user manuals that are available as part of the product download rather than separately. They are ypdated for each release and are included in the download so no discrepancy appears in versioning.Mgmcginn (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slight update. to be clear, download and docs are immediately available after registration whereas most products require a salesperson to contact the registrant before they are allowed to review the product. Level playing field would mean open availability without sales contact as well. we could be very picky about all of this, but each product is different and powerman only offers a very old user manual for download.Mgmcginn (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mgmcginn, sadly that doesn't seem to be the case. We have just requested a download of the Verismic product and no documents were available immediately afterwards. However, we did then receive an email from someone at Verismic. I would hope that all vendors in this sector can remain professional and honest about their products and documentation. The Data Synergy documentation is publicly available without any registration and hopefully this reflects an open technical culture. There should be no need to hide anything like this. Fionacampbelly (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check the email that automatically got sent to the email address put in when registered (Support@... I believe in your case) and you will see download links for the software which include the manuals. So please be exact about what you receive. My request still hasn't been acknowledged from your guys. I sent an email to the same address asking if I might now get a copy of your software. ;) - Your online docs are dated Nov2009 and you have said earlier in this thread that they are not accurate about certain features. Be consistent; if your docs are freely available, then make your product the same and keep your docs up to date. Our docs and product are freely available after basic registration to get the download link and this is a lot more than most vendors in this table including DataSynergy. This section is meant to be about what is added or modified in the table. I still haven't seen the referenceable proof of your safe shutdown capability as I got no response to my last question. Docs still don't reflect that feature. This is getting silly so please stop this Mgmcginn (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatyousaying, what you doing? Added one of the so called unremarkable products back. Enpower seems to be doing well as indicated by the recent case study they have uploaded online. Also, checked their support for wake timers (the mechanism to perform a scheduled wake without wake on LAN), it does support the same. Samgalaxy (talk) 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure Creative Riot could be considered notable at the moment since all references appear to be from themselves except for a couple of startup reports. After the 'fun' I had with the notability requirements I'm pretty certain this one has some issues. I won't be the one making the change though. Mgmcginn (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added references for Enpower - including one by a notable third party. Samgalaxy (talk) 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely convinced that a third party case study of Enpower using someone else's product really counts as evidence of notability for the product in the PC Power Management sector. Thoughts anyone? Mgmcginn (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. I can't really see how this product is notable. Of the two references added one is to the product website itself which doesn't establish notability and the other is a case study for a company that supplies the products vendor. To establish notability I would suggest that an external, third-party, reference is required showing use of the product by a notable customer, independent news article or similar. Suggest the product is removed from the table.Fionacampbelly (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linked to a customer testimonial for Enpower. Hopefully, this would help settle the notability debate. Samgalaxy (talk) 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability previously established as the organisation being notable enough to sustain their own article. In this case the only references provided are self-published so are not full evidence of notability. Removing again as I can't see this passing any notability test for the organisation or the product itself due to lack of presence and visible track history. Even if simply searching for the product or the company, only finding self-published materials. Sandford012 (talk) 08:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greentrac mods - SaaS change to limited features for online eval system (see website for comparison of features) and while a rental model exists this is indicated as an on-premise appliance. Agent can be deployed via AD but does not require it to deploy policies (not a bad thing). OS support listed as XP SP2 and up on their FAQ (not Win95). Might need some corrections but this is what I can tell from their website.Mgmcginn (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NewBoundary the new section you added is not descriptive therefore may need clarification or not be eligible for inclusion. I think you mean policy settings will change based on grouping of systems and time-based settings which is not uncommon but I agree not all systems in this list have. First, please try to be a little clearer on the title, but also when adding something it might be best setting other product values to ?? since you don't actually know the answer. If the feature you have added is anything even close to what I list here, then a number of products in the table also provide it. I'm not averse to the feature being added as it might balance out the biased GPO policy deleiver statement somewhat. Mgmcginn (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mgmcginn, I'm intrigued why you think the 'Settings Deployed Using Group Policy' section is biased. I know there has been previous discussion about it but surely it is pretty plain - settings can be deployed via GP. You (and others) may think this is a bad thing, others may disagree and think it is useful - however, I'm not sure you why you think it is biased. Surely it is just factual. Each product either supports this feature or not and people can make up their own mind? On a separate note I wonder if it is time the table was pruned again to remove the more peripheral vendors and perhaps more peripheral features. Any comments anyone please? Fionacampbelly (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say biased because there isn't a balancing option to demonstrate a product has the ability to deliver its own settings without relying on an external system to do it on its behalf. Answering 'no' to GPO gives a Red entry (therefore bad) but no alternate feature that would give a green. That is where the bias is because in most tables like this, a positive answer to a question is assumed to be desirable therefore the option is biased on behalf of a product that has no delivery mechanism of its own. I'm not arguing that some people would not consider it a benefit to have this option, but I would certainly argue that most people would not really see it as a feature or benefit of the solution in question. To illustrate - having an item that says 'Requires an admin to press a button every 108 minutes' would give a green for yes, but that does not make it a positive feature of the solution.

Regarding peripheral features that need to be pruned there may be a case but what are you suggesting. Have to admit that I was considering adding a whole bunch more as the marketplace has been developing a lot.Mgmcginn (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updated table with some features that are industry related.

-Dynamic throttling included to highlight systems that do not rely only on power off/down policies for saving energy as these are not normally applicable to critical systems such as servers/clinical systems. Laptop application includes extending of battery life.
-User Efficiency scoring and ranking for user communication and encouragement of more efficient user behaviour; useful for end user buy-in and organisations that struggle to enforce aggressive policies.
-User targeted messaging for promotion of environmental and efficiency projects for items not directly under the control of a PC power policy.
-Peak/Off-Peak energy cost support. European countries tend to be unusual for how common peak/off-peak energy cost rates are. For accuracy of energy reporting and cost saving analysis, variable price rates as well as multiple energy vendors may be considered as an important requirement.

Some of these are available in other solutions so not just a Verismic feature list. Mgmcginn (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mgmcginn, thank you for your contributions. I agree that some of these features are really useful and present in multiple products which helps with a comparison. However, I do wonder if some of the features in the table (not just the newer ones) are getting a bit esoteric. Clearly the table is growing as products try to differentiate themselves from others. This is fine but when the table gets so long I wonder if we could simplify matters? I'm clear that every product could probably have minor unique features added to the table making matters even worse. This wouldn't be a good thing and I wouldn't propose to do this. Can we seek consensus on some more esoteric features to remove or perhaps separate into two core tables: power management and reporting/monitoring plus one additional box for (non-core) 'extra stuff'Fionacampbelly (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the ref back as it is a third party repoting on our product and listing details of this feature with their own comments - it is not our press release. I also modified 1E and datasynergy; 1E does not have this capability for workstations and laptops and there are not details on it being present for datasynergy. It is an active component where the solution itslef is responsible for changing performance characteristics while the machine remains online at all times. If the feature is in the powerman product can you reference it in some way (it is listed as verismic features on the verismic website so is referenced independently and by us). Thanks. Mgmcginn (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard[edit]

Article format/comparison table[edit]

Based on comments from several users above stemming from an RfC, I have removed the product comparison table and several other references and paragraphs that could be interpreted as advertising. I think as an encyclopedia article, comparison of individual products is unnecessarily detailed, difficult to maintain neutrally, and a magnet for spam and conflicts of interest.

Based on the history of the article, I propose that anyone with a conflict of interest as defined by Wiki policy avoid editing the article altogether, and instead use the {{Request edit}} template. VQuakr (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Table[edit]

VQuakr - I have restored this table partly because of how you commented. You are correct that there was no consensus for restoration; however there was also no consensus for removal so it surprises me that you followed the route you did. By reading this whole discussion page you will see continuous back and forth over this article and also by association other vendor articles. At one point I noted a trend for removing the associated vendor articles because of their self-promotional nature and marked some for deletion myself but saw that quickly cancelled and be backed by true independents. There appears to be a consensus that this table holds value and while a COI certainly exists with some, if not most, of the edits it appears that each person with a COI is tending to balance out the others so that no one organization dominates plus no consensus on removal was reached despite it being requested previously. Tables like these certainly are a magnet for this but you decided to delete this without discussion and then deleted again citing lack of discussion. Why not start that discussion now and see if consensus can be reached? I'm certainly interested in the results. Sandford012 (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the request for comment above. The discussion amongst uninvolved editors clearly favors removing the table and other promotional content. Since some time had passed from when the discussion was had from the RfC and when I removed the table, I discussed the edit in the section above. As such, I disagree with your assessment that I removed this table without discussion. Please review WP:BRD and establish a consensus before adding this content again. As for your suggestion that the "COI balances out" - possibly this was true, but that does not mean it was acceptable. A group of editors with COI competing with each other to promote their products is not an acceptable collaborative writing environment. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a new version of the table which is much smaller than the previous one and restricted to more notable vendors. Projectjennifer (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you propose as the criteria for inclusion of both products and the features on the table? My concern is that the inclusion criteria need to form a bright line to prevent additional spam from creeping in. VQuakr (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. The table I created is a lot shorter than the old one but clearly there is nothing to stop other products being added or the table being made longer or amended. This is good (because this is the whole point of a wiki). I'm sure it will require some periodic attention to avoid abuse but this is better than not having any comparison table at all which is the other possibility. There are plenty of other articles with similar tables so rather than banning it outright I'd prefer to police it. My suggestion for keeping things straight would be that the products listed should be notable (ideally referenced in reliable third-party material and with their own article) and the table as short as reasonably possible. Projectjennifer (talk) 08:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The table was back to advertising again. It does not not list 'Notable' products since it appears to deliberately exclude a number from the previous table version and features that the PowerMAN product did not have. Other notables could easily include 1E and Nightwatchman that is probably the most widely deployed product and is global, and Verismic Power Manager that also widely deployed and global. By any suggested measure by project jennifer these are notable products that have been ignored.Sandford012 (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created the new table to establish some of the features that are available from difference notable vendors. When I created it I actually had Verdiem in mind as the leading vendor in the market. I'd welcome other notable vendors being added. I'm sorry to say, but just removing content without trying to improve it or discuss it just looks bad.Projectjennifer (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone around a lot so is not a case of deletion without attempt to improve. The table is not representative of the market, not just because it lacks notable vendors, but also because it lacks features. Last time this became a long table with many good features but then got removed as advertising. I think we can assume that there has been a discussion and that deletion of the table was the result. I am not going to find other 'notable' vendors to add to this when both the product review and the enrgy star list does that already, all that then remains in question is a feature list that was argued previously to be too much for this article.Sandford012 (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I disagree. The new table was designed to avoid the pitfalls of the old one and only include more important features. If anything it could have been shorter. There was a discussion here (with VQuakr) and the table has stayed since. Why don't you act constructively and work to improve the table rather than just deleting other users edits. We could sit here all day reverting edits. This would be a pointless editwar. Please try to be constructive. I'll leave it for now so you can put up an improved version of the table. Please feel free to include any vendors you think are notable. If you don't want to be constructive I'll try to put up a more refined version in a few days. I'd appreciate it if you didn't just remove my edits rather than trying to fix them.Projectjennifer (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two very clear links in this article already that direct readers to independent sites listing available 3rd party tools so there is no real need for anything in here. I also see I have been accused of a COI by you on my talk page because of my previous edits. In the past I have marked vendors for deletion based on what I saw the administrators do but saw these tags get removed by the same people that have a COI in this article. You might also see that I also restored the table in it's entirety a while back but saw it deleted by VQuakr because of advertising. I do not see how you restoring a table with fewer vendors, especially excluding some that might be classed as leaders in the market would help the situation. I removed the table as it is unnecessary and a spam magnet as has been said many times before. I shall continue to remove unless I see some decent discussion from individuals that have no previous COI involvement and that have not been created only to add to this article.Sandford012 (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on PC power management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PC_power_management&oldid=1204580187"