Bug 173361

We removed the CPUFreq info from the tooltip, because we can't guarantee here a actual information. For this we have now the detailed information dialog. simply click with left mouse button on the applet icon.

*** Bug 230741 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Danny, technically what difference does it make -- it is just an event, either you click the icon or the tooltip is about to appear. Both way it is accurate.

And it is not "simply click" because I check cpu speed several times a day, so I have to click to open this dialog and click again to close it again, just to see the cpu speed.

Besides -- add interval or anything else and users can live with it -- this way kwikdisk word, gi8k (cpu fan speed controller) and a lot of live-stats programs. And even, as you say, it is inaccurate (which I don't believe), the user can always "simply click" to get more accurate data. After a year of working with opensuse 10.0 I was never misinformed and it was more productive this way -- I am reopening since it is simply _useful_. Save (a lot of users) unnecessary clicks, some of use have RSI already.

One more thought -- the primary aim of OS should be (I assume reliability is provided) user-friendliness (productivity).
For over a year, opensuse 10.0 and its kpowersave could give me 100% reliable data -- I used only two modes 2GHz (performance) and 800MHz (powersave) and I only asked to show me this info. Opensuse 10.0 delivered what I asked for -- if computer works at full speed or not.
And it is hardly believable that all of the sudden such info cannot be available at tooltip in more advanced release of the system and the user is forced to make ~3500 clicks per year (I check at least 5 times a day the speed) to get such simple info.

Human first, computer next! Not otherwise. So please provide this info and nobody minds the tooltip would say "1.8GHz" while indeed it is "1.7988GHz".

Out of curiosity: Why do you check 5 times a day the speed? I expect from my system to adjust the speed as needed, and not that I have to check and set it. Is there a real use case for so many checks?

At least 5 :-) It is simple:
full speed -- when I run my scientific app, it is cpu-speed-hungry or when I watch some movie
low speed -- when I am thinking (i.e. writing program)

So I have to check the speed to adjust it -- and it is easier to just move the mouse.

> I expect from my system to adjust the speed as needed,

I would like that too. My since suse 10.0 adjusting speed is does not work well. I mean, manually work, but not auto -- when I unplug the computer (notebook) I never can be sure what the system will do, so when I plug it in again I alway have to check the speed.

So I check the speed to adjust to my needs and after plugging it in.

Sorry, but this is a WONTFIX. We decided to remove this information and add the new information dialog, which is more reliable since the Tooltip get not updated while you are over the tooltip. With dynamic CPU Freq Policy the information in the tooltip can be outdated in the moment you display the tooltip. Please remember: there are machines with more than only 2 possible frequencies and at least with more than one CPU/Core. 

Btw. You should normaly always use the dynamic CPU Freq Policy which should work for all cases and adjust the CPU Freq automtically to the needed frequency.

ACK. Just left-click the kpowersave icon to get a continously updated, up-to-date view of the system state. Click again and it is gone.
Even faster than waiting for the tooltip to appear :-))

Stefan, thanks a lot for the tip, it is 2 clicks less productive than just moving the mouse, but in this situation it helps a lot.

Danny, I understand the decision.
a) how it is possible to display precise info in dialog and it is not possible to display it in tooltip -- do tooltips have some delays in displaying information?
b) it was done before, so why cut down features? if someone dislikes it -- do not use it. simply.

Dynamic policy. I beg you pardon, but I would like to be in control of my computer. I hope that permanent switch to dynamic ("bug" reported) will not appear it is a feature.

Ok, let it be wontfix, but the explanation is awkward (at best) for me. 

(In reply to comment #9)
> a) how it is possible to display precise info in dialog and it is not possible
> to display it in tooltip -- do tooltips have some delays in displaying
> information?

AFAIU, it is not easily possible to update the tooltip without destroying and recreating it (QT problem). And (again, AFAIK) the tooltip gets created by the mouse pointer entering the "icon space", but only once. One could work around that by creating an own implementation of tooltips, but this still would be an ugly hack.

> b) it was done before, so why cut down features?

Because we have a better solution now :-)

> > b) it was done before, so why cut down features?
> Because we have a better solution now :-)

I think it is the problem -- you think of the old tooltip as a competitor. It is not better vs. worse -- those are two solutions for two distinct purposes.

Tooltip -- quick, "inexact" info.
Dialog -- nice, big, animated, 100% exact (in theory) info.

Who said the second competes with the first? Going this "better solution" way let's remove all text editors because we have "better solutions" --> word processors.

Tooltip was a nice, useful feature, and served its purpose absolutely perfectly. As I said -- if you dislike it, don't use it, but there are people for whom it is useful. 

(In reply to comment #11)
> Tooltip -- quick, "inexact" info.
> Dialog -- nice, big, animated, 100% exact (in theory) info.

Well, there were bugreports "tooltip shows the wrong frequency" and those basically cannot be fixed :-)

Maybe we convince Danny to add it back, i do, however, not miss it: it is (for me) really faster to move the mouse to the icon and click once than to wait the ~200ms for the tooltip to appear :-)

Another way that does not even need moving the mouse:

Add the KDE system monitor (ksysguard, "KDE-Systemüberwachung" in german) to your taskbar and let it display the CPU frequency. Unfortunately I don't remember how to do this :-( but it works ;-)