How Windows XP wasted $25 billion of energy - but will Vista be eco-friendly?
Summary: Treehugger examines how Windows XP wasted about $25 billion worth of energy and contributed 225 million tons of CO2 to the atmosphere over the past 5 years.
Treehugger examines how Windows XP wasted about $25 billion worth of energy and contributed 225 million tons of CO2 to the atmosphere over the past 5 years.
[poll id=38]Microsoft has been touting Vista's new power saving features, saying that upgrading to Vista could easily save consumers and corporations $50 to $75 per computer per year in energy costs. The question, though, is what marvelous new code makes this miracle possible. The answer? They fixed three stupid mistakes that have cost the world billions of dollars and millions of tons of CO2 in the past five years.
So what were these three mistakes?
- The default power-saving options for Windows XP were usually set to "High Performance"
- It was too easy for applications to override sleep mode
- Difficulty in administrating power saving features
It's very easy to underestimate the amount of power a PC consumes. While someone who left their car running all night because it would allow them to get going quicker in the morning deserves a serious wedgie, leaving a PC and monitor on overnight really isn't thought of as being all that bad. It is, but it's a socially acceptable form of waste.
Under Windows Vista these issues have been addressed, but is switching to Windows Vista an "eco-friendly" move?
Probably not. First off, if you have to landfill your old PC and buy a new one to run Vista, then that's far from being a sane thing to do from an eco standpoint. A far better solution would be to tweak a few XP settings and live with that, especially if your old PC is still up to the job at hand.
If you do plan on upgrading your system (or systems), then consider disposing of the old systems in a thoughtful way - maybe by making a few power option tweaks and passing the system on to someone else who wants a PC.
Another problem is that a new PC isn't automatically going to be an energy saver compared to an older model. For example, while AMD and Intel have worked hard to reduce the energy consumption of CPUs, GPU manufacturers have little or no regard for energy saving and have no shame about pushing the power requirements for new graphics cards to crazy heights. These in turn need bigger and beefier PSUs, which waste even more energy. Technologies such as AMD's 4x4 take energy wastefulness to new and dizzying levels.
My hope is that Microsoft will roll some of these power option fixes into the next service pack for Windows XP, and also that they work closely with OEMs and vendors to ensure that future PCs offer the best performance possible for the smallest environmental impact.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
M$ should be held accountable for global warming
The Government should fine them billions for their negligence.
Hate to break this to you but...
You're forgetting about power management
Not always...
Power managment is only effective when it's put into use. If you go to the power managment control panel item in ANY OS - Windows, Linux, OSX, etc... and you make it so everything is "Always On" - and make the "Always On" profile literally do that, then it ain't worth a hill of beans.
The flip side of the coin, however, has to do with the hardware itself. When you've got brand new video cards that require 1 KW power supplies - that's 1000 Watts, or 10 100 Watt lightbulbs, you've got the real root of the issue. While CPU makers (Intel and AMD) have made major inroads in cutting power consumption, video card vendors have been going in the opposite direction.
Case in point, Nvidia's recently released EXTERNAL video card gear was designed to be external due to the immense heat the puppy generates. And we both known heat is the result of more and more electricity being used to power the rigs.
Shut up, fool.
Linux Geek should be held accountable for greenhouse gasses
No...
i've been telling him for 36.8 years to get a new car.
Explain to me what power management features Linux has
If the answer to any of these questions is no, would you then suggest we start fining Linux distro companies?
It's not the click of a button, but here you go.
then again, what with Linux is a click of a button?
George, George...George...
I don't care if my pc belches black smoke
I agree
I personally have 7 boxes including two 4-way machines and their little jet engines are music to my ears. As long as I pay my power bill then I employ people who might otherwise not be employed...just doing my part.
Also speaking of computer power how many machines does Google have...something like 1 million fire breathing commodity boxes...
Let's shut down the internet for a couple of days so we can save mother earth:)
Google actually does their part on power savings
That would be Ideal for some home systems
It will take software as well
Unless it works well across the board, people will just turn it off.
Microsoft's own SMS Advanced Client
How about...
Powering off workstations
Wake-on-LAN packets cannot route in some networks, and timed power-ons via the BIOS are troublesome to enforce throughout an enterprise.
Fer christ sakes...
Power management on Mac OS X ...