Microsoft One Step From World's Greenest Company 492
An anonymous reader writes "According to this article, Microsoft is only a few lines of code away from becoming the greenest company on Earth."
From the article:
"Redmond should issue a software upgrade to every computer running Microsoft Windows worldwide to adjust each machine's energy-saving settings for maximum efficiency."
The author figures that the upgrade would affect 100 million computers and that the power cost savings could hit $7 billion per year. CO2 emissions would be cut by 45 million tons. But what about the impact on computing?
Spare us the uninformed babble, please (Score:4, Insightful)
What a phenomenally stupid idea. I have personally used a half-dozen machines where enabling "power-saving" is a recipe for operational disaster. Machines that power off completely. Machines that lock up. Machines that do something and never come back.
I think the lack of foresight on TFA's part with this inane suggestion reflects pretty accurately on how seriously we should take the article as a whole.
It Wouldn't Affect Computing At All (Score:5, Insightful)
People who need better performance would change the settings. The vast majority of people don't need better performance. The vast majority would be okay (performance-wise) running a slightly souped-up C128 with GEOS and the Wave.
Even more power savings (Score:5, Insightful)
Google suggested a new standard for ATX power supplies that is supposed to have again, substantial power savings.
There are solutions out there without a doubt. Big businesses would save money on their bills.
So why is no one interested in saving money?
Bueller? Bueller?
Re:Unsolicited Advice (Score:2, Insightful)
Even better (Score:2, Insightful)
How exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Numbers are the Amazing Part (Score:1, Insightful)
This isn't just about what Microsoft can and cannot do, this is about what we as users do. For those of us in the know, we should take this to heart and make an effort, if we aren't already, to reduce our power consumption. For everyone else, there needs to be education. Microsoft built in the feature, now we as techies need to let everyone know how to use that feature. Something like this helps everyone.
Re:Spare us the uninformed babble, please (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine the laughs if a new car was brought out which required the engine to be on all the time - because if you turned it off you cannot unlock the doors.
Re:Greenest? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are REAL monopolies impacting people in the US vastly more than the anti-Microsoft brigade seems to understand.
Its a very myopic view of things.
Not that easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Articles like this underline a huge problem in the software industry. Too many people think that software is easy, and that all any problem needs is a few software tweaks. Too many people are willing to offer up solutions without thinking the issue all the way through.
It is attitudes like this that lead to failed billion-dollar IT projects, most of what is offered on the Daily WTF [thedailywtf.com], and VB hacks promoting themselves as software engineers.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Spare us the uninformed babble, please (Score:5, Insightful)
You just described every server on the market.
I know that I would not want Microsoft fumbling around with the power saving settings on my Windows 2000/2003 Server (if I had one) computer just because they think they know what's best for consumers. I mean, we've already seen this mentality from them on numerous occasions, and how many times has it resulted in something useful? WGA protecting the consumer? Bull. How about how any Microsoft product update automatically resets the application in question to be the default application of that type (e.g. anything in Microsoft Office)?
Now they want to muck with power savings settings through an update. Sorry, I'm gonna pass on that one.
Re:Even more power savings (Score:4, Insightful)
Not sure about the ATX power supply, but I have to say that most of the equipment in most server rooms (remember that Google uses biege boxes, rather than vendor specific servers) don't use a standard ATX powersupply anyway - the form factor is way different, even if the output voltages are the same. That would cost a fortune to change out for most companies too. And in this day and age of "where's the profit?" you will be very unlikely to convince anyone to spend money now to save it in a couple of years.
Home PC/Mac Power Consumption (Score:5, Insightful)
I made a chart of actual electricity use of various PCs and Macs on my blog: PC and Mac power consumption [blogspot.com].
In a nutshell, my annual power consumption went down by 30% (!) once I started to power down my home-built "home server PC" when not in use.
I also figured out that when buying a new PC that is going to see a lot of use, power consumption should be a factor. If you're saving $100 in purchase price, but spending $50/year for additional electricity because the cheap PC's power supply is grossly inefficient, well, have you really saved anything if you keep that machine for 3 years? The short answer. NO.
Even better idea (Score:2, Insightful)
don't see a problem (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but I don't see a problem here. This seems no worse than turning on the Windows firewall by default. Those of us who spend a lot of time tweeking and modifying our machines would obviously configure our systems to behave the way we want them to. People who don't care won't care anyway.
I have no issues at all with my sister's computer going into a power-safe mode by default. My grandmother's computer could certainly scale back when she's not playing solitare... could probably scale back while she's playing solitare.
Please don't get your panties in a wad just because we're talking about Microsoft here.
Re:Here's my (better) idea. (Score:2, Insightful)
Short hardware life is bad for the enviroment (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardware is toxic and energy intensive to produce and to dispose of. MS pushes a short hardware upgrade cycle, aiming to get its customers to make new hardware purchases every two years or so. Remember not only do later versions require newer hardware, eventually out-growing old hardware, most of MS' income is from Windows sales and nearly all of that is from OEM sales. Thus, MS is economically dependent on a short life span of units with unreasonably large ecological footprints.
Say the ecological footprint of hardware is the same over time.
You get the idea. Or ...
A 3, 4 or 5 year hardware cycle is perfectly reasonable, unless the software/operating systems gets so slow and bloated that performance suffers. Or unless the vendor stops supporting the software or operating system and their is no way to get third party or home grown support. So, MS-enforced hardware upgrades are definitely not green.
Anyway, the blog (it's not a real article) is way off base about energy consumption. Shame on /. for pushing MS' hype.
MS' coding practices make the company un-ecological: As the blog points out, currently, most MS machines get left on 24/7 (or as close to that as possible) to allow crackers to get in -- I mean to allow the system administrators to push out patches on "patch tuesday" or whatever it's called now.
Turning the machines off would also make them invulnerable to exploits, at least for the duration of the inactive period. Wake-on-LAN is an underutilized feature and could allow that. But it has nothing to do with any specific operating system.
Re:Even better idea (Score:1, Insightful)
I had a poached egg for breakfast, I hit starbucks on the way into the office, and now I'm heading for my 'consitutional'. How's that, can I get modded up?
Re:Here's my (better) idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
Which raises an interesting point. I expect if someone were to study how many computers were doing anything useful during out of office hours, the figure would be 10% tops. It seems like it would be an easy way to compel companies to use energy saving settings by hiking the electricity rates out of office hours so that leaving machines on that were doing nothing cost them real money.
Re:Greenest? (Score:3, Insightful)
To be perfectly honest, I don't really understand why any company would enter into a partnership with Microsoft at all. Much like Wal-Mart, they will fuck you over the first chance they get, because they want the income and marketshare that you have. Of course I know the answer, it's"Money", but that really doesn't change that doing business with Microsoft is ultimately very, very dangerous for your companies long term bottom line.
I do not see Microsoft's recent actions as "embracing open source," maybe in their tried and true "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" strategy, by attempting to fragment the market, and sow Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about non-Novell blessed (and hence Microsoft blessed) Open-source software. Bill Gates is no different than Andrew Carnegie (well actually, he is. Gates' parents were Upper-middle/Upper class Corporate attorneys, while Carnegie really did start out without a pot to piss in) he's stolen his Billions, and now he's trying to "Buy his way into heaven" as it were, trying to change history's view of him with good deeds that cost him nothing. Gates can donate $100 million dollars checks to a half dozen charities and not notice a damn thing.
Re:Here's my (better) idea. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Spare us the uninformed babble, please (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good lord! (Score:2, Insightful)
Damn those linux people! using less power! DAMN THEM! DAMN THEM!!!
(truth: mini ITX 1.2ghz uses about 30 watts and does everything you need fast under linux. Vista needs a machine that drinks 400-600 watts and does nothing more for the average consumer or workplace.)
Sarcasm (Score:4, Insightful)
Please note that while sarcastic, I am happy that the mass market blindly following the trend help fund the R&D effort to produce the better computer I need to run my computer-vision programs...
[Linux zealotery] You can surf the web, play divx, mp3, program and write emails using Linux on an "old" (maybe 3 years) configuration. They are less powerful but generaly use less power. Needing a PIV 3 GHz Dual Core with 2 Go RAM and a graphic card with more memory than I have in my file server for reading emails and DVDs is the real waste, Microsoft is only somehow compensating for this.[/Linux zealotery]
[mod me insightful] Linux is not produce by a company but by individuals on their free time, we can't give its "green rank". But if we want to compare this network of people to a company like Microsoft you have to consier some things :
People in large companies tend to use more resources than people on their free time, be it paper, power, AC, better computers, etc...
The "Linux network" only has programmers. No marketing department, no administration, no financial department, etc... each one of these producing their own wastes
Linux is often used to "recycle" old PCs into education tools or simple media boxes. Do do that with, say, Win 95, you would have (in theory) to 1) find a licence 2) forget about internet connectivity because of all the nasty stuff Win 95 is vulnerable about 3) forget about recent software, even those which are lightweight.[/mod me insightful]
Re:Spare us the uninformed babble, please (Score:3, Insightful)
When modern OS's have nothing to do they sent halt commands to the processor cutting down power consumption greatly. Default settings shut down the monitor in a few minutes when unused. CRTs use a significant amount of power.
A PC on idle is like a lightbulb left on. Where's the animosity towards the guy who leaves his porch light on all night or the city lighting streets when no one is around? Heck, do you really need a big screen tv or more than one computer? As you can see, energy saving is a touchy issue. The best strategy has always been education first and hard arm tactics last (like this proposal). The application of sane power settings is alraedy here. If you want to make a difference you should lobby to make incandescent bulbs illegal, leavign lights on illegal, using hotplates and space heaters illegal, hairdryers, etc. Those use many times the power a PC uses and can all be done without.
spyware is just another symptom (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm. It seems that the thriving ecosystem of spyware, viruses, worms and trojans is also the direct result of MS' coding practices. Or perhaps to be more precise because of fundamental design flaws in the product. Either way, the problem is not the user, but the vendor.
But that does bring up a very important second point. The "re-format and re-install" mantra has the effect of reducing competition because of the difficulty in auto-installing third-party software on MS-Windows. Unlike Red Hat's kick start or Debian's APT, the third party apps have to wait until they can be installed manually. In that case, especially for large scale sites, the IT dept decides it's too much work to go for best of breed and knuckle under to convenience. Even if they do go with third party apps, time limitations (lunch, meetings, end of shift, project deadlines, etc.) may intervene and prevent completion of installation of the third party apps. With 10's or 100's of millions of PC's, just shifting the frequency a small amount means large numbers of units.
Using a system which is not prone to spyware, viruses, worms or trojans and does well with low system requirements is also an option for many. Power users and hard core gamers may have trouble. Some, a surprisingly small number, of business apps may cause trouble. But low-tech users who just surf or e-mail or play music will do just fine and may not notice.
So there are three choices there:
Screen savers - sleep (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good lord! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Greenest? (Score:3, Insightful)
When the EU recently gave them 7 days to comply with their order why did Bill and Melinda go meet with the head of the EU to talk about their charitable dealings? When india was talking about using open source why did Bill and Melinda show up in india with a large check for aids prevention?
Was all that just a coinky dink?