Not exactly MS's fault. It's more of a SU issue...Stupid User. Anyone at any time could have set these settings.

The point is that Microsoft is already saying that Vista will create huge power savings with relatively simple changes. The question is, are they lying? And if they aren't why didn't they do it sooner.

Not exactly MS's fault. It's more of a SU issue...Stupid User. Anyone at any time could have set these settings.

A good designer takes into account that most people are SUs. Nice predictable knee-jerk defense of MSFT.

Here's how to turn on power saving:
http://www.davidgoodwin.net/archives/00000063.php

Pretty stupid of Microsoft to come up with this info.

I wouldn't blame the user. If it is a consumer product it needs to be more user friendly.

Most users are afraid of mucking with Windows, anyway. If it's running leave it alone.

Even energy saving mode uses some energy. Scaled to millions of users it is a lot.

Modern operating systems should boot quickly enough to shut down at night. Especially corporations, who could save big bucks by shutting down.

Simple stuff like this is the best way to save a lot of energy.

My iMac takes exactly 18 seconds to boot. No big deal, IMHO.

We're still waiting on instant booting, though it's been promised for years. The most recent advances are pretty promising and come in the form of solid state boot drives. Solid state drives (which use flash memory) can operate much more quickly because they have no moving parts. Also, they're much more efficient. I've written a lot about them at EcoGeek. The first flash boot drives are already coming out in notebooks, and should be pretty much everywhere in the next 2 years.

They're going to save us a lot of energy even without the added impetus to shut down.

Great post Hank! Wow, this is amazing. Makes you think.

Computers still make some heat while sleeping, which means more AC in warm weather.

Microsoft should pay a carbon tax on this.

Out of curiosity what does OSX do for power management out for the box?

A good designer takes into account that most people are SUs. Nice predictable knee-jerk defense of MSFT.

True but hardly a knee jerk reaction. Hey I bet it's GM's and Bush's fault too, somehow...

Computers still make some heat while sleeping, which means more AC in warm weather.

A lot less then when they are on.

"It's more of a SU issue...Stupid User."

I don't think so. It's not because you buy a computer that you are supposed to know everything about it. People who pay good money for something should expect "sane defaults", and not every grandma should have to learn about how to hack around power savings problems.

Out of curiosity what does OSX do for power management out for the box?

http://www.google.com/search?q=energy+%22os+x%22

True but hardly a knee jerk reaction.

Of course it is.

Hey I bet it's GM's and Bush's fault too, somehow...

You were whining about that as "Anonymous" on the recent hydrogen thread. Thought you'd try it over here?

First of all, I'm kind of confused as to why you've turned a positive thing about Windows into an anti-Microsoft rant. Sure their OS has been using a lot of juice, but it isn't like anyone has been complaining about it for the last five years. At least this is the first I'm hearing of it. MS added a sleep function and the world couldn't figure out how to make it work for them. What jerks they are!

Second, if XP was such a problem, where are your five years' worth of links and tips for making it less so for the "stupid user"? You don't even reprimand users for not turning off their computers because their instant bootup gratification gets in the way. Somehow this is MS's fault as well?

Does anyone have any numbers about how much better energy usage is on Macs or Linux-based machines? I realize that they represent a small piece of the pie, but don't you have a responsibility to inform the world how things can be better instead of using your platform to condemn?

Sheesh. This is the kind of reporting that makes the right scream "media bias" and understandably so, IMHO.

I don't think so. It's not because you buy a computer that you are supposed to know everything about it. People who pay good money for something should expect "sane defaults", and not every grandma should have to learn about how to hack around power savings problems.

No they shouldn't. But what happens when that power saving kicks in and they think the computer is broke? I agree that it should be made easier to set and more apparent what the settings do.

http://www.google.com/search?q=energy+%22os+x%22

Sure but what's default?

You were whining about that as "Anonymous" on the recent hydrogen thread. Thought you'd try it over here?

Ya type key didn't work yet again. What's your point besides trolling?

That's true, Jilted. But then, the problem is to make it obvious what the power-saving features are (ie. have a popup that explains what's happening the first time they kick in or something like that). If the solution to that problem is to disable them, then that's not a very good solution..

Gunderstorm is right. This is a step forward and yet its being touted here like MS are a bunch of assholes. Maybe they messed up in the past, but whats the point of bashing them if they are trying to fix their mistake?

I covered this story a few days ago on ecoiron. Like most vendors, Microsoft is trying to formulate a sustainable computing policy. Unfortunately, the framework they have to work with - desktop computing - is inherently wasteful. And with 80 percent of the energy going towards building the computer, and only 1-2 percent of the processing power of a typical desktop being used over its lifetime, energy savings is the best they can do. This policy will help them navigate the turn, but probably not the road ahead.

"and only 1-2 percent of the processing power of a typical desktop being used over its lifetime,"

That's so true. One more reason why distributed computing should be more popular.

People would use a bit more power, but at least that power would go toward something useful (protein folding, protein 3d shape prediction, climate models, etc).

See http://boinc.berkeley.edu/ for more. Personally I'm running rosetta@home.

whats the point of bashing them if they are trying to fix their mistake

By pointing out what enormous consequences can follow from a few simple design decisions.

and only 1-2 percent of the processing power of a typical desktop being used over its lifetime,

Not everyone. I routinely make my home pc crawl with games. Ya games are about it at home. At work I probably don't flex the processor power much but I give ram a workout. I have been running UD's Cure for Cancer for about 4 years. The only problem is it keeps the processor at 100% all the time, therefore creating more heat. And possibly not allowing a computer to sleep.

eeeesay on the negativity guys, I think it's great that MSFT is doing this, and if it's as good as they say, why slap 'em for not doing it earlier? These things take ages to implement even if they seem simple when you finally notice it. Kudos to Microsoft.

whats the point of bashing them if they are trying to fix their mistake

By pointing out what enormous consequences can follow from a few simple design decisions.

Translation: Because it's not Apple DUH.

"Hey I bet it's GM's and Bush's fault too, somehow...

You were whining about that as "Anonymous" on the recent hydrogen thread. Thought you'd try it over here?"

Uh, Jilted, I'm pretty sure that was meant as a joke....

Why slap them around for not doing it earlier?

Why not? Why couldn't they do it? Its just not an issue on the Mac. Its really, really easy to set it to sleep, and oh yeah, it works! It actually saves power!

Here is the real problem - Vista is going to burn so much energy just to make its interface look pretty that it is insane. It takes a LOT of processor power to make that stuff run.

And I know, computers are getting better, requiring more power. But it seems to me that this is a little greenwashing before people start complaining that Vista is hogging energy, and draining those laptop batts faster than ever.

As far as OSX goes, energy saving is simple, and sleep works. Instant bootup isn't just for gratification, its good for productivity, OS Health, and energy use!

And linux systems need a fraction of the power that Mac and Windows use processor wise. If only modern machines weren't all in a speed race to run Word and Excel sheets (or you know, iWork / Open Office)

Wow, from these comments it seems like WinXP is more controversial than corn ethanol..

Translation: Because it's not Apple DUH.

Please stop whining.

Microsoft thinks they should get a pat on the back when they fix something that shouldn't have been a problem in the first place.

They intended to ship with energy saving on, but it just didn't work that well. Some machines were escessively sluggish, and some just didn't wake up after sleeping.

Recognizing the potential for excessive support calls and generally pissing people off by computers that couldn't wake up, they decided to make off the default setting, rather than just fix the thing.

Microsoft has had their hands full with fixing security problems and vista being way late. Minor problems like this go in the "we''ll fix it in the next release" pile.

It is just a bit of a pisser to hear them talking up a feature that should have worked years ago, but didn't.

Upgrading to Vista might help save power a bit but it will also lead to vastly more environmental damage in terms of old computers that will be discarded because of it.

Any computer over 3-4 years old would either need to be discarded in favor of a new one to load Vista (which requires faster graphic card, a powerful processor and more memory) or the user will have to be content at running Vista disabling some of its best features which require better hardware.

Although new machines are more efficient in terms of power consumption, yet such largescale waste generation particularly from big corporations, is likely to do far greater damage.

If only modern machines weren't all in a speed race to run Word and Excel sheets (or you know, iWork / Open Office)

>>>The new Energy Star standard will have exactly this sort of test to qualify. You put an meter on the machine, then run an automated script that runs though various applications and measure the power used.

How stupid of companies to produce cars that are inefficient, how mad are those companies that produce light-bulbs that burn out too quickly.

Get a grip.

I thought this blog was about changing the World and making us more aware of the consequences of our actions and inactions. If MS have made changes in Vista all power to them (no pun intended).

Perhaps it's because of the positive attitude that Treehugger has promoted in the past that they've made such a statement.

A negative post like this doesn't do anything other than annoy people and add further fuel to a rather tired MS vs the World debate.

Here's hoping for some real news in the blog...

Why not? Why couldn't they do it? Its just not an issue on the Mac. Its really, really easy to set it to sleep, and oh yeah, it works! It actually saves power!

Anyone can sleep a windows machine easy too. It's just not the default to shut everything down after 15 minutes. Is it on the mac? I know I changed my laptop power-saving to be full on all the time. Well not to step down the processor speed when it was running off the battery. That was default windows setting. I'm pretty sure my desktop shut down after a while too. Can anyone confirm the default setting for a new XP install is high performance with not HD shutdown or monitor shutdown? To me this just sounds like bias against Microsoft.

Any computer over 3-4 years old would either need to be discarded in favor of a new one to load Vista (which requires faster graphic card, a powerful processor and more memory) or the user will have to be content at running Vista disabling some of its best features which require better hardware.

And that's so unlike Apple right? Who push a new laptop or computer every few months? Or a new Ipod with minimal changes?

Look this is not a MS vs Apple thing. They both have similar features when it comes to power saving. Both run similar processors now. If Vista now has better default power management, why is that bad?

The default on my Powerbook is to turn off the display after 2 minutes of inactivity and sleep after 10 minutes of inactivity.

The only problem with this, and something that Mac users should know about, is that there are maintenance events that happen in the background that run at 3AM. It's a fairly straightforward task to set your Mac to wake or boot before 3 and sleep again around 4 or 5 to do these maintenance tasks, or use a utility like Cocktail or the Terminal to run these tasks manually. Click here for more details about periodic tasks on OS X.

>>whats the point of bashing them if they are trying to fix their mistake

>By pointing out what enormous consequences can follow from a few simple design >decisions.

Ok, now help me out here a bit. Follow the logic, If they are fixing the mistake....yeah thats right, they know about the problem.

The bigger problem here is are failed public education system.

"If they are fixing the mistake....yeah thats right, they know about the problem."

Fixing the problem almost 6 years later, which is like 60 years in software-time. Not very fast, especially for such a straight-forward problem.

Ok, now help me out here a bit. Follow the logic, If they are fixing the mistake....yeah thats right, they know about the problem.

I guess you've never been to B-School. This is what would be called a "case study" - we can learn from this experience. It isn't about pointing fingers, it's about doing better next time. It's also about learning to look for hidden, small things that have large environmental impacts.

I think this is one of the best articles I've seen on Treehugger in a while.

It's just not the default to shut everything down after 15 minutes. Is it on the mac?

Depends on the machine. The default setting for my desktop computer is sleep after 10 minutes. Same for the display. It also defaults to putting the hard drive to sleep when possible.

I'm pretty sure my desktop shut down after a while too.

I've never seen an XP box go to sleep as a default setting. When I go to a friend's house to check their machine (since they're clueless), their machine is always on.

And that's so unlike Apple right? Who push a new laptop or computer every few months? Or a new Ipod with minimal changes?

Please don't whine. This thread is about default power settings in XP and the impact on the environment.

Look this is not a MS vs Apple thing.

Wow, you sure seem to want to make it that. It reminds me of people, who when Bush is criticized, can't help whining about Clinton. MSFT is 90-95% of the computer market. Like it or not, with that kind of monopoly comes greater responsibility. And in this case, they simply made a few choices which had tremendous negative environmental consequences. Deal with it.

To the earlier poster:

Vista will need more upgrades than practical to run on an old machine. Most people will buy a new computer instead. That will leave a lot of old computers around, some of which will go to the landfill.

Each release of Mac OS X, on the other hand, runs faster than the release before it, which is the way all software should be as it becomes more mature and more optimised.

That is why people can use macs for so long, much longer than PCs. I use a 7 year old Mac and it runs great. My wife has gone through 2 PCs in the same amount of time.

This is like blaming Ford for making SUVs. The only way people really care is if it pinches their wallets.

Good article, but there is no point crying over spilled milk. They corrected the problem and the world is going to be a better place for it.

"there is no point crying over spilled milk"

I wouldn't exactly call 45 megatonnes of CO2, $25 billion and the countless hours of annoyances to millions of PC users (caused by fairly easy to fix software problems - this is not rocket science) "spilled milk".

I guess we have different perspectives on this...

My point was that the toothpaste is out of the tube. The damage is done. They fixed the problem. What more do you want?

Hey, I'm glad they fixed it. I just disagree with those who try to minimize the scale of the problem or act like Microsoft can't be blamed for it.

If we learned that GM SUVs have released 45 megatonnes more CO2 than they were supposed to and cost GM customers $25 billion extra in fuel because GM left some gaskets loose or whatever in the factory, we'd probably blame them for their sub-par work and wouldn't just say "they fixed it now, it's okay, fuggetit!".

There is a way for Administrators to control the power on windows 2000 and XP similar to what there is in Vista:
http://www.terranovum.com/projects/energystar/ez_gpo.html

Honetly, whoever came up with this article has far too much time on their hands and needs to get out of this Being-Anti-Microsoft-Is-Cool mindset.

Smarten the hell up. There are causes and then thar is just fanaticism.

I really don't care that they fixed because I don't WANT to buy a new computer just to run Vista.

(a new computer means other amount of energy spent, eh?)

So, I'd rather move to Linux instead of using Vista, which is a ripoff - and - please don't give me that look, Windows programming is what I do for a living.

The developing world will be using XP for a long time to come in increasing numbers.

The problem is not fixed, just highlighted.

As an earlier poster mentioned, the power consumed in use of the computer is far outweighed by the materials required to produce it in the first place. I commend Microsoft for making some changes to reduce the power consumption in use, but I am not at all pleased about the processor and memory requirements of their upcoming Vista OS. I am a power user and get by just fine on 7+ year old computers, which sadly many businesses here in London are falling over themselves to stuff into landfill.

http://www.ciber-runa.net/guide/BetterUpgrade--ActivistGuide.html

This article should be required reading for anyone not sickened by the upwards-spiralling hardware requirements of Microsoft's Windows.

I'll quote a couple of sections to give you a taster:

The environmental impact of each new power-hunger, polluting computer is significant. A recent UN University study found that 1.8 tons of raw material are required to manufacture the average desktop computer and monitor. Roughly 240 kilograms of fossil fuels, 22 kilograms of chemicals and 1,500 kilograms of water are used to make a desktop PC and a 17 inch CRT monitor.^14 The environmental costs become alarming when considering how precipitously new PCs are being produced. Over 1 billion PCs had been produced in the world by the end of year 2002. The Computer Industry Almanac predicts that cumulative total will double within six years to over 2 billion by the year 2008.^15

These efforts have made little headway in dealing with the mounting problem of electronic waste in the US. The amount of consumer electronics thrown way by Americans is growing by 25.7% every year.^27 In the year 2000, we threw away 125,340 tons of monitors and 93,474 tons of PCs.^28

--
14“UN study: Think upgrade before buying a new PC: New report finds 1.8 tons of material are used to manufacture desktop PC and monitor”, IDG News Service, March 07, 2004, http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/03/07/hnunstudy_1.html

15“Worldwide Cumulative PC Sales Exceed 1 billion,” Computer Industry Almanac Inc, press release, Feb 28, 2003, http://www.c-i-a.com/pr0203.htm

27Calculated between the years 2000 and 2003 in terms of weight after subtracting consumer electronics which were recovered or recycled. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2003 Data Tables, US Environmental Protection Agency, Franklin & Ass., 2004, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/pubs/03data.pdf

28“Facts and Figures: United States of America”, eWaste Guide, accessed Dec 14, 2005, http://www.e-waste.ch/facts_and_figures/economics/usa/

Isn't it the OEM's fault for not optimising the power settings on the pre-installed OS, to suit their hardware? I don't think somebody from MS does the installs for them.....

Ok, truth or dare:
if this is not marketing BS from MS, and is genuine environmental concerns based improvement from them, will MS back-port these to XP and W2K?

Do any studies take the hardware cost associated with running Vista into account? It is my understanding that most older machines will be incapable of running Vista, forcing many users to upgrade what would otherwise be perfectly adequate hardware for a different OS.

That's ok. The very first thing I do when I use an XP machine, disable the power saving options, and they'll be the first to go on Vista as well. Same on my Linux desktop, I make damn sure to shut them all off.

While you bring out that sleep wasted power, I think any competent computer user realized that and when they were gone for a longer period of time put the computer in the hibernate mode which uses absoluetely no power and keeps the information for rebooting that was in RAM and puts it onto the hard drive and when you start back up the computer it takes less than a minute to go back to the last state. This saves even more energy than Apples sleep that while it doesn't use much power at all, still uses some.

People will complain if they force power setting and people here complain when they leave it up to the consumer. It's OUR responsibility! The people that are angry here are essentially saying that they're mad because they bought a car and it's the car manufacturers fault that THEY leave it running at night. Ridiculous.

I can only imagine how many CO2 you've spend on all your life just for saying such stuff...

Yeah, like the pollution which comes from them cheap gasoline prices in the USA don't cause CO2 emissions...!???

And you're bothered about a OS..... pathetic!

Greetings from Europe (if you know where that is..)

Looks like some interns in Redmond got wind of this article.

Yeah, like the pollution which comes from them cheap gasoline prices in the USA don't cause CO2 emissions...!???

So, if there's a bigger problem out in the world, one should be banned from discussing anything else in life?

Great logic there, MSFT-apologist.

pretty good read, im glad they went back to fix their mistake.

In stead of using Vista's powersaving options for marketing purposes only, MS should apologize for not having fixed this earlier.
They should take their responsibilities because they are so big.

Noblesse Oblige!

1. Vista uses 2 processors, therefore more enery in normal mode. New functions do coast a lot of co2. Is it worth it?
2. MS is not responable for co2, they are responsable for correct working of their os. This simple point forces them to make easy choices where the bennefits ($$) are only for them and the problems (co2) are for the world.

Since when is MS evil for not making up for 100% of our laziness? Yes, this is a problem that MS should have fixed, but we are equally, if not more, responsible for not taking the extra 5 seconds it takes to manually put the computer into standby, hibernate, or just turn it off. We said "well it doesn't work on it's own, so I'll just leave it on". When it comes to the current problems with the environment, we are ALL to blame, and no real change will occur until we all realize that and take responsibility for our own actions. If this was such a big concern back then, why weren't we all demanding that MS fixed it, instead of waiting until they admit it and fix it to condemn them?

The fact is that back then we didn't think about this stuff at all. I remember doing tech support and a lady asked me if it was better to leave the computer on or off when not being used. The only thing that occured to either of us, at the time, was whether it was good or bad for the computer itself, not the environment. We were both at fault, and I take the bigger chunk of responsibility for not having told her to do the right thing and save the energy. That's right - it was MY FAULT!

As "Myself" alluded to, many people actually turned those features off. At that point, it doesn't matter whether MS fixes them or not. Laptops? They should be set to go into hibernate when you close the lid, and you should be closing the lid and not leaving them on all the time.

Yes, MS is to blame, but we share just as much responsibility - each and every one of us, regardless of what we do. As long as we depend on corporations and governments to fix all the problems for us, the overwhelming majority of the fault lies with us.

"Since when is MS evil for not making up for 100% of our laziness? Yes, this is a problem that MS should have fixed, but we are equally, if not more, responsible for not taking the extra 5 seconds it takes to manually put the computer into standby, hibernate, or just turn it off. We said "well it doesn't work on it's own, so I'll just leave it on"."

Let me put it this way:

Yes it is up to individuals to take responsibility. In the abstract, that makes all the sense in the world.

But we know from empirical evidence and experience that defaults are very important.

Imagine if security features (airbags, whatever) were not turned on by default in cars. You could say that the company just left it up to people to take their responsibility, but we know very well that in the real world it just means that fewer people will benefit from these features than if they had been working well without the need for human intervention.

That's the same with computer power-saving features; Yes people will do it manually or change the settings or work around the bugs in a certain number, but MORE people would benefit from these features if they just worked as advertised.

I got a bit on a soapbox there, but in fact I do actually agree. Defaults are good for getting more people to use them, but my main point is that back then we quite simply didn't think about it. We do now only because of the campaign to raise awareness about climate change. It's nowhere near as socially acceptable to bypass energy saving features now as it was then... back then it was normal, and the only response about it was that "well it won't hurt your computer so it doesn't really matter".

When I say that "we" are all responsible, that includes everyone at MS, every politician, every 3rd party software vendor, HARDWARE VENDORS (my Core 2 Duo is miles ahead of my previous P4 Prescott in this regard, and power supplies now are a whole lot more efficient than they were back then), computer users, non-users... everyone. We're all to blame as almost none of us thought about it in any way, save for the active environmentalists.

IMO the only real fix is what is starting to happen now, and that is changing the standards of what is, and what is not, socially acceptable. When the majority of people become conscious about this stuff then we will start putting a lot more focus on power saving features and we will start powering off the computer on our own, and it will be a lot less socially acceptable for people to leave their computers on 24/7.

In the end, I just don't think we have the right to call Microsoft evil when we intentionally made/let our computers run 24/7. Right after formatting the power saving features do indeed work, and I, and everyone I know, took steps to stop it from doing so. Things are different now that we're aware of the consequences. I also now pay attention to the power consumption of the hardware I buy, which is equally important IMO, as it cuts out hundreds of watts.

I'll put it another way: IMO power saving features SHOULD be more of a convenience than a necessity. They should be just like cars that automatically turn off the headlights if you forget to; a feature that's there in case you forget to do it yourself, because we all know that you should be turning off your headlights unless you want to kill the battery.

Yes, the power saving features should have worked from the beginning, but the whole of this issue requires solutions that go beyond code. Making the power saving features work better is only one (IMO small) part of the solution.

It's not only MS fault but also of those vendors creating bad hardware and drivers. A lot of those things don't work correctly after sleep and you have to boot your machine anyway. The reason these companies make such trash is because customers don't want to pay a single dime more. BUT a company as big as MS and with such a widespread use of its software should be aware of that. They have the obligation to correct the user. The new features (new??? that's questionable) on Vista are energy slurping, so what did they correct? They didn't correct the energy saving, they changed their point of view towards that issue...but neglect to skip all those desktop features and even made worse ones...

When it comes to the current problems with the environment, we are ALL to blame

When everyone's to blame, no one's to blame. Stop making excuses for MSFT.