How Windows XP Wasted $25 Billion of Energy
by EcoGeek.org on 11.21.06
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.
First, Microsoft never put power-saving options high on the list of default specs. In order for XP to run smoothly, with all its bells and whistles going, desktop machines had to run in "high-performance" mode, the equivalent of flooring your Honda at every green light. So the defaults were often set to "High Performance." Even when they weren't, consumers generally chose the setting themselves, not realizing that it had any affect on power consumption.
The second mistake was a flaw in the much touted "sleep" mode. Sleep mode saves a ton of power, it is a very good idea, and essential, especially for portable devices. Studies of Windows 95 and 98 had shown that users hated to turn computers off because the boot times were so long. Sleep mode was supposed to be the answer to this. The problem is that Windows XP lets any program override the sleep function. So if you have an anti-virus program running in the background, it might not allow the computer to sleep. This flaw is the cause of countless failed laptop batteries, and the complete avoidance of the sleep function by desktop users.
The third problem was administrative. Systems administrators in offices across the nation find it too confusing or difficult to control power saving functions for all computers on the network. So, instead, they let individual users decide. The result: millions of computers, and even monitors, stay on 24 hours a day and even sometimes during weekends, with absolutely no power-saving functions on.
Vista proposes to fix all three of these problems thus "saving" the world lots of money and energy. But that money and energy that they're saving us is the exact same money and energy that they've been wasting for the last five years.
A recent article at Foreign Policy's blog calculated (very generally) that Vista's power save functions could easily save the world $5 billion yearly and prevent the release of over 45 million tons of CO2. So, assuming that the same would have been true if the power saving initiatives had been released with XP, or any of the service packs that followed, Microsoft's silly mistakes have cost the world roughly $25 billion dollars and resulted in the release of 225 million tons of CO2. Um...Oops?
We're glad they're making the changes now, but we sure do wish they'd made them five years ago.
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!".