"In energy terms, an efficient laptop uses about 25 watts of power; a desktop uses much more (call it 100 watts), which is roughly the power a human being on a 2200 calorie diet requires. So, in energy terms, adding a billion desktop PC is like adding a billion humans to the planet; adding a billion laptops is like adding 200 million."

That isn't a fair comparison at all. Both laptops and desktops now have energy efficient modes which scale back processing power (read, power consumption) when it isn't needed. And there are additional savings from stand-by, sleep and hibernate modes. In addition to the sleep modes above, many computers get turned off when they aren't in use... maybe not all but definitely some. Your calculations here assume a PC is running a heavy processing-load, 24-hours a day, 7 days a week... that isn't very realistic.

And pointing out that XP did not come with power consumption features enabled won't help you here. You are specifically referring to "new" computers... all of which now have smarter processors, energy efficiency modes enabled and will only get better in that regard. Future processors might get faster, but they will also be better at only using as much power as they need for the task.

Don't get me wrong, computer use will boom in the near future. But it won't have the equivalent impact of adding a billion or more people to the planet.

OK but what about all the computers running right now. Dump them?

Counterpoint:

PC power supplies rarely run less than 200W and up to 700W. For every grandma whose computer is off 6 days of the week, how many gamers are there running close to full load for a couple dozen hours a week? How many music/movie/etc downloaders leaving their systems on overnight? How many external hard drives? How many 17-21" CRT monitors? How many large LCD monitors consuming nearly as much power as a laptop?
I've had 4 laptops in my life, and none consumed as little as 25W. Just saying.
Are we counting data centers, the machines that host the in ternet all over the world, and the office PCs that are left on all night?
It is mandatory that I leave my work PC on all night long. This is frustrating for me, but IT requires it so that they can run maintenance, upgrade, and security processes on my machine at night.
Are we considering externally powered PC speakers? What about the big 4.1 units with the subwoofers that consume enough power to require a heat-sink on the back?

I'm not saying that Mr. Ontkush is underestimating the power consumption here.
I'm just saying maybe he's not exaggerating as much as we'd like to think.
I'm saying this isn't a scientific article, and there's lots of room for speculation. But I think the point wasn't to graph out our consumption. It was just to get us thinking (or keep us thinking) about how much power we consume.

Me, I replaced my printer this weekend with a smaller one I got (free, after rebate!) As I was unplugging, plugging, setting up, etc, it occurred to me that I used to leave my computer plugged in 24/7 even though I used it maybe once a month. The new one is unplugged until I need it.

Mark: Small computers seem like they would use less power. I can see that isn't necessarily true, and that it's important to look deeper. I think this will affect my next PC purchase. Thank you.

Actually, I'd say Mark (the author) is being nice...when he compares desktops, he isn't taking into account the screen (which is kinda....useful!). Yes, not everyone will be using a 100 watt 21" CRT, and yes, some people (and the number is growing) are using nicer LCD's (though those 19" fast response ones are getting up there in the power...), but still...the average PC (and screen) add up to a fair bit of juice (I use a Kill-A-Watt on my setup...the results are very interesting to see!).

you're conflating memory with storage here. all computers need RAM, that's memory. 64MB of RAM is not enough for most desktop computing uses. You'd have a lot of trouble fitting any sort of network capable operating system and a modern web browser into 64MB of RAM without using some sort of virtual memory scheme, which requires storage.

Instead of a traditional desktop's storage (hard drive), these machines contain a Compact Flash slot. running virtual memory off of anything that fits in a CF slot would be a nightmare, and since flash memory has a limit on the number of times you can write to it before it wears out, it wouldn't work for virtual memory, anyway... you'd destroy it too quickly. There are hard drives that have been sandwiched into CF cards, but those top out at 4Gb, which again, isn't a lot of room for stuff (your files, an OS, and applications all have to squeeze in there).

and a 300MHz CPU hasn't been modern since around 2000 or so. although a contemporarily manufactured version of a 300 mhz processor would actually most definitely consume less manufacturing resources than a modern 2-3 GHz one.

I guess to summarize, you'd have a lot of trouble finding someone who could deal with using one of these little machines as a general desktop computer for things we generally take for granted that computers do these days, like browsing and posting on Treehugger, for example. even the OLPC laptop has a nearly 50% faster CPU and four times the RAM.

Actually, this is a great little machine.

Here is why:
1) It uses a NEC VR5701, which is derived from a MIPS IV core. For those of you who don't know anything about processors, this is a *very* low power processor, designed for embedded applications. Therefore, this little thing is going to consume a lot less electricity than either a laptop or a desktop machine. With a bit of tweaking, I'll even bet you these can work with a solar panel.

2) 64 MB of RAM may seem like not a lot, but it's because you have been brainwashed (by Microsoft) into thinking modern computers require gigatons of RAM. I have machines at my home that run Linux or NetBSD very happily with only 128MB of RAM. And these machines can be used for most common tasks, such as sending email or typing documents.

3) This machines seems perfect to create low-power classrooms. Simply associate one of these little machines with a more powerful server, and (again using Linux or NetBSD), you can run the most important applications on the server and display them on the Space Cube. Which means that, instead of having 20 or 30+ power-guzzling machines, you have one server running apps, that are then displayed on the Space Cubes. The result is that third-world countries, for instance, could be running a classroom full of computers with very little power consumption.

4) Recycling such a tiny machine should be much easier and pollute a lot less than recycling a full-blown PC (or Mac). These are such small machines that I am also willing to bet the heat they dissipate is close to zero. It's also highly possible these machines could be built with recycled plactic material and/or some sort of recycled wood, therefore diminishing again its environmental impact.

All in all, this is a great machine: less (perhaps even zero, with a solar panel) electricity consumption, saves space, less material, less heat, less pollution, easier recycling... what's not to like?

[Needless to say, I want one!]

Your calculations here assume a PC is running a heavy processing-load, 24-hours a day, 7 days a week... that isn't very realistic.

>>>yes, but I'm only including the computer, and I think Im being generous. Right now, I'm sitting at at 800Mhz with a 17 inch LCD screen and its registering 180 watts. So I dont think its too far off to say an average desktop, running for an average period of time per day, is about the same energy consumption as one person.

I guess to summarize, you'd have a lot of trouble finding someone who could deal with using one of these little machines as a general desktop computer for things we generally take for granted that computers do these days.
>>>I hope that this isnt the case!

mjo

mdpdb says:

"64 MB of RAM may seem like not a lot, but it's because you have been brainwashed (by Microsoft) into thinking modern computers require gigatons of RAM. I have machines at my home that run Linux or NetBSD very happily with only 128MB of RAM. And these machines can be used for most common tasks, such as sending email or typing documents."

OK, Linux or NetBSD seem to be very efficient for RAM and resources, compared to MS Windows, but word processing and email weren't invented yesterday! I remember being told by my university computer support office that I could not even *use* a PC running DOS on our network. My old 80286 used to be considered a wonder-machine capable of serving a network of terminals itself.

OK, I'm old.

Still, you need 128 Mb to *send e-mail* and *type*? Come on!

Perhaps a peek at the strange world of PC-GEOS might be in order. GEOS was an object-oriented, preemptively multitasking, multithreaded GUI environment for DOS PCs. The software is now sold by Breadbox Computer Co. (www.breadbox.com), and requires a whopping 1 MB of RAM (will work on 640k) and 20 Mb hard drive to do some pretty good stuff. It was the OS for the Nokia 9000i, one of the first "smart" phones; and for the Casio Z-PDA, one of the first PDAs using a pen interface.

So, can a 12 MHz '286 with 1 or maybe 3 Mb RAM and 20 Mb of storage be put together on the cheap with a small footprint? I imagine such a platform can be squeezed into something the size of a Thumb Drive, and run on a couple of CR2025 batteries (a wild-ass guess on my part).

My mobile phone can surf the web, look at email, play music and video, run GPS and even make phone calls. In fact in can do all at the same time.

So what's so hard about making a small PC do that?

Easier to recycle?
This is something that has to do with the design and construction of the PC. Design for Disassembly is necessary to break the machine into recyclable components. Making it smaller does not accomplish this.

As far as energy efficiency is concerned, it makes sense to match the machine to it's use. Most are overpowered for what they end up being used for. A supercomputer is certainly not needed to send email, and write text documents.

The reason they are so overpowered has
quite a bit to do with how computers are developed and sold. The market is driven by the high-end with a few exceptions. Intel and AMD compete to make the fastest processor they can make and the winner is rewarded with the bulk of contracts to supply DELL, Lenovo, Apple, etc. with processors for their whole line of machines. Power consumption is in the mix, pactularly for portables/laptops, but there is no room for sacrificing proceesing power.

Whether this processing power will be used, sucked up by a feature-stuffed OS, or left sitting on the sidelines, just in case grandpa gets into high-end video editing, is not a consideration. It's there so it can appear in the feature list and make marketing a simpler task.

That said, one of the beauties of PCs, is that they are adaptable. They actually give Grandpa the option of doing some video editing.

There are technologies that have the potential to reduce computer related power consumption, like OLEDs or better yet bistable displays such as eink, etc.

Interesting quote on the link:
"In the past, it's always been technology pushing desire, and users asking, 'What can we do with this?'" he says. "Now, for once, desire is pushing technology."

That sums it up. Just because Moore's Law can offer you twice as much every 18 months, does that mean your needs double every 18 months??

"I have machines at my home that run Linux or NetBSD very happily with only 128MB of RAM. And these machines can be used for most common tasks, such as sending email or typing documents."

Now wait until there are Linux versions of Photoshop or Maya, then try running these programs with 128MB RAM...

As for small computers, I plan buying a barebone from Shuttle :)

"My mobile phone can surf the web, look at email, play music and video, run GPS and even make phone calls. In fact in can do all at the same time.
So what's so hard about making a small PC do that?"

sure it's possible, but note that the pricetag on your phone (which is usually hidden by the contract) is a lot higher than the units mentioned in this article.