Slashdot Mirror
Five PC Power Myths Debunked
snydeq writes "Turning off PCs during periods of inactivity can save companies between $25 and $75 per PC per year, according to Energy Star, savings that can add up quickly for large organizations. Yet most organizations remain behind the times on PC power management, in large part due to common misperceptions about PC power, writes InfoWorld's Ted Samson, who outlines five PC power myths debunked in a recent report from Forrester, ranging from the energy savings of screen savers, to the energy draw of powering up, to the difficulties of issuing patches to systems in lower-power states."
this article was written by a self-aware PC who is tired of the human race's waste of time and energy.
Energy is kWh power is kW. "Energy at a rate" is power, and should be in kW not kWh.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
In the winter I leave my computers on. I don't think I am "loosing" any energy that way since it's used to heat my house.
>>>"Turning off PCs during periods of inactivity can save companies between $25 and $75 per PC per year"
How am I supposed to download last night's episodes of Smallville and Supernatural if I have my PC turned off during the day? Jeez. Insensitive clod. ;-)
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
. . . as if millions of Folding@Home and Seti@Home clients suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
All through college I left my PC on 24/7, however now that I'm paying the bill I have thermal throttling and the other new power-saving standards all turned on, and I turn everything off (router, modem and all) entirely when I'm not using it. It's odd the way people look at it; at work some users say "Well I never leave it on at night because I know that it makes the computer die quicker" and some people say "Well I never turn it off because I want it to last longer." I think the truth is that modern hardware really can handle both philosophies and it's just a matter of convenience vs. power costs at this point.
"potential user complaints can be mitigated by communicating the positive financial and environmental benefits of PC power management."
Now that just plain hilarious.
Learn how to save $25 to $75 by purchasing the $279 dollar report that the article is hawking. No thanks. This article has no business even being on Slashdot. It isn't news, it is an advert.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Of the four instances in which watts were referenced (directly or in compound units), three are completely boneheadedly wrong:
They should be:
You *can't* call it a typo when they are perfectly backward in three out of four incidents. And you can't call it "They just got it backward..." when they got it right once. You must conclude, therefore, that they have almost no grasp whatsoever of units.
FTA: Modern computers are designed to handle 40,000 on/off cycles before failure
With all the reboots required, that means I am limited to three Vista reinstalls?
You're making the assumption that people work continuously whenever their computer is on
I'm also assuming that you earn minimum wage. ;)
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
I have never had a PC or a Laptop which was able to reliably "Suspend" or "UnSuspend" Never in my life.
Not with Windows or several Linux Distros. I would say at least 25% of the time the machine will not return and must be rebooted anyway.
From my experience with some corporations, the way it works is more like:
1. The left hand doesn't know, and doesn't want to know what the right is doing. If your department can save $10 bucks, but it costs everyone else 10 million in workarounds and lost productivity, who cares? You're the greatest anyway.
2. Any attempts to rein in waste and such effects, just introduces one more layer who'll get their bonus for making you buy a tool that costs $10 less, but where you spend 100,000 more in salaries to do the same job. Occasionally it introduces a masked form of corruption too: they get more bonus for buying a $1000 pencil at 50% discount, than a normal one at 5% discount. In the former case they "saved" $500 per pencil. They're that great.
3. Don't underestimate interdepartment power games. Making you curse and waste more effort for implementing my hare-brained cost-cutting schemes, is the gretest achievement some people can get. It's me having power over you. For some people it's a powerful drug.
4. Theatre. Being seen as doing something beats doing the right thing. You can see that at all levels and in all domains: security theatre, cost-saving theatre, etc. Being seen as being teh great green saviour can beat actually saving money.
5. In that vein, beware the new boss who just has to piss on everything to mark his new territory. The higher level, the more dangerous. These guys _have_ to show that they changed something. It shows vision, leadership, etc. So he'll cheerfully make an actual loss, just so he can put a good leadership and vision theatre.
6. There's a whole caste of people across the pyramid whose goal in life is to not rock the boat and not be responsible for anything. It's better to comply with a dumb rule (even one that wasn't supposed to apply to your situation or domain) than to have anything be your personal decision, and responsibility if it fails. Applying someone else's rule is like having a papal indulgence: whatever goes wrong, you're not the one who'll be punished for it. These fine guys and gals would mindlessly enforce even turning off the computers _during_ work hours, if that's what the rules say.
7. Don't underestimate the effect of rewarding failure. E.g., see the thing about "saving" money by buying a disproportionately _more_ expensive thing. E.g., in some places, keeping the people under you from doing their job can mean needing to hire more people, and if you get enough of them you get a promotion. E.g., being the guy who dumbly applies rules without thinking, cam actually get one a promotion or at the very least it's often enough to not get demoted or phased out.
So, yes, I've seen places where they paid consultants in the range of thousands per hour, but would rather pay those to twiddle their thumbs for a quarter of an hour while a baroque configuration starts, than "waste" cents on leaving that computer idle over night.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
It makes perfect sense. I just read it to mean that power usage increases every hour by 89 watts, and that by the time it's been left on overnight for 16 hours, the power usage of an average desktop has increased to 1.42kW. (If you think I'm joking, do the math -- that can't be a coincidence ;-))
This kind of growth of power usage means it is extremely important to turn off your PC every night, otherwise by a month later the power consumption will be approximately 64kW, which will probably result in it melting through your desktop unless you have very good cooling.
This kind of growth of power usage means it is extremely important to turn off your PC every night, otherwise by a month later the power consumption will be approximately 64kW
64kW should be enough for anybody.
Unit errors are generally a sign in technical fields that a report hasn't been well thought out. No engineer proofreading this would have missed such a blatant error which means that an engineer didn't proofread it.
If an engineer did not proofread it, an engineer did not likely do it. Therefore, the content of the article was likely done by an incompetent hack and charging $279 for the report is a way of hiding the fact that it was written by a hack.