Due to our growing energy “crisis” we are becoming increasingly aware of our carbon footprint usage, even down to which light-bulbs (you are using CFL’s aren’t you?) we install in our homes light fixtures. PC’s can use an incredible amount of energy, particularly when throttled up, so this was an interesting find for me, the headline of which left me perplexed…until I read the report.
PC Pro Labs revealed a (PDF link) study stating:
“Upgrading to Vista could save £23 to £46 per PC per year…”
The study, which was completed in March 2007, found that the default settings for Windows Vista versus the default settings for Windows XP allow the computer to activate “sleep mode” sooner and more reliably. Reliably being the key point here, because “sleep mode” didn’t exactly work well in Windows XP.
The white paper later states:
“It is important to note that the financial and carbon-dioxide savings are not due to a PC running Windows Vista consuming less power per task than a PC running Windows XP (for example, typing up a document in Microsoft Word will consume very similar amounts of power).”
OK, so let’s see if I am understanding this now; Windows Vista saves energy by turning itself off (after one hour of non-use, by default) better than Windows XP. It is, of course, understandable that sleep mode will be invoked more often if it is ultimately reliable, but isn’t Microsoft in fact just admitting that Windows XP sleep mode plain didn’t work?
Speaking of excessive power usage and heavy carbon-footprints; Why do AMD users hate the earth?