Buena Vista?

Microsoft’s Vista boasts energy-saving features, but does that mean it’s eco-friendly? 6

Most of the chatter about Vista, Microsoft's new operating system, centers on whether the techies in Redmond have outsmarted the hackers this time around. But might the system also slow destruction of the environmental variety? Microsoft is touting Vista's new energy-saving features, even as critics are pointing out that the system has some eco-downsides as well.

How green is my Vista?

Photo: iStockphoto

The efficiency advances involve sleep mode, a computer's ability to power down after an idle spell. With Vista, says Microsoft, sleep will be as energy efficient as shutdown. "We've worked very hard to make the sleep experience a much easier and more elegant one for users," says Michael Rawding, Microsoft's vice president for special projects.

In the past, Microsoft has fielded complaints from users about sleep. Sometimes an application or driver interfered with a computer's ability to doze off; a laptop that one thought was asleep might be surprisingly hot when pulled from a bag hours later, or even have a drained battery.

Vista will make it harder for applications to impede sleep. And sleep and other power-saving options will now be the default on machines running Vista -- they will start snoozing after an hour of non-use -- whereas before users had to change the default settings to ensure sleep.

Vista's sleep-mode improvements will make the biggest difference at large companies. Corporate IT departments regularly do mass updates on thousands of desktop computers in the middle of the night. Often, however, it is hard for IT engineers to order them all back to sleep without going from machine to machine. Vista's new set-up will fix this, forcing the computers back to sleep after two minutes.

"What you've seen in the last couple of years, both among hardware manufacturers and among users, particularly in a productivity scenario, is a recognition of the cost of power," says Rawding. "Overall efficiency of power is just becoming a major design criterion across the board for systems."

But Vista has efficiency shortcomings too. According to early reports, its much ballyhooed 3-D interface will require slightly more energy to run than XP, Microsoft's previous operating system. On balance, though, the improvement in the sleep process will probably outweigh the energy costs of the new features, according to Tom Bolioli, an energy-efficiency consultant with the firm Terra Novum.

Look Before You Sleep

Computer energy use is no trivial matter. Microsoft reckons that a PC using an old-style cathode-ray tube monitor, if left awake around the clock, results in the emission of over half a ton of carbon dioxide a year just during the time when it's not in use. At a typical electricity cost of roughly nine cents per kilowatt hour, that translates to over $70 wasted per year per machine. Computers with flat-screen LCD monitors, which are more energy efficient, still drain almost $56 a year for sleepless idleness.

The Foreign Policy blog, building on the conservative estimate that 100 million computers using a Microsoft operating system are running nonstop and aren't currently optimized for sleep, speculates that $5 billion to $7 billion is wasted each year powering the machines when they don't need to be powered, and that 45 million tons of CO2 is emitted in the process.

This means Vista has the potential to save an enormous amount of energy. Then again, as Hank Green points out in Treehugger, if Microsoft had gotten these features right when it released its XP operating system in late 2001, roughly $25 billion and 225 million tons of CO2 might have been saved over the past five years. But the bugs in its sleep functionality have gone unaddressed until now. Apple, it's worth noting, mastered the sleep mode years ago.

Consider also that most of the hundreds of millions of computers in use around the world aren't powerful enough to run Vista, no matter how much electricity they suck from the nearest outlet; they lack the memory and graphics cards needed to power the 3-D interface. Disabling Vista's flashiest features will help on some machines, but still won't solve the problem for many others. Critics like the U.K. Green Party are warning that Vista could trigger a huge new wave of electronic waste as companies and individuals ditch their old computers for more powerful new ones that can meet the operating system's demands.

The Foreign Policy blog argues that Microsoft should offer a software upgrade for its older operating systems that would adjust energy-saving settings for maximum efficiency. Because the vast majority of the world's computers run on Microsoft software, the move could result in huge energy savings. "[N]o other company has an opportunity like Microsoft to make such a direct impact -- and practically overnight," the blog writes. "Microsoft could seize this chance to lead the pack, and come out on top as the greenest software company in the world."

No word yet on whether Microsoft might take up the challenge -- but don't lose any sleep waiting for it.

Kate Galbraith is a Seattle-based journalist.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. organicqueso Posted 4:31 am
    08 Feb 2007

    high energy use while runningVista uses a tremendous amount of processing power just to run the OS. Lots of processing power = high energy use.
  2. linda95959 Posted 6:13 am
    08 Feb 2007

    Vista UpgradeI purchased a new laptop last December and it came "Windows Vista Capable."  I use my computer for entertainment, can run movies, photo saving and sharing, and I am a surfing junkie, do I need to upgrade?  What will I miss out on if I do not upgrade?  I ran the program to see if my machine was Vista Capable and the report was that I would have to upgrade a lot of my existing programs.
    Just give me the straight skinny, should I upgrade?
  3. ellerandall Posted 6:23 am
    08 Feb 2007

    Well...I can't comment on Vista's energy use because it literally just arrived and I haven't installed it yet - however, I can tell you it came in a schmancy plastic box!
  4. Delay And Deny's avatar

    Delay And Deny Posted 8:30 am
    08 Feb 2007

    Leave It To Grist

    Of course Grist would side with Microsoft since it's basically the Green List for billionaires.
    How about the fact that Linux can run machines at a minimal energy usage, and prevent all those lower powered older machines from being put into landfills by a simple upgrade to Ubuntu or Suse?
    Of course, being that rational would make the Gristers angry at me.
    Hollywood, biofuels, Eurocrats and other public fund sifters can rejoice with Grist about Fista.
  5. Ron Steenblik Posted 8:52 am
    08 Feb 2007

    Get a MacApple Computer's operating system, OS X, is designed from the ground up, rather than being a patchwork. And because it is based on UNIX, it has good security and stability. I do not know, but I suspect that a more streamlined operating system means less processing.
    And for an amusing article on this debate, from 2001, click here
  6. scatter Posted 10:46 pm
    12 Feb 2007

    Anyone got any data?Has anyone seen any consumption data yet? Especially comparing it to XP. I'm guessing it's too new for that but if you can point me in the direction of any bench tests and the like that would be greatly appreciated!

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement