Green PC running Vista highly unlikely say Green Party

Retailer PC World claims that it is working on the world's most energy-efficient and environmentally friendly PC, based partly on recycled components.

While this could be easily achieved using Vista Basic and it's superior to XP power management options, it seems the Green Party is more dazzled by the full capability of Vista Ultimate rendering capabilities citing it to be less 'green' than it's predecessor.

Vista has been roundly criticized by technologists and environmental campaigners alike for the fact that it will require more expensive and powerful hardware to run optimally. A spokesman for the Green Party suggested on Tuesday that the choice of Vista for a a so-called green machine could be a mistake, and called on retailers to offer more PCs without Windows pre-installed.

"It would be a good thing if PC World was to offer operating systems other than Vista. XP or no operating system pre-installed at all would be ideal," the Green Party spokesman told ZDNet UK.

Last month, the Party criticized Vista for requiring "more expensive and energy-hungry hardware, passing the cost on to consumers and the environment." This point has also been made by other experts in recent months.

News source: ZDNet UK

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

AOL: Top 5 gadgets you shouldn't buy

Next Story

ATI's First DirectX 10 Chip Slips into Q2 2007

35 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

The more people use New York Times reader on Vista, the less paper copies there will be that will be thrown in the trash or on the street, even though we would like them to go to recycling. People here should know better than saying that all thats new in Vista is transparencies.

This isn't a pitch for Vista; the point is that everything involves trade-offs, and individuals can do only so much by themselves. And there are better ways for the government or politicians to address energy problems than by whining about the state of market demand. Even if that means regulation in the market, like setting deadlines for improving consumption or changing how power is taxed. The reason they sell Vista instead of Windows 95 is because people want it, and you can get other OSs elsewhere, so complaining about the store isn't important.

Microsoft does have this arrogant attitude of "we don't need to make software take less disk space, or less memory, etc because you know everyone has the capability" so they don't even try to find ways to improve the efficiency of their programs. And I think that needs to change. But the focus should be on optimizing what they're doing, not having them strip down improvements so people can feel better about themselves. People should want programs that are more efficient, for other reasons.

The fact that all the Green Party members do is whine that if only every person shut off their water faucet at the right time and turned off the lights when they left the room, that the world would be a much better place---and then warn about doomsday scenarios, limiting countries like the US while China is the world's largest pollutor---is why they aren't effective. Come up with fair and agreable plans on these problems, and there will be consensus to follow through.

All this about Vista needing more powerful components than XP and thus using more power is complete tripe in my opinion.

I used to run XP on an Athlon XP 4200+, with a GeForce FX 5900 and 1GB RAM. I run Vista on a new Core 2 Duo E6600, a GeForce FX 7900 and 2GB RAM, on 10000RPM Western Digital Raptors and my power usage has *decreased* when performing tasks like word processing, playing music, searching the web etc... Newer hardware may be able to use more power than older hardware, but they don't always, and thanks to some of the nice features of the Core 2 Duo and my motherboard (like dynamic over and under clocking, and turning off the second core if it's not in use), my electricity bill has gone down.

And no, the price of electricity hasn't dropped!

Thats good, but your average consumer with their 5 year old XP machine is going to find that buying a new PC with Vista will increase their power usage.

I frequently buy new PCs for clients and its remarkable how old some of the PCs are - frequently running Windows 98 and earlier - and often people would be perfectly (if not more) happy to just get a new computer with that Windows version on. Its something they know and understand.

I think this is what the Green Party are saying that PC World should support, though obviously there are issues with Microsoft's lack of support for old Windows versions too...

"no operating system pre-installed at all would be ideal,"

Yeah, everyone loves installing their own OS...

And what are the chances it would be Vista anyway?

I imagine my granny installing fedora core on her new pc ..... or beter how about gentoo from source lol .... now that was a bad idea

well they should start sending letters to ATI and Nvidia both of them are a big example of something not optimal and waste of energy in every new release

Governments around the world should be more occupied with finding real alternatives to fossile fuels and invest more money in the development of fuel-cell powered cars. Plugging these small holes might work for a bit but won't have much effect in the long run, especially not with countries like the US, China and India massively dumping CO2 into the atmosphere (heavy industry, environment unfriendly cars etc.).

At least they're more mature than you. You haven't really tried to refute what they're saying, have you?

eAi said,
At least they're more mature than you. You haven't really tried to refute what they're saying, have you?

It's not about what people say, it's about what they do. So far, very few politicans are really willing to do anything (in a whole number of area's) that will benefit people. IMHO, they can keep talking, talking and talking but unless they actually do something about, nothing will get done.

hagjohn said,

It's not about what people say, it's about what they do. So far, very few politicans are really willing to do anything (in a whole number of area's) that will benefit people. IMHO, they can keep talking, talking and talking but unless they actually do something about, nothing will get done.

You're certainly right on that, but although it gets nothing done by talking, it does raise awareness. The risk of course is that people just hear it so much without seeing any action that they just glaze over and ignore it...

mrmckeb said,
So Green PC's can't use resources? Should I run DOS?
Does DOS use no resources? What the green party are saying is that PC World should be providing people with a choice - if they want to buy a PC with XP on, they should be able to. People shouldn't be forced to 'waste' more resources just because Microsoft say Vista needs it - many people are perfectly happy with XP.

actually DOS would be worse, DOS has no no-op cycle throttle down in it, so it runs at 100% processor usage constatly... Windows, Linux and OSX all have things to throttle down the processor at low usage to not use power when the processor is idle and throwing noop cycles

eAi said,
Does DOS use no resources? What the green party are saying is that PC World should be providing people with a choice - if they want to buy a PC with XP on, they should be able to. People shouldn't be forced to 'waste' more resources just because Microsoft say Vista needs it - many people are perfectly happy with XP.

im sorry...is this not a choice?

i thought your options were to buy such a PC...or alternatively...not buy such a PC.

predator001 said,

im sorry...is this not a choice?

i thought your options were to buy such a PC...or alternatively...not buy such a PC.

If you read my other posts here you'll see that I've said exactly what you're saying - its a choice, the issue is that PC World aren't offering that choice. You won't be able to walk into PC World and find a PC that is lower than the minimum vista spec, for example.

"It would be a good thing if PC World was to offer operating systems other than Vista. XP or no operating system pre-installed at all would be ideal," the Green Party spokesman told ZDNet UK.

So selling a 'green PC' with no operating system automatically makes it environmentally friendly?
I think not. At some point an OS will be installed, and who says it won't be the evil non environmently friendly Vista Ultimate.

Thats not the point, the point is that PC World should sell "underpowered" PCs that aren't capable of running Vista, that could run Windows XP, or Linux, which would be more than enough for most users. They're saying that people should be able to buy less powerful PCs, even though Vista has been released.

Partly, yes, but then partly no. I imagine its Vista overall that is - encouraging consumers to buy a new PC to run Vista, when Windows XP does everything they need is killing Polar Bears.

When I switched to using OS X Tiger I used my computer less because I was far more productive. Because Vista is easier to use than XP could result in a lower overall usage.

Thats great, but most users are not going to do that are they? They're going to go down to PC World where they're selling the brand new super-powerful Vista PCs and buy one, throwing their old PC into a skip and probably doubling their power usage. The Green Party are suggesting that PC World should sell less energy-hungry hardware that may not work with Vista, but will do everything a large number of customers would want - email, internet etc, on XP or Linux...

I see the logic here... lets cut down on computing power.... lets slow progress...
Computers ever expanding power is the reason to why we have working climate models
Computers ever expanding power is the reason why we can research faster and achieve greener technologies

Its not enough to be the good guy... you need to have the logic to understand what you are saying

Me having a super-fast PC that can give me a lovely transparent GUI is not helping us "research faster and achieve greener technologies". Sure, computers help solve loads of problems, but giving unnecessarily powerful ones to consumers who genuinely do not need that extra power doesn't. I don't think anyone is suggesting that "progress" is slowed down, nor that consumers are unable to buy the latest and greatest PC, they're just suggesting that users should be provided with more choice rather than forced to buy something more powerful than they need.

Progress is not always increasing productivity and technology. Sometimes it's about IMPROVING human existence, working WITH the environment, and allowing sensibility to reach up to productivity. The reason why we need to research faster is because we're producing too much too fast and thus hurting the environment without thinking about the consequences, only after the fact. There would be no rush if people, specifically businesses, would be more sensible and only release new and faster products when the jump is significant enough. The Green Party is truly right in this case, although I tend not to agree with them often.

Think about how long we have had climate models and ideas for green technologies ( many of which have yet to be implemented! ). They haven't changed much lately ( in fact, the focus has been on productivity and making machines faster, not implementing the green technologies ). Further, many new discoveries have been made using older technologies. It doesn't take much to look outside and see the smog covered cities and increase in respiratory problems and glaciers melting. It's simple common sense over greed and the instinctual drive to produce oneself and the drive to produce overabundances of materials that become heaping piles in third-world countries just so we can have a POS robot running around doing vacuuming only for us to have to pick up after it with a good old-fashioned vacuum cleaner (and other BS technologies like that robot and unnecessary power-consuming GUIs that could have been programmed to take less resources).

Why would you want to put the blame of requiring "more expensive and energy-hungry hardware, passing the cost on to consumers and the environment." to MS/Vista? It isn't their mistake. The manufacturers of the hardware should be making 'greener' hardware...

Not really, everyone should work together on making computers greener. Software drives hardware purchases, so software developers are at least partly responsible.