Windows Vista Power Savings help you save costs

A new report has recently been published demonstrating the hard savings available from Windows Vista's Power Saving functionality. If your company has hard C02 reduction targets, or you would like to tell your management that you can save them $11 per desktop in direct costs then go ahead and read this report.

The headlines are:

  1. Windows Vista can reduce electricity costs. Businesses can save up to $11 per system, per year by switching to Windows Vista, due to the default power management settings. For a company with 5000 users, this means up to $47,000 of bottom line dollars can be saved annually.
  2. The Vista Sleep state is more reliable than XP. Computers resume from Sleep in two seconds, which is about the same time it takes a screen to resume from Idle mode in Windows XP.
  3. Power consumption reduction translates into direct CO2 savings. Carbon dioxide emissions are reduced by up to 67 kg of carbon dioxide per desktop PC, per year. For a company with 5000 users, this is 288 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions reduced.

News Source: Malcolm Bullock Blog | Full PDF Report

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft Connect Website Updated

Next Story

Is the PC upgrade cycle dead?

18 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Here's a slogan for MS which will finally make all XP male users to move to Vista - "My VISTA is twice as long as your XP"

Businesses can save up to $11 per system, per year by switching to Windows Vista, due to the default power management settings. For a company with 5000 users, this means up to $47,000 of bottom line dollars can be saved annually.

So basically the article is saying that (assuming a license of Windows Vista costs ~$200 per computer) in 18 years the power savings alone would make the upgrade worthwhile...

(Shadrack said @ #10)

So basically the article is saying that (assuming a license of Windows Vista costs ~$200 per computer) in 18 years the power savings alone would make the upgrade worthwhile...


No, it's saying the the upgrade is $47,000 cheaper than you might have otherwise estimated.

I guess this is helpful for those who cannot convince their electric companies to put them on a budget plan. Regardless, I'm in favor of saving a few watts here and there.

For a company with 5000 users, this means up to $47,000 of bottom line dollars can be saved annually.


True. However you need to spend a cool $695,000 to purchase 5000 Vista Business OEM licenses.

I just checked, and I was definitely able to turn off my XP system when not in use. I don't think Vista can save any more power than that.

(Skyfrog said @ #7)
I just checked, and I was definitely able to turn off my XP system when not in use. I don't think Vista can save any more power than that.

Try getting XP to reliably turn a hard drive off and on when it's not in use.

(GreyWolfSC said @ #7.1)

Try getting XP to reliably turn a hard drive off and on when it's not in use. :)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a hard drive wear out sooner if it's constantly turned on and off?

(besides that, it does get a bit annoying to hear a drive click on repeatedly)

I'm all for saving money and CO2 emissions, and I don't know if businesss will take something like this seriously but at least it's a step in the right direction. As a Masters student studying Global Environmental Issues I'm acutely aware of the problems that computing poses, from E-Waste, through to excessive power consumption.

It seems that it's finally being moved up the agenda as an issue, especially as companies are beginning to realise it can save them money. Since I'm working on something else at the moment I don't have time to dig out sources but I remember reading that one company saved $2.2m by taking on a piece of software which physically turns off all machines at night. Similarly, a greater move towards Linux systems increases hardware lifecycles and reduces E-Waste.

All in all, I applaud anything that's being done in the world of computing because in the day to day, the issue isn't talked about enough....

You can save on your electricity bills with these new features but you'll pay a lot more to
1) implement it (when you can easily wait for the next version)
2) solving compatibility issues and assisting users in explaining them why all of the sudden a dark message pops up asking them if they REALY want to do it...

sorry, I just had to say it...

Pieter

(Pierreken said @ #2)
You can save on your electricity bills with these new features but you'll pay a lot more to
1) implement it (when you can easily wait for the next version)
2) solving compatibility issues and assisting users in explaining them why all of the sudden a dark message pops up asking them if they REALY want to do it...

sorry, I just had to say it...

Pieter


To the first one - yes, and they could skip every single version. It's a fallacious argument.

To the second one - since when should business employees ever need admin rights on a program?

I don't really want to get into the whole XP vs Vista debate and I'm prob ignorrant of all the facts, however a sys admin, who implements lots of computer in a large office enviorment, should be setting power settings via GPO (addon available from the people at EnergyStar) or login scripts which XP is perfectly capable of.

I feel that this piece of news could nearly offend some sys admins (who would generally read such items).

It's kinda like saying "Because you are a stupid sys admin who havn't set power settings via GPO, you need Vista".

This is just stupid maketing (e.g. on some speaker boxes, they have a huge list with 'features' such as Power Button, Volume control etc..)

I'm sorry I'm not getting my point accross very well but I hope someone will understand

(jonnytabpni said @ #1)
I don't really want to get into the whole XP vs Vista debate and I'm prob ignorrant of all the facts, however a sys admin, who implements lots of computer in a large office enviorment, should be setting power settings via GPO (addon available from the people at EnergyStar) or login scripts which XP is perfectly capable of.

I feel that this piece of news could nearly offend some sys admins (who would generally read such items).

It's kinda like saying "Because you are a stupid sys admin who havn't set power settings via GPO, you need Vista".

This is just stupid maketing (e.g. on some speaker boxes, they have a huge list with 'features' such as Power Button, Volume control etc..)

I'm sorry I'm not getting my point accross very well but I hope someone will understand :)


Vista's power saving features are more advanced than those of XP.

Vista's power saving features are more advanced than those of XP.

However this is not what the article refers to - it's talking about "default settings".

(jonnytabpni said @ #1.2)

However this is not what the article refers to - it's talking about "default settings".


And the default settings are also more advanced (i.e. improved).