Does Green make a difference in how you purchase hardware?

TechSoup blog today reports on a recent Business Week article which examined whether or not green business guides impacted user's hardware purchases.

Have green electronics guides made a difference in your purchasing? How have environmental ratings influenced the hardware your organization purchases?

--Megan

I'm not familiar with "green" ratings for hardware per se, but I do pay close attention to specific power ratings for computers and other devices.

I'm a big fan of laptops as they typically use much less power than a desktop. I much prefer a laptop over a desktop for two reasons: power consumption and the smaller footprint (space requirements). Not to mention mobility.

I've also tried to make use of Via's C3 and C7 processors in desktops and servers as they use less power than AMD's and Intel's products. Via's processors don't match the latters' benchmarks though.

The tradeoff in going green is speed and power. Laptops and the Via processors are slower than a comparable desktop. I don't mind, but most Americans like their computers like they like their cars: big & fast.

Karl

Good point, Karl. Unfortunately, I think most people I know who aren't particularly tech-savvy usually look for cost and features electronics-wise. Usually green isn't a consideration, unless there's some kind of highly publicized report of an enviro. or health problem associated w/ a certain health product. At least in the US, I think we (and I include myself in that one) tend to assume something is safe unless there's a big problem or "proof" that it isn't. Perhaps guides like Greenpeace's and increased amounts of info. on green purchasing will help more of us consider this as one of the major factors in choosing hardware.

--Megan

Actually, Megan, companies like Google and others running large server farms will probably quietly lead the way to greener tech. My limited understanding of server farms is that as much power goes into cooling systems as goes into powering the servers themselves. It's a serious cost issue for these companies. It's estimated by some that Google already consumes a full 1% of the electricity generated in the United States (estimates vary). If you ever spent any time in a server room, you know heat can be an issue.

Wal-Mart's got a "green" PC out now: the gOS. It uses even less power than a laptop though I'm not sure those 2-20 watt figures include a monitor. Ultimately, cost will push consumers into power-saving PC's. If half the news about "peak oil" is true, the U.S. is facing a curve of steadily-rising energy costs. It's already apparent in many parts of the country (heating oil in N.E. for instance).

Energy costs combined with a maturing of the computer industry will hopefully lead to stabler operating environments. That kind of stability will speed any moves to power-saving PC's. From an admin's standpoint, it's something of a nightmare to be rolled into a new version of Office every 2 or 3 or 4 years. The system req's for Vista are disappointing. It's an OS that needs way too much computer. The scuttlebutt on MS's next OS is they're going 'small' with a kernel of only 25 mb. Who knows though?

Should be interesting.

I have long been of the opinion that Microsoft and the hardware industry are in a "you scratch my back" arrangement.

Face it, nothing sells new hardware better than a new Windows operating system. If the new operating system requires more RAM than the previous version, what do you think happens to the demand for RAM? If the new operating system is massive, what do you think happens to the demand for larger hard drives?

If the forthcoming version of an operating system as pervasive as Windows were to require LESS hardware than Vista, the hardware industry would likely experience a lack of demand unlike has ever been seen before. The reason is because people's current computer's would remain adequate for the duration of the lifespan of the newest operating system.

This would have a crippling effect on Silicon Valley, don't you think?

So, to tie this back to the original topic, the demand for greener PCs is not likley to be catered to or facilitated by those from Redmond.

My thoughts run about the same as those of tclaremont. And I'd add in the utilities vendors as well. With each new operating system, they get to sell new versions of backup software, AV utilities, etc. It seems that just about everyone benefits from bloatware except the consumers.

Responding to the original question: None of my commercial or non-profit clients has said one word about green concepts or guidelines.

Despite the ubiquitous green buzz in recent months, their voiced concerns are limited to price, performance, reliability, price, product lifespan, return on investment and, of course, price.

-ENO

As an environmental organization, we try to be as green as possible when purchasing new computers. That said, using existing computers as long as possible, rather than replacing them with new ones (green or otherwise) is a very effective environmental measure, as it avoids putting the carcass of the old machine into a landfill. (If enough folks do it, it will also cut down on the pollution from the manufacture of new computers.) We basically run ours until they die - we've got some workstations that are coming up on 10 years old.

I also have to agree with tclaremont and ENO about the relationships of a newer and bigger OS to hardware and utilities software.

to some degree yes but as much from a pragmatic point of view. I help non-profits outside the US where the cost if electricity is the issue. in one SE Asian country, a desktop with a CRT costs about US$350 to run annually. We found that if we replace 6 desktops with 6 laptops we break even on cost at about 18 months.

If we can replace the CRT that drops quite a bit but then we are in the dilemma of what to do with the CRT? Throw it in a landfill or continue to use it and consume more resource? Sometimes the choices between being green and being green are not always that straigtforward.

I don't take issue with any of the posts here. I have yet to have a client, or anyone else for that matter, mention anything about 'green' computing. Most of the news I see about green computing regards server farms in the U.S., which are large electricity consumers.

As for MS's next OS, I have no idea what they're up to, but have to wonder if it doesn't have to do with the One Laptop Per Child initiative. A lot of the industry blew the project off at first, including Intel, but they've since jumped on the wagon. It's a huge market putting the 3rd World into computers. I think MS's still working on an OS for this new generation of laptops.