My Boss Told Me to Shut Off My Computer at Lunch

"Given these numbers (assume it's even higher for a computer running Windows, which requires more processing power than a Mac operating system)"

Really? C'mon, Popsci! I'm no windows fan (I dual boot Ubuntu on 3 out of 5 home PCs, and Ubuntu is the more used OS) but this statement reeks of bias. You're referring to an aged system to get power consumption numbers. Modern macs use Intel processors that are nearly identical to their PC brethren.

The stats that have much more bearing on power consumption aren't even mentioned - optical drives consume large amounts of power at start up and shutdown as they spin up, then stop until they need to be used. GPUs start out with a self-test that consumes a lot of power, then drops considerably until there is some demand for better performance. Fans, power supplies, and most peripherals to a computer start their day with a self-test that will consume more power than they would under a standard operational load.

Stick to straight science, and leave power consumption, performance, and other benchmarks up to their respective professionals.

mythgarr your a jerk you had a point about the windows thing but you didn't have to continue to tell them not to bother to do such things. There are power meters that are easy to use and quite accurate that were likely used and I have full faith in there results. No they didn't go down to the component level and measure each minute device They answered the question and that's all they needed to do. And who knows windows dose have allot of background garbage running and virus scanners and who knows what else that could defiantly impact the results between mac and pc.

Don't know I'd I buy the hard drive premise these days.

- Most machines offer to turn off the HD after long idle periods, so it might not be that bad a thing.(That's probably what was going on when the G5 was in sleep mode)

- While the machine is on, it generates heat -- also bad for the old HD.

HD tech is pretty amazing. I've actually never lunched one -- and that includes quite a few years doing software QA.

I also think that the Windows comment was a shot -- no Windows machines were tested,

I generally shut my stuff off if it's going to be a couple of hours. Hasn't caused a problem.

I tend to agree that this test was a waste of time. a 2005 Mac?

I would like to see PopSci test some new machines and cover both AMD and Intel products to see what power is being used and how much power it takes to boot.

This is a good topic we just need a real test.

Well I have a degree in Electronics and worked for a computer manufacturer for a few years, and I can tell you several things.

No offense but folks who tout Mac's are elitist jerks. It is a fact that a PC will do anything a mac can do and in many case's much more. Now to the meat of the conversation.

1.Why does the Mac supposedly perform better? because it does less to begin with! Thats right a Mac Used to use a RISC processor meaning a "reduced instruction set" processor. This allowed a Mac to complete more instructions per second. Simpler instructions quicker pace.

2. More to the point Computers or Mac's both use electricity in exaclty the same way regardless of the supposed low power requirements.

3. Finally simply put taking into account initial current draws/spikes, equipment wear and tear(metal fatigue), and just plain common sense should tell you that using the sleep setting on a computer shuts down all non essential devices and maintains a computers readiness...hence the phrase sleep mode.

I am not trying to be an ass, just being as plain as I can be. Macs' were designed for specific things. PC's were designed for everything else. Both can eat power and money as much or as little as you choose.

Depending on his computer he could save a little energy. My older workstation had the following and would consume about 175 watts at idle.

Mid Tower Case
P4 2.6 hyperthreaded
2 GB ram
450 watt power supply
2 x SATA 7200 hard drives
Duel Video Cards ( 64 MB on one, 128 MB on the other)
2 x 17" Samsung SyncMasters
2 x 24" Samsung SyncMasters
1KW UPS

However my newer computer at idle consumers about 365 Watts

Full Tower Case
Core i7 2.6
6 GB RAM
1200 watt power supply
2 x SAS 15K drives
2 x SATA 7200 drives
2 x Radieon Video Cards ( 512MB each )

So it all depend on the guys system. If he has a beefy work station I would say he might save up to 1/2 KWH on his lunch break. But for the month this would save the company about 10 KWHs on their electric bill or about $1.30 if you live in Texas. Double that if you live in California.

The other issue with high power computers is they make alot of heat. My new workstation is powerful enough to heat my office during the winter. But during the summer I have to run my AC a little cooler to offset the PC's BTUs. So by turning off the PC they are also reducing their cooling costs.

I used to leave my work station on all night, but after I calculated the energy it uses. I determined that by turning it off at night I directly save about 5 KWH, times 30 days a month is 150 KWH or about $20 / month. So yes the savings are worth it.

http://blog.whitesites.com

Wow Whitesites,
That some clear data you shared. I run a smaller laptop usually, but I always leave it on. I'm sure it doesn't consume as much power as your monster desktop, but I should probably still shut it down since I always have it plugged in anyways.

http://www.linkedin.com/in/suzyjenkins

You can configure systems to power down the hard disk, network card, etc.. when not in use and just turn your LCD off while away from your desk.

It will cost half a dollar in lost time while the employee waits for shutdown then startup.

http://beecherbowers.com