Computing in the real world
SEARCH FOR: IN:
      
Welcome Guest  Register Log in

News 

[PSUs]
Wednesday 21st March 2007
Upgrading to Vista could save £50 per PC per year 8:27AM, Wednesday 21st March 2007
Businesses could make annual savings of almost £50 per desktop PC thanks to new power-management facilities in Windows Vista, an exclusive White Paper written by PC Pro Labs reveals.

The majority of the cost savings are due to Vista's default power-management settings, which will put the PC into Sleep mode after an hour of inactivity.

By contrast, Windows XP's default settings left the computer running idle, wasting significant amounts of energy if OEMs, third-party software or employees didn't apply standby settings.

Vista's Sleep mode is also far more
 
 
ADVERTISEMENT
reliable than XP's equivalent Standby setting, and computers are quicker to resume too: a Vista PC or notebook will spring back to life within a couple of seconds, which isn't dissimilar from the time it takes an LCD screen to start working again after being in standby. As such, the "switch on" time will be very similar to what users currently experience when using a Windows XP computer that's on, while the attached monitor has slipped into Standby mode.

Vista's new default Sleep mode could save firms £45 per desktop alone, according to experiments PC Pro Labs carried out at a dedicated power-testing facility. Couple that with Vista's new power-management Group Policy, which allows administrators to minutely control the settings of PCs and notebooks, and the cost savings rise to £50.

There are environmental benefits to the new power settings too, with a 200-seat business potentially able to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by around 45 tons per year.

Submit to: Digg  |  Slashdot  |  Del.icio.us  |  Technorati

Related News



Top 10 Broadband

150+ broadband packages

Compare 30+ mobile broadband deals

Powered by Top 10 Broadband


Columns

Prolog:

After eight years in a caring relationship, Tim Danton is falling for a desktop once again. › See full Opinion