Ubuntu is green.

[hessiess]

Modern computers are massively overpowered for what they are used for, resulting in the CPU running idle 99% of the time. Older hardware or low power machines (ATOM/ARM based) would be a better match for the amount of resource which are actually required.

If you are prepared to dump all the modern applications and just use lightweight applications, mostly CLI, then an old P3 machine makes a perfectly useable desktop and is not noticeably slower than a new machene.

[aaaantoine]

Modern computers are massively overpowered for what they are used for, resulting in the CPU running idle 99% of the time.

Yes, but to compensate for this, manufacturers have introduced advanced power management features into their CPUs, chipsets, and GPUs. As a simple example, my Turion alternates between two different clock speeds (800MHz, 1600MHz) depending on current CPU load. That way, you use the power when it's needed, and save power when it's not.

Tangent: If manufacturers ever figure out how to scale power to near zero during idle time the same way they scale the CPU, without interfering with the system (the way suspend does), that will be an interesting time.

Older hardware or low power machines (ATOM/ARM based) would be a better match for the amount of resource which are actually required.

Agreed.

[hessiess]

Yes, but to compensate for this, manufacturers have introduced advanced power management features into their CPUs, chipsets, and GPUs. As a simple example, my Turion alternates between two different clock speeds (800MHz, 1600MHz) depending on current CPU load. That way, you use the power when it's needed, and save power when it's not.

I do know about CPU scaling and it helps to some degree, however I find that scaling CPU'st scale to full frequency far to often, resulting is more power wastage. For example my laptop has a 1.66 ghz dual core CPU which can scale down to 1000mhz, however if I lock it in the lower frequency, the battery life goes up by about 2 hours, so I get about 6 hours instead of 4 out of a 12 cell battery, with no noticeable performance hit (it still runs idle most of the time).

Your idea about sleeping when idle is good, however I doubt it would be possible without a completely redesigned hardware architecture. Which would mean that desktop versions of Windows wouldn't run on it. So because that is the dominant OS at the current point in time, it would be a non starter. I believe that embedded platforms such as smart phones are already capable of something simmaler to this.

The X86 architecture is extremely bloated and simply wasn't designed to have a low power consumption, in comparison to ARM which is a much simpler architecture and was designed for low power consumption from the start.

[Exodist]

he has a good point, but don't be discouraged, don't think "green" think "cost effective/penny pinching" we're in a recession, a lot of people can't afford new computers.

This

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

Where I work, we are switching from CRT monitors to Flat Panel monitors.

You can extrapolate this example to include upgrades to CPUs, GPUs, and so forth.

Example:

The reason the company is moving to Flat Panel monitors is the lower electrical power consumption. The company can save money with the lower power consumption of Flat Panel monitors. The company can say that it is being "Green" by doing so. Nice public relations for the News Media.

I agree that the Flat Panels monitors use less energy.

The questions I have are:

1) What hazardous waist is produced in making the Flat Panel monitors?
2) If the monitors are made in another country, what are the country's standards for pollution?
3) Is the energy used to make the new monitors less than CRTs?
4) What is the effect on the environment when this new technology does get replaced and go into landfills?

I have problems with something being labeled as "Green". It is like the "Low Fat" label on food products.

What does it actually mean?

[juancarlospaco]

Nah, Linux Mint is green, Ubuntu is Brow/Orange
LOL