Microsoft - Carbon negative by 2030?

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
On my drive home, I heard a quick piece on the radio about Microsoft claiming to be on-track to "Carbon negative" by 2030.  And they're going to spend a Billion dollars to get there.  (Wow, a whole Billion for a company that size!)

Link:  https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/01/16/microsoft-will-be-carbon-negative-by-2030/

My immediate thought was:
Yeah, if Microsoft really wanted to be "Carbon negative", they would have built a better operating system!  (Maybe I'm just getting cynical?)

Personally, I can't count the hours wasted (and energy burned) trying to get various Microsoft products to work.  I'll bet the Carbon wasted just on periodic updates totally swamps any so-called savings they will ever achieve!

Your thoughts?
Should make for an interesting "back-of-the-napkin" calculation.



Re: Microsoft - Carbon negative by 2030?
On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 7:28:19 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

No carbon in their distribution disks? No paper used at all? No black toner in their printers or copiers?

Re: Microsoft - Carbon negative by 2030?
On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 5:03:22 PM UTC-8, Michael Terrell wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it



Not how it works; you can scavenge CO2 from the atmosphere, and pump it into suitable
geological formations, at a few hundred dollars a ton.   So, it's not zero usage required, it's  
zero net contribution to atmosphere.

Black toner is magnetite, not carbon black.    There's enough to bend a sheet of printed output with
a strong magnet.

Re: Microsoft - Carbon negative by 2030?
On 17/01/2020 01:03, Michael Terrell wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

They're intending to use equal amounts of carbon and anti-carbon, the  
details are still being worked on.

--  
Cheers
Clive

Re: Microsoft - Carbon negative by 2030?
On 17/1/20 11:28 am, mpm wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
Not to mention the 10^26 (*) CPU cycles wasted doing useless things  
(like polling) when it should have been in a wait state.

(*) finger-in-air estimate: a billion machines, 40 years, 1GHz

Re: Microsoft - Carbon negative by 2030?
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 12:56:32 +1100, Clifford Heath

Quoted text here. Click to load it

While Win85 used a busy loop in the null task instead of using a low
power wait for  interrupt instruction loop when no work was done. At
least all WinNT versions used proper wait instructions and hence the
power consumption was low when idle.

Mediocre PC hardware that executed Win 3 without problems did not work
well when upgraded to Win85, not even after memory update. The
computer crashed after being idle for a while and was then asked to do
some work. With the original wait loop the current consumption fell
during idle periods and when actual work was needed, the CPU current
consumption increased rapidly. If the voltage regulation was bad, the
CPU crashed.

To "solve" this problem, MS replaced the wait loop with a busy loop
and the power consumption remains constantly high all the time and the
voltages did not fluctuate :-).

This created a market of "power saver" programs for better
motherboards, which executed a low priority wait loop process just
above null task priority, which prevented the execution to fall down
to the null task busy loop, thus saving power during idle periods.



Re: Microsoft - Carbon negative by 2030?
On 17/1/20 6:50 pm, snipped-for-privacy@downunder.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Except it is almost never really idle.

I run Windows (various NT versions - no longer interested in the old  
16-bit versions) in virtualisation, so I see all the cycles it actually  
uses - which is far beyond the ones that Windows tools will tell you  
about. Some versions idle (with "nothing" happening) at above 30% CPU usage.

CH

Re: Microsoft - Carbon negative by 2030?
On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 2:50:46 AM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@downunder.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
 wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Win85?

Re: Microsoft - Carbon negative by 2030?
On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 6:38:05 PM UTC-5, Michael Terrell wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yeah, otherwise known as Windows 1.0.  

--  

  Rick C.

  - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Microsoft - Carbon negative by 2030?
Michael Terrell wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
   Never heard of it; do you not mean Win95 (and Win95 SE)?


Re: Microsoft - Carbon negative by 2030?
On Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 1:21:42 PM UTC-5, Robert Baer wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I think he's making the point that so many Microsoft products have problems.
...including the digit "9" not working on his Microsoft keyboard!  :)


Re: Microsoft - Carbon negative by 2030?
mpm wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
   If M$ really wanted to be "carbon negative",they would lay off every  
programmer except the best three.
   Would make for a lot less drivers and guzzlene used.
   Also would lend to a very large improvement in quality of software  
and perhaps compatibility of products afterward.
   Would increase their profit by scads (massive decrease of expenditure  
in wages etc).



Re: Microsoft - Carbon negative by 2030?
On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 2:20:47 AM UTC-5, Robert Baer wrote:
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

.... so you're saying Microsoft actually has THREE good programmers?!


Re: Microsoft - Carbon negative by 2030?
mpm wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
    THAT may be abateable...

Site Timeline