5 ms·

Do you include the cost of manufacturing in your calculations? There is a point where newer and more efficient is better, but in general it’s better to hold on

Do you include the cost of manufacturing in your calculations? There is a point where newer and more efficient is better, but in general it’s better to hold on devices for longer.

pdimitar 5y ago
I don't, mostly because the manufacturers are far disconnected from the needs of the end users of computing -- they mostly serve big businesses. So the machines end up manufactured anyway. On this lane of thought, I'd say better to buy a laptop today (that's much greener than everything before it) that you can hold on to for 10+ years than holding on to another that has long passed its expiration date. But I am aware that this is not always a popular opinion.
- jfrunyon 5y ago
  Big businesses are the end users of computing. But that doesn't change anything. Why do big businesses have to upgrade their computers every few years?
  - pdimitar 5y ago
    That I don't know. I personally wouldn't. I've seen big companies where 100+ people who just do Zoom / Excel / Jira all day have MacBook Pros, which is insanity. I was simply mentioning that the machines get manufactured anyway so I definitely refuse to be guilt-tripped into "it's your fault that those machines exist!" extremist stance. No, it's not my fault. The machines are manufactured regardless of what I do so every 7-8 years I evaluate the market and upgrade. Reasons are simple -- most modern software gets slower all the time and I still need to work and support my family. I would hold onto my machines for a lifetime but it's not the reality we live in and I wish the downvoters stopped being so tunnel-visioned and were aware of that.
    - moonbug 5y ago
      > do Zoom / Excel / Jira all day have MacBook Pros, which is insanity. Agreed. A base MacBook Pro isn't nearly powerful enough for all 3 of those at once.
      - pdimitar 5y ago
        LOL! You have a good point. :D
- addingnumbers 5y ago
  > the manufacturers are far disconnected from the needs of the end users of computing -- they mostly serve big businesses Same goes for power. They're not going to burn one less lump of coal because your laptop uses 100W instead of 300W
  - madpata 5y ago
    That's true if one only talks about one person using an extra 200W. But it matters when it's about millions of people using an additional 200W.
    - pdimitar 5y ago
      Even then, such big organizations react slowly to change. Even when we collectively manage to reduce our energy usage they'll likely divert the extra energy to another power substation for storage and redundancy. So don't think that me and others are defeatist. It's just that the entire grid is well planned for so that any difference we can make, even as 100_000 people, is still not as big. So this whole thing will take a while, likely decades. In the meantime I was very happy when I replaced a fridge with 43kW monthly expense with a 19kW one, about two years ago.
      - cesarb 5y ago
        > Even when we collectively manage to reduce our energy usage they'll likely divert the extra energy to another power substation for storage and redundancy. That's not how it works. On the electric grid, generation must always be precisely matched with consumption, otherwise things can literally burn up. Any excess of generation will cause an increase in voltage and frequency, any lack of generation will cause a drop in voltage and frequency. That's why the generation always follow the consumption; all generators sense changes in consumption (by measuring the system frequency), and adjust their input to match (for instance, by adjusting the fuel intake). When they don't (usually because the change was too fast, like when large blocks of generators or consumers drop suddenly from the grid), protective systems will disconnect the generators and/or consumers until the grid is balanced again. Storage (which is still uncommon) only does a temporal shift of the consumption and/or generation, it doesn't change the amount (other than the inevitable losses). That is, if you use 200W less, the generators will adjust to generate 200W less power (actually a bit more than 200W, because of losses). If millions of people use 200W less, the generators will adjust to generate hundreds of megawatts less power.

Do you include the cost of manufacturing in your calculations? There is a point where newer and more efficient is better, but in general it’s better to hold on devices for longer.

pdimitar 5y ago

I don't, mostly because the manufacturers are far disconnected from the needs of the end users of computing -- they mostly serve big businesses. So the machines end up manufactured anyway. On this lane of thought, I'd say better to buy a laptop today (that's much greener than everything before it) that you can hold on to for 10+ years than holding on to another that has long passed its expiration date. But I am aware that this is not always a popular opinion.

jfrunyon 5y ago
Big businesses are the end users of computing. But that doesn't change anything. Why do big businesses have to upgrade their computers every few years?
- pdimitar 5y ago
  That I don't know. I personally wouldn't. I've seen big companies where 100+ people who just do Zoom / Excel / Jira all day have MacBook Pros, which is insanity. I was simply mentioning that the machines get manufactured anyway so I definitely refuse to be guilt-tripped into "it's your fault that those machines exist!" extremist stance. No, it's not my fault. The machines are manufactured regardless of what I do so every 7-8 years I evaluate the market and upgrade. Reasons are simple -- most modern software gets slower all the time and I still need to work and support my family. I would hold onto my machines for a lifetime but it's not the reality we live in and I wish the downvoters stopped being so tunnel-visioned and were aware of that.
  - moonbug 5y ago
    > do Zoom / Excel / Jira all day have MacBook Pros, which is insanity. Agreed. A base MacBook Pro isn't nearly powerful enough for all 3 of those at once.
    - pdimitar 5y ago
      LOL! You have a good point. :D
addingnumbers 5y ago
> the manufacturers are far disconnected from the needs of the end users of computing -- they mostly serve big businesses Same goes for power. They're not going to burn one less lump of coal because your laptop uses 100W instead of 300W
- madpata 5y ago
  That's true if one only talks about one person using an extra 200W. But it matters when it's about millions of people using an additional 200W.
  - pdimitar 5y ago
    Even then, such big organizations react slowly to change. Even when we collectively manage to reduce our energy usage they'll likely divert the extra energy to another power substation for storage and redundancy. So don't think that me and others are defeatist. It's just that the entire grid is well planned for so that any difference we can make, even as 100_000 people, is still not as big. So this whole thing will take a while, likely decades. In the meantime I was very happy when I replaced a fridge with 43kW monthly expense with a 19kW one, about two years ago.
    - cesarb 5y ago
      > Even when we collectively manage to reduce our energy usage they'll likely divert the extra energy to another power substation for storage and redundancy. That's not how it works. On the electric grid, generation must always be precisely matched with consumption, otherwise things can literally burn up. Any excess of generation will cause an increase in voltage and frequency, any lack of generation will cause a drop in voltage and frequency. That's why the generation always follow the consumption; all generators sense changes in consumption (by measuring the system frequency), and adjust their input to match (for instance, by adjusting the fuel intake). When they don't (usually because the change was too fast, like when large blocks of generators or consumers drop suddenly from the grid), protective systems will disconnect the generators and/or consumers until the grid is balanced again. Storage (which is still uncommon) only does a temporal shift of the consumption and/or generation, it doesn't change the amount (other than the inevitable losses). That is, if you use 200W less, the generators will adjust to generate 200W less power (actually a bit more than 200W, because of losses). If millions of people use 200W less, the generators will adjust to generate hundreds of megawatts less power.