Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft limits institutional cloud storage space for environmental reasons

scholar.social

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 177 posts

Re: Microsoft limits institutional cloud storage space for environmental reasons

#161

Post by FirmwareBurner »

formerly_proven wrote: post #56
crimbles wrote: post #5

Is that the same Microsoft which is throwing money into running environmentally destructive AI workloads as their key business driver?

Same Microsoft that's forcing roughly 250 million perfectly fine PCs to be replaced due to new Windows 11 "requirements" and Windows 10 EOL.

Please stop parroting this FUD. After Windows 10 stops getting supported, Microsoft won't come in your house and throw away your PC in the dumpster or have it stop working for you to have to throw it away. You can keep using it like before.

People don't throw away hardware just because the software stopped getting updates. Although not recommended, there's even people still using Windows 7.

Re: Microsoft limits institutional cloud storage space for environmental reasons

#162

Post by FirmwareBurner »

croes wrote: post #155
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still no answer on why AIs are bad for the environment compared to not using AIs.

https://oecd.ai/en/wonk/how-much-water-does-ai-consume

Very interesting, thanks for sharing.

Re: Microsoft limits institutional cloud storage space for environmental reasons

#163

Post by sandworm101 »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #161
formerly_proven wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same Microsoft that's forcing roughly 250 million perfectly fine PCs to be replaced due to new Windows 11 "requirements" and Windows 10 EOL.

Please stop parroting this FUD. After Windows 10 stops getting supported, Microsoft won't come in your house and throw away your PC in the dumpster or have it stop working for you to have to throw it away. You can keep using it like before. People don't throw away hardware just because the software stopped getting updates. Although not recommended, there's even people still using Windows 7.

No, they will just cut off security updates. They will then steadily make subtle changes to the OS to ensure new software won't ever run on your old machine. Then the day comes when whatever new tool you need to do your job just will not run on your old machine. Then you dump it and blame yourself for the waste.

I tried to give away my old laptop to a charity. They wouldn't take anything more than four years old, and nothing that wasn't running windows 10. Anyone want a free laptop? I've got one sitting in the closet that I cannot seem to give away.

Re: Microsoft limits institutional cloud storage space for environmental reasons

#164

Post by Stranger43 »

cm2187 wrote: post #153
Stranger43 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not, not if they bought into the o365 product hook line and sinker, which you kind of have to if your a windows shop as MS is using every dark pattern known to them to make it harder for office files to exist outside of one-drive/sharepoint365/teams. It's teoretically possible if your vigilant of able to force users to use your published workflow to run windows with purely onprem resources but it's not the p…

But surely the research data isn't stored on a personal onedrive folder. I mean what happenes if the researcher resigns, the university loses the data?

Nope thats what sharepoint365 and teams(which does include an file store in it;s channel feature) comes into play but the back end and api's are essentially the same as for one drive.

MS have done a good job of tying everything into a big entangled system where it's hard to disentangle any of the "on prem" products like windows and office offline from the cloud backend used by office365, and a lot of this is introduced gradually with standard(often security critical) updates it gets used without a lot of policy.

You can backup the office365 data elsewhere(were using aws s3 buckets for office365 backups where i work) but that's not cheap nor particularly easy to do and the need to do so is often overlooked when the contract for o365 is signed.

Re: Microsoft limits institutional cloud storage space for environmental reasons

#165

Post by cm2187 »

Stranger43 wrote: post #164
cm2187 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But surely the research data isn't stored on a personal onedrive folder. I mean what happenes if the researcher resigns, the university loses the data?

Nope thats what sharepoint365 and teams(which does include an file store in it;s channel feature) comes into play but the back end and api's are essentially the same as for one drive. MS have done a good job of tying everything into a big entangled system where it's hard to disentangle any of the "on prem" products like windows and office offline from the cloud backend used by office365, and a lot of this is introduc…

I think no one in their right mind is going to use sharepoint or teams as a working folder for research data. It's barely usable for regular business users, it's a dog's breakfast for anyone using it programmatically.

Re: Microsoft limits institutional cloud storage space for environmental reasons

#166

Post by euroderf »

flanked-evergl wrote: post #59

If Microsoft cutting cost by limiting storage capacity can be construed to be done for environmental reasons, then why can't Google lay-offs be construed similarly? This is not changing the mix of energy production, it is not changing the supply of energy, it just changes the demand. Lay-offs similarly also reduce the demand on energy since people have less money to buy things that are energy intensive to produce, an…

> If Microsoft cutting cost by limiting storage capacity can be construed to be done for environmental reasons, then why can't Google lay-offs be construed similarly?

Excess employees will be mulched.

Re: Microsoft limits institutional cloud storage space for environmental reasons

#168

Post by nh23423fefe »

schiffern wrote: post #124
robertlagrant wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the point you're making? MSFT don't care about the environment because they're choosing reducing storage energy usage over famine and war?

Point is almost all cost saving measures can be rebranded as "environmental." It's just a PR trick.

When advocates lie about climate impact, charlatans see an opportunity to lie as well.

Re: Microsoft limits institutional cloud storage space for environmental reasons

#169

Post by pjmlp »

elashri wrote: post #94
pjmlp wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

48 KB on my case, in 1986, with a Timex 2068. Later on I was kind of envious of my friends with an Amiga 500 and its 512 KB, until getting a 386 SX, with 2 MB in 1992. Yeah, really understand where the professor was coming from.

These discussions always remind me that I was born between two eras. I am too young to have lived through seeing how little resources computers had and how limited network communication was. But also too old to be in the era where people grow up with abundance of tech (personal phones, computers...etc). So, I am still amazed by how people on the two sides spectrum grew up.

It happens to all generations, I had a professor which used to tell the story of how he broke the record of compilations per days on computer department, by being able to deliver new cards at every compilation shift throughout the day.

The "interactive" compile-debug-fix of his day.

Something that I never experienced myself.

Re: Microsoft limits institutional cloud storage space for environmental reasons

#170

Post by ok_dad »

gambiting wrote: post #29
ok_dad wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They cut chargers so they wouldn’t have to change them for the EU. The environment, as usual, is for greenwashing the move.

Eh? That makes zero sense. The EU mandates the type of port on your device, not the type of charger bundled or not bundled with it. It makes even less sense given that the Apple chargers were always just dumb USB-A chargers with a separate cable - and apple still bundles the cable. So the actual charger part wouldn't have changed no matter what EU decided on this matter.

They clearly would rather do wireless charging than change the port right now.
Post reply on HN