91–100 of 144 posts
Pentium 4 Prescotts, which their spec implies could be used, are awful and inefficient chips. (Heck, I told people not to buy them when they were new!)
I am concerned with energy consumption of this device. Pentium 4 class computer consumes 40 watts while idle. ARM cpu would work just as fine (Ubuntu). I think this devices should not be called green, unless they disclose power efficiency rating.
40 watts while idle = 28.8 kwh a month so 13.5 cents per kwh = $3.88 / month to run. Rasberry Pi B+ uses 1.21 watts while idle so about 11 cents /month. So a Rasberry Pi will pay for itself in about 10 months.
I am concerned with energy consumption of this device. Pentium 4 class computer consumes 40 watts while idle. ARM cpu would work just as fine (Ubuntu). I think this devices should not be called green, unless they disclose power efficiency rating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> over something like an ARM based Chromebook) is probably easily offset by the power needed to manufacture I doubt it. Manufactoring cost for ARM SOC is $10, this thing burns it in a month.
He is talking about power not cost to build it.
>life cycle energy use of a computer is dominated by production (83%) as opposed to operation (17%). The yearly life cycle cost of owning a computer is about 3,000 MJ/year, half again that of a refrigerator, a much larger appliance that uses far more electricity in operation. The short lifespan of computers and the variety of computing needs of users suggests that extension of lifespan, for example by promptly reselling to users who need less computing power, is a promising approach to mitigating environmental impacts.
This is from a study[1] from 2004 of a 1990 PC, inclusive of CRT... I suspect the figures are similar if not worse, as power consumption has come down a lot while chip sizes have remained similar... regardless, the point is so strong that it seems quite likely to remain true whatever the case -- unless your idea of a 'PC' is a rPI.2, which might be useful for some of the same scenarios, but certainly not all-- it's still far from the CPU power of a 2.8ghz p4. So, in many (most?) cases this is credibly a 'green' thing.
1. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sending it to places like the e-waste dump in Agbogbloshie, Accra, Ghana is a benefit. I'm not sure how to weight each thing - the increased CO2 emmissions are bad; not poisoning poor people who do things like burn the PVC insulation off cables to get the copper is a good thing.
Certainly agree with that sentiment! We are getting to the point where it makes sense to have 'disassembly' robots, this paper ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967066108... ) looked at that (it wasn't the focus per se but an example). I can clearly see that 'anti-factories' where raw materials are recovered and unrecoverable materials made inert will be a thing.
I think strong local regulations, as well as an emphasis of recycling locally is the best short-term solution. It does expose the actual cost of recycling (safely) -- but also cuts energy to shipping, and can be used as a stimuli for a more re-cycle friendly value chain (eg: make sellers of electronics take the bill for recycling, and demand local, safe recycling) -- which in turn puts pressure on suppliers to deliver items that are cheaper to recycle safely.
They're cheap enough that my first thought was to pick up a couple and figure out what I'd do with them later, but the disadvantage here is that they're older boxes, which means they're going to be energy hogs (for the performance point, at least). That's what makes the eco pitch interesting - they're reducing e-waste, which is good, but energy efficiency on newer boxes (especially if you just need minimal performanc…
This has been one of the most amazingly non-intuitive things for me over the years. That operating a computer that is older can be so much more inefficient than operating one that is newer, that it isn't worth it. Literally the best thing you can do is crush the chips and mine the result for gold, silver, and the few rare earths that are left over. That at least puts a finite limit on the energy consumed over it, and…
Lowest first cost is a significant form of capital efficiency [as opposed to energy]. There are tradeoffs either way, and for a single moderate use computer reaching the break-even point via reduced energy footprint could easily be several years. The raw cost of running the most power hungry P4 [115w] is $151 per 24/7 year @ full load @ $0.15/kwH.
In addition, having the machine pre-loaded with Linux also offers time efficiency versus re-provisioning a new Windows machine with Ubuntu or shopping for components, etc.
None of which to say it's a good deal per FLOP or MIP or anything else. But it's not necessarily bad either.
Hold on, hold on. They are directly marketing this solution to call centers, non-profits, etc., claiming it's "privacy-conscious" yet it utilizes recycled components which by their nature are from unknown sources. There is no chain of custody for recycled components. As such, do they have a lab which is verifying the firmware of any of those recycled components haven't been tampered with in a way which will result in a breach of privacy? If they do, that's cool but I'd think it would add significantly to the cost. This has been a major challenge in the re-use space for years as it's possible to tamper with firmware on motherboards, hard-drives, and network cards in a way which breaches privacy, independent of the operating system. I get the whole reuse thing, it's cool, but I'd be very cautious about making binding claims as to either the privacy or security of devices using recycled components which can be re-flashed.
There's an outfit in Oakland which does this.[1] They're a computer recycling center which assembles working systems from the recycled ones. They currently offer minimum specs of at least 2GB of RAM, 80GB HDD, DVD-ROM and 17” monitor. They install Linux XUBUNTU 14.0.1. The machines are free to schools, non-profits, and low-income people. There was a similar organization in Berkeley which installed Windows. They had a…
There's an organization in Minneapolis which does a similar thing. It's called Free Geek Twin Cities, and they recycle old PCs and put Ubuntu on them. It's about $40 for a computer, or one can earn one by volunteering for 24 hours. I used to volunteer there when I was less busy.
I wonder how anyone makes use of Ubuntu for even just 'web work' with just 2GB RAM. The browsers are becoming ever more bloated; I know I had swap issues on my non-SSD laptop before I upgraded from 4 to 8. Right now it uses 3.3 with 9 Chrome tabs open, an IM client, gedit and terminal. It's unfortunate, of course, because 4GB of older DDR1/DDR2 memory would be much more tough to find/expensive than 2.