Windows as a Service (WaaS) is coming.

[evernessince]

I won't argue that point at all. I completely believe that without a computer, a person's ability to exist in society is so hampered it's almost isolationist. But society is absolutely not going to pay for everyone to own computers, and the simple fact is that people are Not Entitled to a computer. As much as you and I might feel is is a "right", it literally isn't.

Every right we currently enjoy was at one point not a right. If you know that a person needs an computer or some form of advanced electronic device to exist in modern society, then you'd know that it would be absolutely silly to not spend the $50 - 200 on providing a basic version of such a device to everyone. Doesn't matter whether that be through local facilities (like a library) or directly. The economic consequences of people not being able to participate in society are far greater given how much the government already spends cultivating citizens.

Whether you are making an argument of emotion or an argument of economics, it makes sense to provide people access to these devices.

To be fair, WaaS might make it more accessible to those people....

I'd say no because you can already get windows keys for less than $10. Mind you I'd say calling any subscription service "more accessible" incorrect. It's only more accessible in a vacuum if you look at the one month cost. If a person only has x amount of discretionary income to spend on things and software y costs $20 upfront but then switches to a subscription for $10 / month, they will be loosing out on $10 per month after the 3rd month for the rest of their life or until they stop subscribing and loose access to that software. Now consider that many things are transitioning to subscriptions and repeat that reduction in disposable income many times over and you can see how is not "more accessible", it drain's the money out of people's wallets to ensure they have less choice in how they spend their money. With an upfront license you decide if the price of the product is good and for how long you use it. That's before you consider that we are seeing subscriptions nowadays to be able to use the heated seats in your car, for your smart devices, anything. Nowadays it's not just the threat that you'll loose access to your digital products but also that your physically products will stop working or loose features as well. With a lack of consumer rights this is likely only to get worse.

The software industry already had licensing that allowed it to earn reoccurring income, the customer would buy software y and get z amount of years of upgrades and service before that license expires. After it expires they can continue using their software but don't receiving any updates after that period. Works for customers, works for software companies.

Most subscriptions are nonsense and nothing more than a cancer to wring more money out of customers. Their overuse has completely destroyed the few legitimate scenarios where they were acceptable.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

I think you might be missing it here. The concept of WaaS eliminates the need for your local PC to run Windows at all. ChromeOS Linux, macOS? Doesn't matter. When MS's mobile ambitions failed spectacularly, they pivoted away from an all-in hardware/software system to a "hey, our apps can run on anything you got." Office apps came to iPad/iPhone and Android. In a sense, MS has already conceded the consumer OS war. It's only getting more expensive to securely support all that old hardware, so they did something that surprised most--they set hardware requirements for W11, dumping tons of old hardware configurations. I think that's just the beginning, and I also think it's why they are pushing so hard with Snapdragon X. The more they can pull us away from legacy stuff, the easier their job gets. I strongly suspect if WaaS happens, it will not just be an OS rental, but it will come bundled with Office and cloud storage, with various tiers depending on your hardware needs. And really that's the perfect deal for MS--sell subscriptions to their platform, and let the consumer hash it out over what box or portal they run it on. Heck, even a docked smartphone might do the trick if all the processing power is outsourced. MS can then start waiving goodbye to users clinging to old platforms--no more encouraged or forced upgrades.

Personally, I don't like this world, but I could totally see this happening. We live in a world of owning very little and just consuming through subscriptions. Movies, music, live TV, games, software, storage--why not just make it the entire platform? There are serious dangers to this, but we've already given up so much through these subscription models. If you want to see Star Wars the proper way (where Han shoots first), you gotta go digging for an old DVD.

 

[evernessince]

I think you might be missing it here. The concept of WaaS eliminates the need for your local PC to run Windows at all. ChromeOS Linux, macOS? Doesn't matter. When MS's mobile ambitions failed spectacularly, they pivoted away from an all-in hardware/software system to a "hey, our apps can run on anything you got." Office apps came to iPad/iPhone and Android. In a sense, MS has already conceded the consumer OS war. It's only getting more expensive to securely support all that old hardware, so they did something that surprised most--they set hardware requirements for W11, dumping tons of old hardware configurations. I think that's just the beginning, and I also think it's why they are pushing so hard with Snapdragon X. The more they can pull us away from legacy stuff, the easier their job gets. I strongly suspect if WaaS happens, it will not just be an OS rental, but it will come bundled with Office and cloud storage, with various tiers depending on your hardware needs. And really that's the perfect deal for MS--sell subscriptions to their platform, and let the consumer hash it out over what box or portal they run it on. Heck, even a docked smartphone might do the trick if all the processing power is outsourced. MS can then start waiving goodbye to users clinging to old platforms--no more encouraged or forced upgrades.

Personally, I don't like this world, but I could totally see this happening. We live in a world of owning very little and just consuming through subscriptions. Movies, music, live TV, games, software, storage--why not just make it the entire platform? There are serious dangers to this, but we've already given up so much through these subscription models. If you want to see Star Wars the proper way (where Han shoots first), you gotta go digging for an old DVD.

Yes, I don't see the point in that. You still need some sort of device for display and input even if a server somewhere is doing all the work. At the end of day it's going to be a bad experience on a $50 tablet whether windows is being run in the cloud or locally.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Yes, I don't see the point in that. You still need some sort of device for display and input even if a server somewhere is doing all the work. At the end of day it's going to be a bad experience on a $50 tablet whether windows is being run in the cloud or locally.

I don't really see this going on on a tablet, but I could see it where you take your smartphone, dock it to a monitor with USB-C, pair a mouse and keyboard, and remote to your Windows desktop. We have had phones that can be docked for at least 10 years now. It wouldn't be hard, and MS would probably make the app. Again, not saying I'm for this idea, but I bet it could all be done today already.

 

[Super Firm Tofu]

I'm sure it's already on the way:

LG, Samsung, Vizio, TCL Smart TV's -- Now Windows365™ Ready (keyboard and mouse sold separately)

 

[R-T-B]

this in my opinion is Microsofts biggest lie at the moment. WHO ARE THAY KIDDING.
View attachment 348781
with there system req its causing half the planet to upgrade to run there darn win 11.

Technically new systems are more energy efficient. Remember they are talking Carbon Emissions, not garbage.

Its weasel wording sure, but hardly a lie.

 

[Caring1]

Technically new systems are more energy efficient.

Yeah no!
Not for the average consumer where power consumption is increasing.

 

[AusWolf]

this in my opinion is Microsofts biggest lie at the moment. WHO ARE THAY KIDDING.
View attachment 348781
with there system req its causing half the planet to upgrade to run there darn win 11.

It reminds me of the "pay more for your flight ticket to offset your carbon emissions" banners. Because an airplane uses less fuel if you pay more to be on it. Obviously.

 

[64K]

I'm sure it's already on the way:

LG, Samsung, Vizio, TCL Smart TV's -- Now Windows365™ Ready (keyboard and mouse sold separately)

Even my Kindle Fire has Microsoft 365 on it but I don't use it.

 

[AusWolf]

I won't argue that point at all. I completely believe that without a computer, a person's ability to exist in society is so hampered it's almost isolationist. But society is absolutely not going to pay for everyone to own computers, and the simple fact is that people are Not Entitled to a computer. As much as you and I might feel is is a "right", it literally isn't. To be fair, WaaS might make it more accessible to those people....

I see where you're coming from, although I'd say that even though owning a computer isn't a basic human right, it is very much a basic human necessity in Western society. Email, banking, etc., these are necessary to survive. Sure, you have to pay for a computer just like you have to pay for access to clean water and food as well. With that logic, the only thing that comes as a right is air (until someone figures out a way to monetise it).

 

[64K]

the only thing that comes as a right is air (until someone figures out a way to monetise it).

A company does actually sell "pure Rocky Mountain air" in a bottle.

View attachment 1716702262213.webp

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

 

[xtreemchaos]

Technically new systems are more energy

sorry mate but i can not agree with you , yes maybe if you have a small box that's meant for surfing but all my systems eat more and more each gen where its got to the point where iv'e had to undervolt everything I can. i mean just look at the power draw of some new cpu's and gpu's at the high end yes on idle maybe there a tad better but when we use them like for gaming/ crunching/rendering its crazy the amount of power is used 10 year ago we could of run few systems for the same power draw but that's hardwear and this is about Microsoft "Ive allready been told off by Bill for going off topic" .

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

A company does actually sell "pure Rocky Mountain air" in a bottle.

View attachment 348842

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

More Spaceballs.

 

[P4-630]

Sparkling canned farts coming soon!...

 

[xtreemchaos]

i thought Aliens had the monopoly on farts with all the probing they do .

 

[Bill_Bright]

Note: I am removing the names from some of these quotes because it is not about the person saying them, it is about the facts that are being misrepresented and skewed through bias and/or a failure of the poster to simply verify before posting.

***

Alexa is one example I can name about just how MS snoops around.

Please! Come on, people! This again perfectly illustrates my point about, once again, allowing one's obvious biases and dislike for Microsoft to influence, if not completely drive them into rumor mongering and misrepresenting the facts! And the sad point is, those rumor could quickly be debunked, and facts could easily be verified in mere seconds with their friend, Bing DDG Google.

Alexa is from Amazon! NOT Microsoft! And talk about snooping!!! Alexa, Siri and Google Assistant even come in separate devices you can put on your end-table that are constantly listening to EVERYTHING going on in our homes (how else would they know to respond to their name being called?). Microsoft has nothing to compare with those. Where is the Amazon, Apple and Google bashing?

Yes, there's Cortana, but (1) it did not come in a stand-alone device version that was always listening and (2) the application was so convoluted, inferior and unpopular in so many ways that Microsoft pulled the plug on it.

Another example:

Technically new systems are more energy efficient.

Yeah no!
Not for the average consumer where power consumption is increasing.

YES!!!!!!!!!! @R-T-B is 100% correct! And anyone could easily understand this if they simply took a few seconds to learn and understand the difference between "consumption" and "efficiency". New computers are significantly more "efficient" these days. A few years ago, an 80% efficient power supply was considered good. These days, that is mediocre and 90% is good. DDR5 is more efficient than DDR4. SSDs in general consume less than hard drives.

And almost everything does more "work" while consuming the same or even less energy. That's being more "efficient".

Consumption is the amount of energy used. Efficiency is about the amount of energy wasted - typically in the form of heat. Today's computing devices waste a lot less energy in relation to the amount consumed compared to those devices of yesterday. Yes, there are some newer, more powerful devices that are real power hogs. But in general, they do more work consuming the same amount of energy while wasting less energy. Why? Because they ARE more efficient.

yep... they are making more e-waste by making ppl throw away perfectly working computers...

More biased nonsense! Microsoft did NOT make anyone throw away their old computers, nor did they force anyone to buy a new computer. Those people chose to get rid of their perfectly good computers.

On the other hand, I could probably name a dozen hardware companies who have, over the years, forced users to get rid of their perfectly good hardware and buy new. Makers of printing devices are perfect examples. Instead of developing new drivers for the latest operating systems for their legacy products, they terminated support. So if the user wanted to print to print with their old laser printer, for example, they needed to buy a new printer.

Where is all the HP, Epson, even Brother bashing about that? Oh! They are not owned by Microsoft. I get it.

So come on folks! Microsoft has done so many things that truly deserve harsh criticisms. Examples include the W8 "Metro" UI they tried to force on everyone in order to get everyone to buy the disastrous Microsoft smart phone. Their have their confusing naming schemes. For example, there's Outlook, Outlook Web App, Outlook Express, Outlook.com. Or their antispyware program called Windows Defender for W7 and their totally different antimalware program called Windows Defender for W8 and later. The first iteration of Edge, a clearly incomplete, poorly executed browser even the developers noted was not ready for release, was pushed out by the MS Marketing Weenies and Execs with W10, to disastrous effects and publicity. And while typically greatly overexaggerated, there have been some significant missteps with some updates that were pushed out by Microsoft through Windows Updates that clearly lacked adequate beta testing first.

My point is, there is just no need to keep making things up, perpetuating false rumors and misrepresenting the true facts with falsehoods when there is lots of real MS bashing fodder out there.

Posting falsehoods and exaggerations and clearly biased opinions as fact is NOT doing new and future TPU readers a service! It is NOT giving them the true facts so they can make an informed decision. And isn't that what this site is about? Informing readers of the true facts? Helping readers learn the true facts (and maybe learn something new along the way) is why I'm here. Why are you here?

 

[Vayra86]

Note: I am removing the names from some of these quotes because it is not about the person saying them, it is about the facts that are being misrepresented and skewed through bias and/or a failure of the poster to simply verify before posting.

***


Please! Come on, people! This again perfectly illustrates my point about, once again, allowing one's obvious biases and dislike for Microsoft to influence, if not completely drive them into rumor mongering and misrepresenting the facts! And the sad point is, those rumor could quickly be debunked, and facts could easily be verified in mere seconds with their friend, Bing DDG Google.

Alexa is from Amazon! NOT Microsoft! And talk about snooping!!! Alexa, Siri and Google Assistant even come in separate devices you can put on your end-table that are constantly listening to EVERYTHING going on in our homes (how else would they know to respond to their name being called?). Microsoft has nothing to compare with those. Where is the Amazon, Apple and Google bashing?

Yes, there's Cortana, but (1) it did not come in a stand-alone device version that was always listening and (2) the application was so convoluted, inferior and unpopular in so many ways that Microsoft pulled the plug on it.

Another example:


YES!!!!!!!!!! @R-T-B is 100% correct! And anyone could easily understand this if they simply took a few seconds to learn and understand the difference between "consumption" and "efficiency". New computers are significantly more "efficient" these days. A few years ago, an 80% efficient power supply was considered good. These days, that is mediocre and 90% is good. DDR5 is more efficient than DDR4. SSDs in general consume less than hard drives.

And almost everything does more "work" while consuming the same or even less energy. That's being more "efficient".

Consumption is the amount of energy used. Efficiency is about the amount of energy wasted - typically in the form of heat. Today's computing devices waste a lot less energy in relation to the amount consumed compared to those devices of yesterday. Yes, there are some newer, more powerful devices that are real power hogs. But in general, they do more work consuming the same amount of energy while wasting less energy. Why? Because they ARE more efficient.


More biased nonsense! Microsoft did NOT make anyone throw away their old computers, nor did they force anyone to buy a new computer. Those people chose to get rid of their perfectly good computers.

On the other hand, I could probably name a dozen hardware companies who have, over the years, forced users to get rid of their perfectly good hardware and buy new. Makers of printing devices are perfect examples. Instead of developing new drivers for the latest operating systems for their legacy products, they terminated support. So if the user wanted to print to print with their old laser printer, for example, they needed to buy a new printer.

Where is all the HP, Epson, even Brother bashing about that? Oh! They are not owned by Microsoft. I get it.

So come on folks! Microsoft has done so many things that truly deserve harsh criticisms. Examples include the W8 "Metro" UI they tried to force on everyone in order to get everyone to buy the disastrous Microsoft smart phone. Their have their confusing naming schemes. For example, there's Outlook, Outlook Web App, Outlook Express, Outlook.com. Or their antispyware program called Windows Defender for W7 and their totally different antimalware program called Windows Defender for W8 and later. The first iteration of Edge, a clearly incomplete, poorly executed browser even the developers noted was not ready for release, was pushed out by the MS Marketing Weenies and Execs with W10, to disastrous effects and publicity. And while typically greatly overexaggerated, there have been some significant missteps with some updates that were pushed out by Microsoft through Windows Updates that clearly lacked adequate beta testing first.

My point is, there is just no need to keep making things up, perpetuating false rumors and misrepresenting the true facts with falsehoods when there is lots of real MS bashing fodder out there.

Posting falsehoods and exaggerations and clearly biased opinions as fact is NOT doing new and future TPU readers a service! It is NOT giving them the true facts so they can make an informed decision. And isn't that what this site is about? Informing readers of the true facts? Helping readers learn the true facts (and maybe learn something new along the way) is why I'm here. Why are you here?

People are saying and experiencing something that does not align with the theoretical workings of products and statements. The practical outcome of our 'progress' is that we keep using more power and PCs guzzle more of it. We might do a bit more on it but do we really? In the end, computers and similar devices do use more power in any household than they did 20 years ago. There are more of them, often left idling because 'its only a few watts'... and when they do go to work, a game can guzzle upwards of 400W. GPU tdps per tier have increased over the last three generations. The theory about efficiency simply never works out to actual saving of power. Look at AI itself. Its probably going to be worse than crypto in power usage but luckily we do it with the most efficient gpus? Lmao

Similarly, of COURSE MS is forcing users into upgrades by forcing a hardware requirement with NO performance impact like the TPM module with W11. The same thing applies to the segmentation added with AI buttons and capable systems. If you always worked with the OS, the rules of the game have simply changed for you. Yes you can go elsewhere. If that defines 'not forced' then sure. But I think that you know better - MS fully intends to execute their strategy where you are staying and upgrading. They dont want you to save the planet either - they say BUY, and get a new PC too. Everything else is secondary.

Its all more of the same: increased usage of resources.

When it comes to the spying, yeah.. full agreement. MS was never the big issue there. But MS knows what it needs to know to run a business. And they WILL expand on that, to run their business. Look at copilot+ and Recall.

 

[Bill_Bright]

The practical outcome of our 'progress' is that we keep using more power and PCs guzzle more of it.

That may be, and in many cases is true. But once again, higher consumption does NOT mean poorer efficiency.

Here's a simple (and simplified) example that I hope will illustrate the point.

Assume a task takes 400W to complete. Now assume you have an old 600W 80% efficient power supply. That power supply would need to draw from the wall ~500W to deliver that needed 400W of power (500 x .8 = 400). That means 100W is wasted in the form of heat.

Now, with that same 400W task, assume you have a new 600W 90% efficient PSU. This new PSU would only need to draw from the wall ~445W for the exact same amount of work (445 x .9 = 400.5). Here, for the same amount of work, only 45W is wasted. But that's just by the PSU.

If that same task previously was done with DDR4 and now with DDR5, even less energy would be wasted.

We might do a bit more on it but do we really?

Depends on what you do. Gamers definitely do a lot more as their games involve many more active objects, much MUCH greater image detail in both the fore and backgrounds. Animation is MUCH smoother and faster. All that takes power. Today's games are not Pong.

Multitaskers do more.

And it is not always about "just" doing more. It is also about doing the same task much more quickly. Getting a task done more quickly consumes less power, even if it takes more power to do that task.

The theory about efficiency simply never works out to actual saving of power.

"Never" is an absolute and therefore, that is a blanket statement and like all blanket statements, is simply wrong. And yes, I clearly see the irony in my own blanket statement.

The point is, the theory about efficiency very often, if not most of the time, works out to actual savings of power - and costs!

computers and similar devices do use more power in any household than they did 20 years ago.

Again - it only takes a few seconds to verify facts. It will save yourself from really looking foolish when you post such nonsense at that!

You are simply wrong! It takes LESS POWER today, with a modern computer to read our emails, type out a Word document, update social media than it did with a computer made 10 years ago. Gaming with the latest, highest performing hardware and the latest games may consume more, but gaming is NOT the only task the majority of users do with their computers. In fact, hard core, power hogging gaming makes up a small percentage of the total number of computer users out there. Contrary to what some here may want to believe, the TPU membership does NOT represent the majority of computer users in the world.

A 70 inch LCD TV today consumes LESS POWER than a 25 inch CRT monitor did 20 years ago. Refrigerators today consume MUCH less power than those of even just 10 years ago - while keeping the same amount of food at the same temperatures. Dishwashers are more efficient. My newer gas furnace is 87% efficient. The old one might have been 70%. My 3 year old water heater is WAY more efficient than the 20 year old one it replaced.

Look at the average household today compared to just 20 years ago. Using my own 4 bedroom house as an example. In 2014, my "level payment" (average monthly) electric bill was $109/month. Today, it is $74. Same house, same number of occupants. Same number of computers and TVs.

In addition to the above, all my lightbulbs are now LED instead of incandescent. My central air conditioner I replaced 2 years ago has a SEER rating of 16 while the old one was only 12.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE take a few seconds to verify your facts before posting. Because clearly, you don't know what you are talking about.

Now it is time to move on.

 

[Vayra86]

That may be, and in many cases is true. But once again, higher consumption does NOT mean poorer efficiency.

Here's a simple (and simplified) example that I hope will illustrate the point.

Assume a task takes 400W to complete. Now assume you have an old 600W 80% efficient power supply. That power supply would need to draw from the wall ~500W to deliver that needed 400W of power (500 x .8 = 400). That means 100W is wasted in the form of heat.

Now, with that same 400W task, assume you have a new 600W 90% efficient PSU. This new PSU would only need to draw from the wall ~445W for the exact same amount of work (445 x .9 = 400.5). Here, for the same amount of work, only 45W is wasted. But that's just by the PSU.

If that same task previously was done with DDR4 and now with DDR5, even less energy would be wasted.


Depends on what you do. Gamers definitely do a lot more as their games involve many more active objects, much MUCH greater image detail in both the fore and backgrounds. Animation is MUCH smoother and faster. All that takes power. Today's games are not Pong.

Multitaskers do more.

And it is not always about "just" doing more. It is also about doing the same task much more quickly. Getting a task done more quickly consumes less power, even if it takes more power to do that task.


"Never" is an absolute and therefore, that is a blanket statement and like all blanket statements, is simply wrong. And yes, I clearly see the irony in my own blanket statement.

The point is, the theory about efficiency very often, if not most of the time, works out to actual savings of power - and costs!


Again - it only takes a few seconds to verify facts. It will save yourself from really looking foolish when you post such nonsense at that!

You are simply wrong! It takes LESS POWER today, with a modern computer to read our emails, type out a Word document, update social media than it did with a computer made 10 years ago. Gaming with the latest, highest performing hardware and the latest games may consume more, but gaming is NOT the only task the majority of users do with their computers. In fact, hard core, power hogging gaming makes up a small percentage of the total number of computer users out there. Contrary to what some here may want to believe, the TPU membership does NOT represent the majority of computer users in the world.

A 70 inch LCD TV today consumes LESS POWER than a 25 inch CRT monitor did 20 years ago. Refrigerators today consume MUCH less power than those of even just 10 years ago - while keeping the same amount of food at the same temperatures. Dishwashers are more efficient. My newer gas furnace is 87% efficient. The old one might have been 70%. My 3 year old water heater is WAY more efficient than the 20 year old one it replaced.

Look at the average household today compared to just 20 years ago. Using my own 4 bedroom house as an example. In 2014, my "level payment" (average monthly) electric bill was $109/month. Today, it is $74. Same house, same number of occupants. Same number of computers and TVs.

In addition to the above, all my lightbulbs are now LED instead of incandescent. My central air conditioner I replaced 2 years ago has a SEER rating of 16 while the old one was only 12.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE take a few seconds to verify your facts before posting. Because clearly, you don't know what you are talking about.

Now it is time to move on.

No you still didnt get it and you need to stop categorizing that as 'misinformation'. We have global stats that keep telling us households and companies keep using more and more power. Higher efficiency only and simply enables us to do more and when enabled, we do it! In the grand scale of things, our progress leads us to a bigger footprint.

You really dont have to explain what efficiency means in a basic sense. We all know what it means and we are WAY past that.

 

[remixedcat]

More biased nonsense! Microsoft did NOT make anyone throw away their old computers, nor did they force anyone to buy a new computer. Those people chose to get rid of their perfectly good computers.

On the other hand, I could probably name a dozen hardware companies who have, over the years, forced users to get rid of their perfectly good hardware and buy new. Makers of printing devices are perfect examples. Instead of developing new drivers for the latest operating systems for their legacy products, they terminated support. So if the user wanted to print to print with their old laser printer, for example, they needed to buy a new printer.

they are!!! they are upping requirements constantly and those that have to use windows have to upgrade constantly making more ewaste! anyone that uses windows has to! thus they are being forced...

the only way they wouldn't be forced is if microsoft didn't up the requirements!! but guess what?? THEY ARE MORE AND MORE OFTEN so son't give me that!

also I've seen so many cheap dell precision and latitude systems that have awesome specs that just happen to be 6th and 7th gen intel core CPUs.... these are being sold at HUGE losses to people and they aren't selling I've had so many on my wishlists that have been there months... these aren't some crappy 300 dollar core i3 6th and 7th gen these are straight up powerful workstations that now can't run modern windows 11 all bc microsoft decided to up the requirements for no reason other than greed and stupid fad chasing... this is a stupid amount of waste!!!

 

[Bill_Bright]

No you still didnt get it and you need to stop categorizing that as 'misinformation'. We have global stats that keep telling us households and companies keep using more and more power.

Gee whiz dude! You have blinders on. You are spewing misinformation! Global consumption is NOT the same thing as efficiency. Refusing to accept that does not make it false.

More misinformation here:

Higher efficiency only and simply enables us to do more

"Only and simply?" That is just plain WRONG! It allows us to do the same or more with less energy. That point is critical. Higher efficiency also allows us to make the same number of products while spewing less pollutants into the air, landfills and waterways. Yes, we are still polluting. Yes, efficiencies have a long way to go. Yes, over all, consumption has gone up. But there are nearly 2,000,000,000 more people in the world since the year 2000 buying products and consuming power too.

We have global stats that keep telling us households and companies keep using more and more power.

I get it. I don't have a clue what you get anymore. Definitely not the true and complete facts.

I am not, and have not argued that consumption has gone down. In many areas, it has gone up. In some households, it has. But not all companies and not all households consume more than they did. I also note in many households, budgets didn't allow for multiple computers, a TV in every room, etc.

And OF COURSE, as production goes up, so do production costs. But AT THE SAME TIME, the cost to produce a single unit keeps going down. Why? Because it has become more efficient to do so. Each kWh is producing more units, despite the fact the cost of a kWh has gone up. I am sorry you just don't get that.

Also, please note this totally off topic tangent (one of several) began when others claimed Microsoft was lying about Windows Update (and MS in general) working to reduce its carbon footprint - despite corroborating evidence from TechRadar, Paul Thurrott and Forbes.

they are!!! they are upping requirements constantly and those that have to use windows have to upgrade constantly making more ewaste! anyone that uses windows has to! thus they are being forced...

Wow. Not once, ever, in the decades I have been using Windows personally or professionally has Microsoft ever forced me, or anyone I know, to buy new hardware. And you can follow the link in my sig to see if I have been around long enough to maybe have a clue about what I am talking about.

I am tired of arguing with walls. If you don't believe me, that's fine. I have verified my facts. So go argue with Microsoft, TechRadar, Paul Thurrott, and Forbes.

 

[remixedcat]

Gee whiz dude! You have blinders on. You are spewing misinformation! Global consumption is NOT the same thing as efficiency. Refusing to accept that does not make it false.

More misinformation here:

"Only and simply?" That is just plain WRONG! It allows us to do the same or more with less energy. That point is critical. Higher efficiency also allows us to make the same number of products while spewing less pollutants into the air, landfills and waterways. Yes, we are still polluting. Yes, efficiencies have a long way to go. Yes, over all, consumption has gone up. But there are nearly 2,000,000,000 more people in the world since the year 2000 buying products and consuming power too.


I get it. I don't have a clue what you get anymore. Definitely not the true and complete facts.

I am not, and have not argued that consumption has gone down. In many areas, it has gone up. In some households, it has. But not all companies and not all households consume more than they did. I also note in many households, budgets didn't allow for multiple computers, a TV in every room, etc.

And OF COURSE, as production goes up, so do production costs. But AT THE SAME TIME, the cost to produce a single unit keeps going down. Why? Because it has become more efficient to do so. Each kWh is producing more units, despite the fact the cost of a kWh has gone up. I am sorry you just don't get that.

Also, please note this totally off topic tangent (one of several) began when others claimed Microsoft was lying about Windows Update (and MS in general) working to reduce its carbon footprint - despite corroborating evidence from TechRadar, Paul Thurrott and Forbes.


Wow. Not once, ever, in the decades I have been using Windows personally or professionally has Microsoft ever forced me, or anyone I know, to buy new hardware. And you can follow the link in my sig to see if I have been around long enough to maybe have a clue about what I am talking about.

I am tired of arguing with walls. If you don't believe me, that's fine. I have verified my facts. So go argue with Microsoft, TechRadar, Paul Thurrott, and Forbes.

so have you put the latest windows 11 build on a 4th or 5th or 6th gen i5 with no problems??? and no mods or hacks or tweaks or anything and got it perfectly functioning? with no issues after running every single update?

 

[Vayra86]

Gee whiz dude! You have blinders on. You are spewing misinformation! Global consumption is NOT the same thing as efficiency. Refusing to accept that does not make it false.

More misinformation here:

"Only and simply?" That is just plain WRONG! It allows us to do the same or more with less energy. That point is critical. Higher efficiency also allows us to make the same number of products while spewing less pollutants into the air, landfills and waterways. Yes, we are still polluting. Yes, efficiencies have a long way to go. Yes, over all, consumption has gone up. But there are nearly 2,000,000,000 more people in the world since the year 2000 buying products and consuming power too.


I get it. I don't have a clue what you get anymore. Definitely not the true and complete facts.

I am not, and have not argued that consumption has gone down. In many areas, it has gone up. In some households, it has. But not all companies and not all households consume more than they did. I also note in many households, budgets didn't allow for multiple computers, a TV in every room, etc.

Did you factor in the cost of all those cloud services running on those TVs while we're at it? On extremely efficient hardware? All those cat pics and videos we watch now?

We're doing more. Even households that have less. By the way, they might own one PC, but every member has a smartphone anyway. And a lot of the more we're doing, is waste. Microsoft is pushing for us using our PCs, and them using theirs to power ours. We're not going to be doing 'more' all that much. Are you going to tell me that Word working through 365 is less wasteful than it working locally?

I can give you another few dozen examples if this didn't convince you...
The bottom line here is: Microsoft putting a nice green leaf under a Windows Update option is window dressing. It is utter bullshit, in the margin of the margins of energy usage. The progress in computer electronics is of a similar nature. Its not green, it will never be green, and anyone telling you otherwise is fooling himself.

And a WaaS is certainly not greener than a local one.

By the way on the topic of global consumption, did you know a little over 25% of the global energy consumption happens in households? Surely we'd have noticed that dive just a percent under 25 by now, given several decades of semiconductors shrinking, us moving to LED over bulbs and whatever else? Or if we zoom in further... surely the electricity used per household is going down over time? Nope, it go up. Massively, as we move to less efficient space heating through electricity, cooking on it, etc. And let's not forget even the door bell contains a little computer now and even poor as shit households can buy a 300 dollar 45 inch flatscreen TV (with a computer in it). Wait, let's add some chips to our efficient LED lighting too so we can remote control it! Now again - are we doing more? I think we're still cooking, watching TV, turning on the light and answering the door bell.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

It's a really good point, that while our local devices can use less energy, datacenters are going up all over the place. AI is only going to accelerate the energy consumption.

Global data center electricity use to double by 2026 - IEA report

AI and cryptocurrency workloads are driving up demand

www.datacenterdynamics.com

I bet they really hope to shift whatever NPU work they can back over to the user, as then you get to pay for that electricity and not them.

 

[BSim500]

Wow. Not once, ever, in the decades I have been using Windows personally or professionally has Microsoft ever forced me, or anyone I know, to buy new hardware. And you can follow the link in my sig to see if I have been around long enough to maybe have a clue about what I am talking about.

Given you're still running W10 (according to your profile), you obviously won't have been "forced" to upgrade to W11 since you aren't even running it...