Neoseeker : News : Linux uses 12% less energy than Windows Server 2008
Hardware Newsletter:
Email:

Latest News
Tue, Nov 18
Mon, Nov 17
Sun, Nov 16
Sat, Nov 15
Fri, Nov 14
Thu, Nov 13

send article hardware newsletter   article comments (10)

Linux uses 12% less energy than Windows Server 2008
Philip M. - Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 | 4:45PM (PT)


The penguins are keepin' it cool in your data center

Linux uses 12% less energy than Windows Server 2008 Image 1

For a long while, Linux was only seen on servers and on the computers of hackers or geeks.  As time has gone on, more and more people began to feel beckoned to the light of freedom that open source software offered.  Not just freedom as in the cost of using an application for next to nothing and it still being legal, but freedom in that you choose how you use it and, for the true enthusiasts out there, how you modify it.  While it's still not commanding a formidable share of the desktop market like Windows does, it holds a considerable sway over the server market.  In fact, it's the system of choice for 48% of all servers which are currently running an active website as opposed to Microsoft's Windows Server being used for only 35%.

Now there's yet another reason for server administrators to choose Linux:  It's greener than Windows Server 2008!  With the ever-increasing price of oil and energy, some companies are looking to cut back on expenses wherever possible.  For those that use Windows-based servers, switching to Linux could be a great way to manage energy costs, as it uses up to 12% less energy than its proprietary rival.  However, the tests run by Network World were under various distributions and hardware configurations, so Windows users might not experience as big of a decrease in power consumption when using Linux as the tests run may lead you to believe.

It's hard to decide which distribution of Linux to use for some people, especially when there are currently 220 maintained distributions in various languages on the Internet ready for people to download, install, and use.  In this specific test however, two commercial versions of Linux were used:  Red Hat Enterprise and SUSE Enterprise Linux.  For Windows, they chose the Enterprise edition for Windows Server 2008.

The main key to success?  Enabling a CPU throttle-back mechanism to reduce the amount of energy a server uses.  Sounds easy enough, right?  Wrong.  Only two of the test servers chosen for this trial came ready-made for the feature to be used.Changing your power settings will also help unless you're a hardcore gamer or someone that wants their computer's best performance all the time.

I've personally been using Debian GNU/Linux on my laptop for almost a year now, but I could tell a noticeable difference in my computer's battery life almost right away after switching from Windows Vista.  While this is by no means a definitive statement that will help Tux overcome the giant that is Windows as far as the desktop market is concerned, it's still something worth thinking about.

  Related Stories

back to news    comments or corrections
- This news story is archived and is closed to comments now -

Comments:

June 11th, 2008 5:11PM(PT)
FFXFREAK
Well written article Avanub ;D. I never would have guessed that Linux would use less energy then Microsoft =D.

~FFXFREAK
June 11th, 2008 5:30PM(PT)
Avalith
Linux generally uses fewer resources than Windows does, though that doesn't necessarily mean that power consumption is always going to change. For example, take this screenshot of my system monitor from nearly a year ago. Running Firefox and my IM client alone would have taken up at least 25 to 30 percent of my CPU under Windows whereas you can tell it takes only two percent on Linux.
June 11th, 2008 7:18PM(PT)
chautemoc
Don't see you as a news writer? Pshaw. You've got more than enough geekiness to bring to the table, sir. Good stuff here, yes.
June 11th, 2008 7:42PM(PT)
Redemption
Vista's even worse thanks to Aero .
June 11th, 2008 11:56PM(PT)
DeathMonkey
You can turn off aero you know.
June 12th, 2008 1:05AM(PT)
Dark Dom
Mac > Linux > Windows. :3

Good first article, welcome to the team.
June 12th, 2008 2:58AM(PT)
Avalith
Dom, you do realize that Mac is just an overpriced, proprietary UNIX-based OS, don't you? Linux is a free, open source UNIX-based OS.
June 12th, 2008 3:05AM(PT)
NathanFido
Avalith you forget to add...

and works on all hardware


June 12th, 2008 3:43AM(PT)
Avalith
No, I didn't, because that isn't necessarily true.
June 12th, 2008 8:10PM(PT)
tallteen86
I'd go with Linux if two conditions were met:

Software compatability (games and programs in general) - Currently, there are very few games (hardcore PC type) that work with Linux. Other programs also don't work on Linux in many cases. Linux may have some of the programs, and equivalents of some others, but a lot of programs just don't exist on linux, or need some work to be implemented (which not everyone knows how to do)....

User friendliness. Well, this isn't much of an issue anymore. But in order to add some new stuff, I believe you actually have to go and modify the OS software itself, which not everyone can do, as I said....

- This news story is archived and is closed to new comments now -

  RSS Feeds

Latest Comments
Most Comments

Latest Net Reviews:
Latest Inhouse:


Compare Prices

Motherboards
 Abit
 ASUS
 Gigabyte
 Intel
 iWill
 Shuttle
 Soyo
 Super Micro
 Tyan
 More...

Processors
 AMD
 Intel
 More...

Memory
 SDRAM
 RDRAM
 DDRAM
 More...

Video Cards
 ATI
 Visiontek
 PNY
 3Dfx
 More...

search for lowest prices
(0.0227/mc/nova)