Re: [OT] Hard Drive Energy Not Worth Conserving drives?
On 2011-01-09 08:02:05 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> If one is so power consumption conscious to be suckered into a Green
> (EARS) drive, then one needs to realize the CPU dissipates about 10
> times the wattage/heat of a hard drive. Thus, concentrate your power
> saving efforts elsewhere than the disk drive. Buy a non "green" drive,
> and save yourself these sector alignment/performance headaches.
Hi,
I just wanted to mention that this is a type of faulty logic that
we run into all the time when trying to conserve energy. The idea
that if a second thing can conserve more energy than the first, then
we do not need to conserve energy in the first thing.
It can go like this:
The first person comes along and says, "Why are you so worried about
phantom power, when you can get so much more savings from switching to
CFL light bulbs?"
The second person comes along and says, "CFL light bulbs? Why bother
when city street lights are on ALL NIGHT LONG?".
The third person comes along and says, "City street lights? What about
heating and cooling AIR PORTS around the clock?!.
Anyway, nothing personal or angry. I just wanted to mention that I seed
this as a logic fault, and it particularly happens around energy
conservation. My own opinion is that you should get energy savings
everywhere you can.
There is a separate point to argue about whether Western Digital
hard drives are really "Green" because they use less energy, or
if WD is using the term "Green" to market and sell inferior
technology.
Hope this helps,
Phil
Reply to: