Men, pfft!

Wanna know how random men are?

This is the proposed power saving in the new standard desktop environment:

10 minutes – screen saver
15 minutes – hard drive turns off
20 minutes – monitor turns off
30 minutes – system standby
2 hours – hibernation

Bear in mind the screen saver has the company logo and goes on about how we have values such as honest, integrity, doing right by the taxpayer, yadda yadda, propaganda my colleagues say.

From: Michelle McClellan
Sent: Friday, 7 December 2007 7:49 a.m.
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE:

Shouldn’t everyone be moving to LCD monitors anyway if we want to be a carbon neutral public service?

We aren’t worried and going to delay the monitor just so people can see the screensaver are we?

Howabout 15 mins the screen goes to sleep? Seems strange to have the harddrive sleep before the screen just because it “might take a while” to come back.

Don’t worry, I’m not trying to be a pain in the arse on purpose, I’m generally quite agreeable. I’m just making sure we have thoroughly questioned everything we do.

Cheers,
Michelle
________________________________________
From:
Sent: Thursday, 6 December 2007 3:24 p.m.
To: Michelle McClellan
Cc:
Subject: RE:

If you turn away from your PC to read a paper or document it’s amazing how quickly a 10 min screen saver kicks in. Older screens (not flat ones) take a bit of time to warm up again after the mouse wiggle, the screen saver is instantaneous. 20 mins in it is safe to assume the user is probably away from their desk, at a meeting etc.

A good balance would be:-

10 mins screen saver
20 mins power off screen

Those would be my recommendations.

________________________________________
From: Michelle McClellan
Sent: Thursday, 6 December 2007 2:18 p.m.
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE:

Awesome :)

I guess we need to weigh up what is more important, the screensaver (which people don’t see, because they aren’t at their PC’s anyway) or energy saving.

Cheers,
Michelle

________________________________________
From:
Sent: Thursday, 6 December 2007 2:16 p.m.
To: Michelle McClellan
Cc:
Subject: RE:

I’ve asked L*** H****** how we should work this setting and the screen saver in together to best effect.

Regards
________________________________________
From: Michelle McClellan
Sent: Thursday, 6 December 2007 2:14 p.m.
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE:

Would you consider 10 minutes too aggressive?

People I have spoken to don’t consider 10 minutes aggressive.

Cheers,
Michelle

________________________________________
From:
Sent: Thursday, 6 December 2007 2:13 p.m.
To: Michelle McClellan
Cc:
Subject:

How do those settings align with those that are in the paper for the Carbon Reduction Plan?

I suggest that a 5 min screen power off is too aggressive and will annoy. There is scope to re-evaluate and reduce time on all the settings later if required.

________________________________________
From:
Sent: Thursday, 6 December 2007 1:51 p.m.
To: Michelle McClellan
Cc:
Subject:

Thanks Michelle for your comments.

Gareth – can the G3 meeting this morning it was agreed to adopt Michelle’s recommendation listed. Can this be implemented?

________________________________________
From: Michelle McClellan
Sent: Thursday, 6 December 2007 1:32 p.m.
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE:

Hi

I think it looked really awesome :)

My only recommendation is that after 5 or 10 minutes the screen turns off and the computer becomes “locked”. The user will have to log in again when they wake the screen. They should lock for security anyway.

There is no difference in response/come-back times between the waking up the screen and coming out of screen saver mode – both just happen at the shake of the mouse.

What you effectively end up with is a black screen saver (the screen is asleep) that doesn’t use as nearly as much power as a real screen saver would (as it doesn’t require the screen to be awake).

Cheers,
Michelle
________________________________________
From:
Sent: Thursday, 6 December 2007 1:26 p.m.
To:
Subject:

As you will be aware the Ministry is one of the six core public service agencies that will lead the way in achieving carbon neutrality by the year 2012.

Note: the Ministry is expected to have an approved carbon reduction plan in place by 1 February 2008

Many thanks.

Random as, I need a second opinion that my logic is flawed. Is my logic flawed? Do we need to be carbon neutral by the year 2012 like the Prime Minister said, or do we need to make sure people can see the propaganda screen saver for 10 minutes, even though their screen saver is probably on cos they aren’t at their fecking computer?

Ack, just thinking about gave me a bloody nose bleed! O_O My God, thank god I wore black. I think I finally had my brain explode. Oh God, and I just got my desk cleaned too!

I’ve decided to bow out of the argument. you can’t argue with men, especially ones who see the word “aggressive” and go into a panic and think they might get into trouble (awwwwww) for being aggressive. How else are you going to get change if you don’t make a change?? I tell you John, that stuff on that Herald site last night was so true, we are so anti-change in NZ and its the older people in charge that are making it hard for the young people like us to drive this country forward. (Generally old people are hotties, but not in NZ).

A woman has the last word in any argument.
Anything a man says after that is the beginning of a new argument.

:D

9 thoughts on “Men, pfft!

  1. Really, if you have the monitor turn off after 20 minutes you don’t even need to use the sceensaver, as it takes a few hours for any burn-in to occur anyways. I’d probably say monitor turn off after 20 minutes and standby after 45 minutes or an hour. If you really want to go hardcore than hibernation after 2 or 3 hours then :D

  2. But we do want to go hardcore. We have to be carbon neutral by 2012, every bit counts. It takes a long time to implement change. We can roll out the new power saving things with the new desktop images over the next year.

    Change needs happen, especially with over 1000 people.

    Its not really about burn-in. It’s about having the monitor sleep after 10 minutes instead of after 20 minutes because we “need to see the crappy screen saver for ten minutes”. Not that you’re at your PC otherwise it wouldn’t even be on. You have an extra 10 minutes of monitor on about 6 times per day, that’s an hour. You multiply that by 1000 users. The monitor is running 1000 hours per day more than it needs to, that times 5 means 5000 hours of unnecessary monitor usage per week. How many working weeks in a year? Say 48. 240,000 hours of unnecessary monitor usage per year (not including all the people with dual monitors)? All because we want people to see the screen saver for an extra 10 minutes that they AREN’T at their PCs? I realise that could be higher if people are at their desks a lot, but many people here are on the move all the time going to meetings etc.

    If we go aggressive with the policy then we can easily loosen it up if people really do moan. I find it hard to believe people will go “Ohh, its way too soft, make it more aggressive”.

    But enough, no more nose bleeds.

    My God, this is a funny place…. ;)

  3. My boss is anti-change too. Stuck in his own rituals. It will kill his business one day.

    Get energy efficient PC’s and OLED displays ;)

  4. Oosh, then we could have flexible screens ;) But I don’t think we are ready for OLED displays. Well, we are, but unsure if it’s a reality. I hear they only last a fraction of the time too.

  5. I’d hate having a screensaver policy on my machine. For instance, I love having no policies at all ;)

    But if it’s 10 minutes, it’s too aggressive :)

  6. Good read. (insert thumbs up emoticon here) Upon leaving my computer the little “off” button gets pressed and the screen somehow magically goes blank, no silly screensaver involved. :) Also the HDD shuts off after 10 min, and system goes into standby after 15 min.

    A running computer consumes between 195 and 305 watts, while a computer in suspend mode can consume as little as 10 watts. Hibernation mode consumes slightly less at 9 watts of power. There’s a pretty good article at Windows Secrets on how to get the most power savings out of the suspend modes. If you want the link, just ask.

    If lived in NZ, I would be worried for it’s future. Hell, I don’t live there and I’m worried. Is the current govt even capable of managing a natural disaster if, heaven forbid, that should happen?

    Change is inevitable. You can embrace it or resist it, and resistance is futile.

    Which is eerily similar to “A woman has the last word in any argument.” :D

  7. Hey Michelle.

    Sidebar: Whats up Dillio? Que?

    You’re ignoring the cost of manufacturing the screens in terms of carbon emissions, so replacing the screens isnt exactly carbon-friendly anyways. Carbon is Carbon. Doesn’t matter where it’s emitted, it doesnt give a shit about national boundaries.

    Adjunct: Carbon Neutral by 2012? That public-service only or nationally?

    Basically the best you can do is push for procurement to replace the CRT’s when they die with LCD’s. A simple cost-benefit analysis should do it. Of course, you’ll have to introduce the concept of a cost-benefit to the public sector first (good luck with that)

    Gah, I’m getting cynical.

    -RGRobinson

  8. Well, as we’re the Ministry of Economic Development, I’d hope that cost-benefit analysis is something we know how to do.. ;)

    2012, the six core public service departments.

    Although do watch as all the small businesses in Wellington start to fail because of our stupid Mayor and her Carbon Neutral Capital City plan. There is no way they can cope with another tax!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>