Digg

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Apple Computers Lose ENERGY STAR Certification

floppyhead.com — On July 20th, ENERGY STAR ’s new specifications for computers went into effect. Apple currently does not have one computer that meets the new requirements.

Bury

raoultg 1 year 118 days ago, made popular 1 year 117 days ago

1511 diggs
digg it

199 Comments
Who Dugg It?

The_Ox, on 10/10/2007, -29/+55Looks like Steve Jobs will have to write another letter.
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/agreenerapple/

Of note, Apple's http://www.apple.com/environment/ page says: "All Apple computers and displays meet applicable ENERGY STAR® requirements. They continue to do so. "
- monospaced, on 10/10/2007, -25/+43There must be a means to achieve compliance to the new, stricter standards, and considering Apple uses basically the same parts (CPUs, LCDs, RAM, etc...) as most other computer manufacturers, I'm sure most computers don't meet this standard. Give Apple a break.
  - xaxxon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Much of the power savings available in hardware must be taken advantage of in software. The OS tells the components when they can go into power saving modes (and which power savings mode if there are multiple).
  - manitoba98xp, on 10/10/2007, -12/+8This is very interesting, considering most Apple computers (including desktops) use mobile processors, which shouldn't take much power at all.
    - solistus, on 10/10/2007, -12/+8What?
      
      The Core 2 Duo, which is in pretty much every Mac, is not a "mobile processor." It is a full line of Intel chips used in both laptops and desktops. The desktop chips can be dual proc + dual core (e.g., the Mac Pro quad core) and clock higher.
      - manitoba98xp, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Why is everyone digging this guy up? "Core 2 Duo" is a brand covering a line of desktop processors, _and_ a line of mobile processors. Conroe is the core type used in most desktop Core 2 Duos (there's also Conroe XE, Kentsfield, and Kentsfield XE). The Mac Pro is the only one using a desktop chip. The iMac is based on Merom.
        
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_2_Duo#Merom
        "Merom, the first mobile version of the Core 2..."
        
        Please, people, do some research before you digg me down.
- gropo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2NehalemBook. Gehsundheit!~
- streak, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Compliance of MacBook Pro models might be restored with the new power supply, Apple part no. MA938LL/A, which was posted on digg last week.
- Konstantino, on 10/10/2007, -13/+15"Only about 125 desktops and laptops currently meet the new stringent requirements."
  Why make this about Apple if almost all desktop computers didn't make the cut?
  - zybch, on 10/10/2007, -14/+11Because unlike most computer makers, Apple and its stupid fanboys just won't stop with the "OMG apple is the fukin' best at everything" crap!
  - an0nym0us, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Because Apple makes the only Mac in the world?
  - Mikecol, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The submitter wanted more diggs.
- cleverboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9FROM THE WEBSITE: "Update: Manufacturers have until January to have their products certified as Energy Star. Most federal agencies have requirements to purchase EPEAT computers, of which Energy Star is a requirement. By January, federal agencies have to purchase computers that are Energy Star certified under the new specifications. Apple should be able to meet these specifications in time. Energy star is developed in conjunction with the manufacturers." BURIED AS INACCURATE. Ignore that facts if you want people, just read the COMMENTS to the article (on that website), and you'll feel a little more informed than the author apparently.
- Dolomite, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Most of Apple's computers already meet the new Energy Star 4.0 guidelines. http://www.apple.com/environment/resources/specs.html The original poster is making false claims based on an outdated Energy Star spreadsheet without doing a little bit of fact checking first.
  - zweben, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The Mac Mini, 15" and 17" MacBook Pro and the MacBook all meet the 4.0 requirements.
    
    The Mac Pro and iMac do not. Burried as inaccurate.
fpcyber, on 10/10/2007, -49/+38One less logo Apple has to put on to their sleek boxes.
harryplotter, on 10/10/2007, -43/+11LOL this is some funny *****
aldenhg, on 10/10/2007, -17/+86Yes, because they are much more stringent standards than those that have been enacted in the past. The whole point of tougher standards is to force the manufacturers into making greener PCs. Dell, Lenovo and all the rest have very few computers that meet the new standards and over the coming months I'm sure that we'll see systems from nearly all manufacturers adopting the new standard.
- rm999, on 10/10/2007, -9/+83These standards have been known for months. Dell and HP both put effort into making some of their computers meet the new requirements (http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9012878)
  
  There are two reasons that I can think of that Apple didn't.
  1. They don't introduce enough new lines of computers to have reacted yet
  2. They realize it's just an artificial certification, and doesn't actually mean their computers are bad for the environment. How can something be good for the environment one year and back the next?
  
  At the same time, Dell and HP should be commended for quickly reacting to the new standards. Apple probably shouldn't be criticized.
  - drlha, on 10/10/2007, -15/+11Another reason could be Apple's clear loathing of stickers on their computers, whereas Dell/HP et al love to put as many stickers on their computers as possible, Energy Star being yet another meaningless one.
    - DarkDx, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5I hate those stickers
    - jman8888, on 10/10/2007, -9/+10i actually like them. Lets others know your pc is awesome.
    - turpenine, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11each sticker takes a second off rendering time.
    - turpenine, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1each sticker takes a second off rendering time.
    - lintmonkey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23. Apple doesn't care about sales of their computers to Federal agencies, because Federal agencies don't buy Apple computers.
  - jellomizer, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1But sometimes tough standards backfire. And end up worse then what happened before. Examples was during the first attempt to make cars with better fuel efficiency during the late 70s. What happened was that smaller cars were made that were very unsafe (Todays technology may be better now but that isn't the point) Also with the cheaper smaller cars people were more opt to buy new cars then put money fixing their old ones. Thus negating many of the environmental effects of these cars. The same could hold true with the energy star compliance. Say a power supply is 80% efficient is nice and good. But if these power supplies are like 300watt power supplies and they are used in systems that only need 200 watt power supplies even if they are 70% efficient . You are not helping the environment. I am not saying this is the case but these regulations sometimes backfire and cause more problems then they solve.
    - BigJStudd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Dude, you are writing out every excuse that GM and Ford made not to work towards California's higher fuel standards. When the safety stats for smaller cars are shown to them, then they whine about technology. I remember when they were bitching under oath about 50 MPG being technologically impossible - until the Honda Insight was unveiled one week later. Government-mandated improvement of fuel efficiency does work.
    - ffleming, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2A computer running a 700 watt supply doesn't use more energy than one using a 250 watt supply unless it needs to use it. With the same processor, fans, etc 250 and 700 watt PSes will use the same amount of power.
    - yabos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2A 300 watt power supply means it can handle 300W MAX. It doesn't mean it uses 300W all the time. The components connected to the power supply are what draw the energy.
  - zdiggler, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I don't mind stickers at all at least they could be removed. What I hate the most are the damn Huge Glowing Logos!
    Don't advertise for free.
  - cleverboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Here's a simple explanation. DON'T BELIEVE EVERY STORY THAT GETS DUGG! It's sad even reading people trying to "defend" Apple on a premise they didn't even stop to check out. Apple HAS Energy Star compliant machines. I'm sure Dell has more than 3 as well. This article was based off of a spreadsheet that was outdated. Moreover, its been updated, although the author quickly back pedals on the significance of Apple NOT being out of compliance, and still having time to move other machines (more than those already in compliance) INTO 4.0 compliance. READ PEOPLE. Do some research, damn.
- habbofresh, on 10/10/2007, -14/+14what I wonder is how many windows fanboys posting their nyaah nyaah' comments are running overpowered homebuilts that don't even come near energystar specs?
  
  I thought so.
  - Barlo_Mung, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Damn skippy. I heat my house with a system in each room.
  - harshbarj, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Most people who build their own systems take care as to what hardware they use. Those who don't I seriously don't think are here on digg making fun of apple.
    
    As they story said the spec has been out for a while. Sure most manufactures only have a few systems but that is more than apples 0. It's simply inexcusable for any manufacturer not to have at least one system ready with the new spec.
    - Tagaiz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2they do. this artical is innacurate. read dolomites comment.
- killtherebel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2At least they have some that meet the requirements.
- joshshu, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2THAT'S WHY THEIR STOCKS ARE DOWN !!!
  - artisresistance, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1/sarcasm
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Do these standards do anything to really help? I'm pretty damn sure the workstation I built isn't compliant.
- grumpyrain, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3What I want to know is whether Apple are not certified because there computers can't pass the conditions, or because someone hasn't filled in a ton of paperwork to prove they do meet the conditions.
- mabhatter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The idea is that Dell and HP are putting some work forward ahead of time to have efficient computers for the sake of being efficient, because it's good for their customers that buy thousands of machines.
  
  I do agree Apple probably has new models ready to meet the specs but not out yet. The current models are all 1.5 years or better old.
CobolNoFun, on 10/10/2007, -34/+17lol, now when i yell at prius drivers out my window "you know that thing really isn't that great for the environment" i can add "and your mac at home isn't either" lol hippies and there wasteful ways*.

*before the mac fan boys start to castrate me, its a joke calm down.
- JonnyTrombone, on 10/10/2007, -13/+9What's your reasoning behind a Prius not being good for the environment? Or do you believe that because it makes you feel better about spending $100 to fill up your hummer?
  - Urusai, on 10/10/2007, -9/+41I believe the problem is smug emissions.
  - ktkc7c, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11The environmental costs of manufacturing the Prius, especially their batteries.
  - tnoy, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5When did people start assuming everyone either drives a Prius or a Hummer; you do know there are many other kinds of cars out there, right?
  - mightyzug, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5SMUG!!! lol. ktkc has it right, the batteries are hell to dispose of, it's greener to drive a normal car that just gets good gas mileage w/o the electric BS. VW TDI ftw. better gas mileage w/o electric BS / batteries, better performance, biodiesel ready.
- CraigJ, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Fair enough, unfortunately you aren't funny, so don't quit your day job.
- DavX, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Woah woah. The Prius is a nice paice of quality Toyota machinery. Don't assume that everyone that wants/drives one is an apple-loving hippy!
- ghindo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It's a joke, but it's a pretty ***** one.
- Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3@Jonny
  
  People love to say that Prius is bad for the environment. I've never seen anything more than the most mediocre of evidence that something about a Prius is bad enough for the environment to make up for the 1,820 gallons of gasoline I'm going to save over the next 5 years over a corolla (using real-test figures of 30 and 46 mpg for my current occupational commute).
  
  2,000 gallons of gas vs one single battery, maybe two if I'm unlucky around 100,000 miles even though many Prius batteries are recorded for 200,000 miles.
  
  That's a lot of ***** gasoline. And that's $6,000+ to me, putting the total price close to that of the Corolla (minus interest), and with far more features.
  
  I really would love to see a definitive experiment etiher way.
  - jeffman12, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1do you know how batteries are manufactured/what batteries are made of?
    - Barlo_Mung, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm sure it's nasty stuff but it's well contained (either at the factory or after life disposal). Gas pollution on the other hand is sent straight to the atmosphere and the negative effects are much harder to control.
  - Billions, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, it's really about getting car companies to recognize that a car like the Prius is popular and desired, and lead them to build and sell a wider range of even more efficient models, with more affordability as larger manufactuing advantages kick in. Sometimes people get hung up on the tree for the forest; i.e., you'll often see someone post something like "The Prius isn't really all that, so why bother making these cars AT ALL." The reality is the planet's supply of fossil-based fuel is going to force companies to go for alternative routes anyway, so why not get them started.
ScrumFritter, on 10/10/2007, -8/+25Let's hope the new iMacs that are rumoured to be coming out soon meet the standards. After all that Greener Apple jazz, you'd think they're do their best to meet them.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3looks like green is no longer starring apple
- shockoj7, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1lets hope you stop being such a *****.... who gives a ***** if the macs are green enoough or not, they are great computer and they no one bases buying a computer off whether they have a ***** star or not, quit with this *****!
ausfahrt, on 10/10/2007, -18/+6Ouch
alexkehr, on 10/10/2007, -23/+11I still love you Apple.
- habbofresh, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Meh. I have an Apple and I don't care.
  
  I also litter, use as many plastics as unnecessarily possible, and pay for premium just for the hell of it.
  
  Vroom vroom vroom.
Miniman, on 10/10/2007, -23/+7Owned.
- Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1not really!
  Jobs still owns a huge chunk of Apple!
- Billions, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1"Pwned?" what, is this the CounterStrike forum now?
rudy23, on 10/10/2007, -12/+5coincidentally the account loses its CPU quota. I smell a conspiracy.
ButterBuddha, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1mirror?
DJNephilim, on 10/10/2007, -21/+65So what? New standards just enacted, and a company doesn't meet the new standards yet, how is this news? Ohhhh....it's APPLE, big deal, how many other computer manufacturers meet this new standard already?
- monospaced, on 10/10/2007, -8/+10I agree. Most of Apple's computers are technically the same as every other computer in almost every way. The fact that they build a line of super-machines with 8 freakin' cores, filling them with multiple high-speed hard drives, and the ability to display on multiple 30" LCD displays will probably be an issue though.
  - xedd, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9You two didn't read the article did you? You just knee-jerk fashion defend Apple... Typical.
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -3/+23FTA: dell, lenovo and gateway have computers that meet it already.
  - DJNephilim, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3So? Do ALL of their computers meet this standard? No.
    
    Let me tell you why. Because companies can't just 'whip up' a new set of hardware for each piece of equipment they manufacture overnight. This takes TIME. I would be willing to be that those computers that Dell, Lenovo, and Gateway have that meet these new requirements are either a) brand-spanking-new machines that were released VERY recently, or b) older models that met the requirement already by 'accident' rather than by design.
  - solistus, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Dell, Lenovo and Gateway have like 8000 models each. No *****, a handful will meet the new requirements. Apple has a very streamlined product line. If you picked one random model from, say, Dell for each model Apple has, odds are not a single one would meet the new requirements, either.
    - harshbarj, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3where streamlined = small (and small is never a good thing in a product lineup).
      
      As for you point. Who cares if company a makes 8000 models, if even a handful meat the standard that's a good thing for the consumer. Quit apologizing for apple and admit they drooped the ball on this one. They are a company like any other and are not perfect.
- inkswamp, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4That's how I'm reading this. There are a lot of jealous and/or angry Mac haters out there who are apparently waiting for anything they can pounce on to do their superiority dance. I guess if my OS of choice was riddled with security issues and viruses and DRM, I'd probably do the same.
  - crugg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Both have DRM, I can't put music from itunes onto my other mp3 player unless it's a ipod. unless the Mac OS has something that windows and Linux don't have. But that is beside the point of this article.
- PicklePower, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I agree. This article wasn't about the fact that Apple doesn't currently meet any of those guidelines, it was about the fact that there are new guidelines. Don't turn it into something that it isn't. From the title and description I would hope that there would be data about how off Apple is from meeting these requirements.
stevensj2, on 10/10/2007, -19/+83Is it really a surprise that computers made BEFORE the new energy standards were adopted don't meet the new standards?

That is to be expected, and affects computers in general, not just those wearing the Apple logo.

Almost any time new standards are issued AFTER a thing was manufactured you can expect that 'thing' to not meet the standards (be it a toaster, a car, or computers).

Burried as trolling.
- chandler, on 10/10/2007, -29/+7Burried for being a fanboy.
  
  http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS5551137361.html
  This computer obviously passes the said specifications. And was produced prior to the new standards.
  - stevensj2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Using logic does not make one a fanboy. As stated in my comment...it affects ALL computers, not just Apple (for good or ill)
    - Vermifax, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I use Logic Pro 7.2.3 on my Mac Pro...
      
      OK, I'm a fanbioy.
- EdwardsNH, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Just goes to show you companies only do what they have to do to say they're green.
  
  A couple months ago, I heard someone representing the coal industry bragging about all they had done to make themselves cleaner. Luckily someone was there to call him on it. The coal industry only changed after government regulation made them change, and they had lobbied against it with hundreds of millions of dollars.
michaelmcg, on 10/10/2007, -27/+6Come on Apple fan boys, where are you now?
- rauz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17In ur comments, digging u down.
flaminio, on 10/10/2007, -6/+25Months? How many months? 10.5 could fix this situation, for all we know. Of course, if this blogger was an actual journalist, they would have asked Apple. Instead, we get half-facts and innuendo.
- huckmank, on 10/10/2007, -12/+5Yeah, because an OS update can really make that type of impact on energy consumption. Maybe I should update the firmware of the light bulbs in my house and reduce their wattage from 60 to 40.
  - Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Why couldnt it?
    - manitoba98xp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"Use of energy efficient power supply. Desktops must use power supplies that are 80% efficient"
      Tell me how to fix that in firmware. If it were a setting, why wouldn't they set it to 100% efficient? :P
      
      "Operate efficiently in Standby/Off, Sleep, and Idle modes. Desktops must use less than 2 W in standby mode"
      Again, this often requires hardware support, which may or may not be sufficient.
      
      "Include and enable power management features of the system and provide user education about these feature"
      Is this really lacking? I've found it to be sufficient...
  - mikewitt, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2While I see what you're saying, and personally, I hate macs, he is right (kinda-sorta) If you look, Intel Recently introduced a program that monitors CPU wakeup calls, and tells you which applications are invoking them. By turning off these processes, they were able to extend battery life on a notebook by a FULL hour. This means that less energy was consumed. Nevertheless, I believe ENERGY STAR compliance is more hardware based than software; they don't look at what is running on the machine, only what amount of energy the computer uses under given stresses.
  - selrahc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The OS can make a huge difference on power consumption. I dual-boot Windows XP and Ubuntu on a laptop and when I use Ubuntu my battery life is cut in half.
- airphloo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Like Apple would reply.
- mikesbaker, on 10/10/2007, -2/+110.5 can make a power supply 80% efficient?
mstrebe, on 10/10/2007, -17/+17My motorcycle gets better mileage than your hybrid, and doesn't contain batteries made out of pure concentrated evil. Stop wrapping yourself in a metal coffin, you're making the Earth cry you bastard! Face it, you don't need all those seats to commute to your soul crushing cubicle farm, and it's not as though there are four people who would go anywhere in it with you anyway.
- huckmank, on 10/10/2007, -6/+14Yeah, and I bike 16 miles a day to and from school, so you're a ***** ***** for consuming gasoline. Of course I eat red meat, so I should be lined up against a wall and shot for using 20 times as much energy as a vegan would biking the same route.
  
  My point, is unless you live on a plot of land completely cut off from the grid and provide you're own food without consuming energy resources, step off your ***** soapbox.
- OrangeTide, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7I agree. I don't see how hybrids have become the badge of the environmentally conscience, they are full of lead and still burn fossil fuels. Electric cars are interesting until you want to get rid of one and have to figure out how to recycle 400+ lbs of batteries. I think Toyota and others should be willing to pay auto wreckers money for the toxic cells in their hybrids. because not all of what's in a battery can be recycled at a profit.
  
  Just what we need, junkyards on the edges of town leeching lead into the environment. which gets into the rodents, which gets into our rare birds of prey that we have been trying to pull away from endangered status for decades. (we have huge problems with lead and the california condors).
  
  A motorcycle uses less roadway, reducing congestion and requiring less asphalt. They are economical, 50mpg to 90mpg in the real world. They use far less materials, less steel, less rubber (think of all those discarded car tires), less lead (battery is about 1/8th to 1/4th the weight of a car's, the weight is almost entirely toxic acid and lead). They have 2-stroke scooters, that get fantastic mileage (up to 135mpg I've seen) now using some fancy computer controlled ignitions. Not the stinky dirty engine that we all remember using on old scooters, go-karts and lawn mowers.
  
  I will admit, if you live in a place that it rains or snows most months then a motorcycle might not be practical to ride year round. And they aren't for everyone, but I think the posters point is that holier-than-thou wannabe environmentalists can shove it.
  - jeepnut24, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1When I can shuttle may whole family around on a motorcycle, then Id switch. Though I guess I could carry two on the bike and one in a side car. Otherwise I agree with you.
- kaelyiesta, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3I bus and walk. How much more energy is wasted and how much more wasteful by products are produced by your lousy non electric bike huh? Huckmank has it right. Unless you have the guts to go all the way, you should shut up right now. Because drawing the line arbitrarily saying "its ok to pollute as much as I do but no more!" is ***** asinine. Grow the ***** up.
  - mightyzug, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1huckmank is an idiot and so are you, he is probably lieing his ass off about biking 16 miles every day. the point was that your holier than thou attitude is not needed, esp. when you base your opinions and subsequent arrogance on ignorance like support of electric cars. electric cars ***** suck. so they have great mpg, so what??? they still burn fossil fuels as you pointed out and thier batteries make them less green than most other cars on the road. biodiesel ftw dumbass. it's cheaper, greener, performs better.
- DeFex, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2motorbikes save gas and motorcycle riders save lives!
  (dont forget to sign your organ donor card)
Razster, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I hate Bluehost...
My companies website is on bluehost, so once we hit the main Non-Profits we're boned.
Need to change host.
- Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I hate this comment on their error page!
  
  "sing static .html documents instead of painful .php scripts will practically eliminate CPU usage."
  There is nothing painful about PHP, maybe they should stop being cheap asses and invest in new machines!
chandler, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5http://duggmirror.com/apple/Apple_Computers_Lose_ENERGY_STAR_Certification/

But the CSS doesn't display nicely.
- heavyd14, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2View > Page Style > No Style
Dralite, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12damn.. now i better throw my macbook thru the glass at the apple story while yelling "YOUR KILLING THE ENVIRONMENT!!!" and drive home in my car that hasn't met emissions in 5 years
vertov, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Didn't they just start using new logic boards in the MacBooks to comply with these standards?
- DeFex, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4why dont they start calling them "motherboards" or "mainboards" like the rest of the electronics and computer world they after all just PC motherboards with a single component on them thats added (so osx will run)
- domomike, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1My MacBooks got the new 2nd gen iLogic iBoard Nano!
xtr3m, on 10/10/2007, -13/+8You'd think a company named after a fruit would be the first one to pass...
- Atomic1fire, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5and why are they going greener
  don't green apples taste sour
over9, on 10/10/2007, -17/+7And here come the Apple apologists. The same ones that bash Microsoft apologists.
- cfulp, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5And here comes another idiot stating the obvious. Come on, for what reason would you type this. Are you trying to start something? You don't need to be an *****, it's true!
danc256, on 10/10/2007, -4/+25This looks like a quirk of the way "Energy Star" certification works. All this is saying is Apple (and others I'm sure) do not meet the LATEST requirements. It's like saying "this software supports the GPL (version 2)" and when v3 comes out saying "this software now violates the GPL" (no, because it was written against an earlier version of the license). It wouldn't be a big issue if "Energy Star" certification was stratified a little better, like how TCO has the '99 and '03 versions.
jabberwolf, on 10/10/2007, -19/+5When did Apple ever care about utility?!
So long as it looks good - that's all they care about ( inside and out).
comradeTJH, on 10/10/2007, -7/+18who cares...
jabberwolf, on 10/10/2007, -15/+5Since when did they care about utility (inside and out), so long as it looks good, is all they care about.
russh, on 10/10/2007, -9/+37Apple bashing FUD.... most current desktops and notebooks can no longer meet the new requirements; only 125 computers currently on sale in the US qualify, according to federal government charts. Buried: it should read "Most Computers Sold in US lose Energy Star Compliance."
- rheaume, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5yeah, only 125! Like total? or 125 types of computer? Oh then thats a lot
  - manitoba98xp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1There are a _lot_ of models currently on sale. A percentage would have been more descriptive. The article said that Dell only offers three models which comply with the new standards (needless to say, Dell offers a lot more than 3 models).
- airphloo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I think if you read the article, you'll find it isn't really Apple-bashing. It is merely pointing out a fact.
  - HisShadow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes, to the exclusion of the point that very few manufacturers meet the newer stringent requirements. The fact that every headline is soley screaming about Apple makes it Apple bashing. It's that simple.
DamnLag, on 10/10/2007, -13/+3It's like owning a Hummer.
- batmanganese, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4not quite chief
- mightyzug, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2it actually gives me a headache to try and imagine just what kind of dumbass you must be.
Sterango, on 10/10/2007, -18/+6OMG APPLE FANBOYS what now??!?!?
nusuni, on 10/10/2007, -12/+2So that gas inside SJ's head really does waste energy?
mirzar, on 10/10/2007, -13/+6who cares about the stupid environment?
nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Apple doesn't have a rapid refresh - remember they only have a few models of computers as opposed to Dell's (and other manufacturers) dozens.
aB0z, on 10/10/2007, -9/+23I hate digg. I load the main page hoping to see exciting new developments in the world of tech, but instead all I get is "OMG TEH IPHONE CRASHES IF YOU DO THIS ONE THING" and "OH ***** APPLE ONLY MADE *8* KAJILLION DOLLARS INSTEAD OF 10!!!!!1". Now this nothing news story about how some standards change, and imagine this - the current lineup doesn't meet the *new* standards. Sigh. Continue as you were...
- killtherebel, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Then stop posting. Dine with me. One less Apple Fan Boy to whine.
  - mmacpherson2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0What do you think you are doing and a lot of other people who post in insulting anti-apple comments? whining!
    - Atomic1fire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1and what are you doing
      whining about his whining
      and Im whining about your whining about his whining
      so I beat you to a comeback
    - jabberwolf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Most normal people critique things regardless of their logo.
      Apple fans call it whining, when someone gives criticism to anything with the apple logo on it.
      When you call it whining when stating facts, then I'd suggest looking in the mirror.
      
      PS - as per the iphone sales being slack. Comparing 8 million instead of 10 is no news. But when sales were 270,000 compared to rumored 700,000 and above, thats a substantial difference and is news worthy. To apple fans that are defensive, please change your diapers before joining the argument again.
charlesray, on 10/10/2007, -14/+7You guys are just incredible hypocrites. If Dell just spent the last couple of months bragging about how "green" they are, and then they suddenly lose the certification, you morons would be all over it and probably find some way to bash Microsoft in the process. But it's Apple, so suddenly it's just an artificial certification and doesn't matter.

It's just incredible.
- dmpapwor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Agreed.
- mmacpherson2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Wait wait wait.. You are calling people hypocrites because of something you think those people MIGHT do if "THIS ONE THING HAPPENED"? That is not fair.
  - dmpapwor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Might?
OrangeTide, on 10/10/2007, -12/+7The problem is that people assume Apple should be on the cutting edge of being a green industry. But they never have been, it's just an assumption people make. I'm not sure why having a shiny white computer also means you need to be a progressive. The two seem orthogonal to me.
andyduncan, on 10/10/2007, -6/+29Burried as inaccurate. Even though they may not yet be certified as such, Apple states that all of their Energy-Star compliant devices are, in fact, Energy Star 4.0 Compliant:

http://www.apple.com/environment/energyefficiency/
- andyduncan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Following up: their "Environmental Specification" sheets for each model can be found here:
  
  http://www.apple.com/environment/resources/specs.html
  
  They list the Mini, the Macbook, the Macbook Pro, the 8-core Mac Pro and all of their monitors as meeting Energy Star 4.0 (the July 20th spec noted in the linked article). The iMacs and the 4-core Mac Pros are listed as meeting Energy Star 3.0. The XServe and XServe Raid are listed as "n/a" for Energy Star certification (note: they don't check "no" they check "n/a", it's not clear why).
  
  It would appear that these are the machines that have been certified at the Energy-Star 4.0 level. Given the fact that Apple explicitly states that "Apple products designed to meet ENERGY STAR® conform with the requirements set out in the stricter Energy Star 4.0 version covering portables, desktops and workstations." it would seem that the models listed as Energy-Star 3.0 compliant simply haven't been certified at the newer level. With rumors of new iMacs, it seems pretty obvious why Apple hasn't bothered to re-certify the current model.
- morcheeba, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Re: XServe (note: they don't check "no" they check "n/a", it's not clear why)
  
  It's not applicable because the spec does not cover rack-mounted servers, only "desktop-derived servers" which use desktop computer components. See section F: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/product_specs/program_reqs/Computer_Spec_Final.pdf
ohhush, on 10/10/2007, -7/+21Stop by an apple store and look at the new macbook pro boxes, they were updated this week and now include the energy star logo on the bottom.

inaccurate
- Nicksname1, on 10/10/2007, -14/+4Buried for suggesting that we go to an Apple Store.
Springdaddy, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3I could care less about some gay-ass energy star.
chris4404, on 10/10/2007, -8/+11Al Gore is going to be pissed.
- lansuggs, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Considering how people Digg stories that make no sense, I'm guessing the next one will be like this. OMG Al Gore uses a MAC, and its bad for the ENVIRONMENT!!!! HYPOCRITE!!!
- Jambi, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5***** him. If he abandons his huge mansion and starts biking around the country, then he can talk. He's a bloated ass who's trying to make political hay out of the issue of global climate change. I'd rather listen to an actual scientist who has a better grasp on just what he was talking about.
forceflow2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I wonder how many people actually look to ensure that a computer is Energy Star compliant before buying it? I'd wager not many.
ForMyOpenSoft, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Did Anyone read the list?
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/prod_lists/computers_prod_list.xls
I find odd that someone could underclock an Athlon X2 to 2mhz and also Core 2 duo to 1.2mhz with two 2000MB modules or four 1000MB.

*Yes, I know*
ricksite, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Do they get any credit when a person uses video iChat to communicate with someone as opposed to driving or flying to see them?
brokengun, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Hmm, I would say that this news should be taken with a grain of salt. I recently read an article in Home Power Magazine about efficient computers and they recommend an intel imac for a desktop or a laptop which uses even less power. These guys normally really know what's going on as far as power consumption and I can't imagine they would have any other motive to promote apple PC's because it's just Home Power magazine and anyone can write in and submit articles. If you ask me, I'm fairly certain that the imac is still one of the most energy efficient desktops on the market. Do the math.
ForMyOpenSoft, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Did anyone read the list?
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/prod_lists/computers_prod_list.xls
I find odd that someone could underclock an Athlon X2 to 2Mhz and also a Core2 duo to 1.8Mhz with two 2000MB or four 1000MB memory modules.
*Yes, I know*
apologeticus, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5"Flopphyhead.com loses Digg Effect Certification"
mightyzug, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5super lame, it's been said here many times already, most computers don't meet the standards yet. this is just a pathetic attempt to jab apple. of course, computers don't use alot of energy to begin with by comparison with other common household devices so who cares about a near insignificant individual savings?? the only people this would be a legitimate energy concern for is the fringe minority of people who drive veggie oil cars and live completely off the grid :P hopefully we will all be there as technology gets better... but for now this is just trolling, buried.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1like a toaster
prinzrob, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Based on the information in the link below it looks like all their laptops are already compliant:
http://www.apple.com/environment/resources/specs.html
Besides the Mac Pros it looks like the rest of the lineup is pretty close, so they will most likely become compliant upon the next model refresh or the release of Leopard, whichever comes first.
- chrismag1979, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Of course laptop should be energy sufficient to increase battery life.
boonesfarm, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1The snowman wants to ask Apple why they want to kill his family.
- jabberwolf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Snowman you have too many buttons, you must DIE !!!
plastiqmanb, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2stupid author says LENOVA... ITS LENOVO IDIOT. BURIED
akhomerun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2why do environmentalists keep singling out apple? it just doesn't make any sense.
- TheRealDeal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They have always had a beef with the company. They take exception to Apple coopting the name of a beautiful fruit and attaching it to the manufacture of cold heartless machines. They have held this grudge since '76!
Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Apple Computers Lose ENERGY STAR Certification

Login or register to add a comment