[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Hi folks, I was looking through the Microsoft Partner magazine just now. I found a small piece on 'Going Green'. What caught my eye was the following snippet: "There are two easy ways to make a difference. Energy efficiency means fewer greenhouse gases - and lower electricity bills. This is where Windows Vista comes in. Its energy management promises greater efficiency, especially on newer PCs and laptops" What I can see this translates to... Buy a new PC, dump your old one as it won't be powerful enough to run Windows Vista with all it's new pointless fancy effects. We make money from charging for something you don't need and the IT companies make money by selling another pointless upgrade. It doesn't mention that the power saving won't mean anything if you need dual super duper graphics cards and dual core processors which use as much energy as a small town just to be able to move Windows about on the screen. It goes on to say: "The second way to get greener is by recycling. Short PC life cycles means that millions of working PCs are trashed each year. However many charities can refurbish old PCs and distribute then to people who'll benefit from a cheap computer, even if it's behind the cutting edge." What they don't mention is that a lot of these PCs may end up running Linux, and that in the end, they are only being replaced due to pointless forced operating system upgrades from Microsoft. How I see it, if Microsoft was so fussed about saving energy, why did they go down the usual route with the XBOX 360, triple core CPU's, and a hefty graphics chipset rather than doing what Nintendo did - shrinking the component sizes in the Wii and making it ultra economical? Good old Microsoft, always able to spin things their way. Rob -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html