[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 28/06/2021 18:56, David Bell wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 18:40:53 +0100 comrade meowski <mr.meowski@xxxxxxxx> wrote:This has been the same since the dawn of computing: if you need to run certain software you _have_ to buy hardware that supports running it.True, but think of the resultant worldwide landfill and/or cost of recycling. But then MS have never claimed to be "Green".
Sure but that's a society level issue that's way, way beyond the capabilities of you or I to do anything about. My answer was purely from the pragmatic point of view of what practical issues a typical individual user will have to decide for themself as a result of the new requirements. Wider ranging philosophical questions about what Microsoft _should_ do rather than what they _have_ done didn't come into it I'm afraid.
From Microsoft's perspective - and I'm sure that at their scale, the corollary environmental impact of their new requirements would have actually been one of the many factors weighed - they obviously decided it was worth it. Cynically we might even guess that the fact it would obviously drive a new wave of hardware purchases might well have been considered a major positive, especially when you take into account any influence their channel partners such as Intel might have had!
If you want a really good example of just how to aggressively drive new hardware purchases by ruthlessly obsoleting older machines see Apple. Microsoft are being lenient compared to them...
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG https://mailman.dcglug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq