"After Vista, a deluge of E-waste to developing countries, Greenpeace warns"

[some_random_noob]

http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/en/press/releases/after-vista-a-deluge-of-e-was

... omg Greenpeace is in the game now! Not good :( ... your thoughts?

[SonicSteve]

They're probably right to some degree. Vista does require a great deal more horsepower than XP ever did.
XP can run adequetely on P2-400mhz, 256mb ram, 10gb Hdd
Vista needs P4-1.800ghz, 512mb ram and 20gb. However these are base requirments. I would need to double the ram to 1gb to really have a nice Vista experience. Since I don't want to I'm sticking with XP and Ubuntu. There are other factors in the decision also.

[Dr. C]

While the article does make a very valid point that the "upgrade" to Windows Vista will lead to a significant increase in eWaste, with very detrimental impacts on the developing world, I do have some criticisms

1) It fails to identify DRM as a major source of eWaste. Replacing non HDCP components with HDCP components, replacing cell phones when changing carriers, music players when changing music stores etc. Windows Vista is only a part of the problem.

2) It does not offer a positive alternative, such as installing Ubuntu or another GNU / Linux distro on the older hardware. Bashing Microsoft after they have released Vista is not going to solve this environmental problem.

[Trebuchet]

Not to seem insensitive or politically incorrect, but what exactly is wrong with giving functional yet obsolete computers to places where they can't afford new ones? I would think this would be a better place for them than in landfills.

[coffeecat]

Not to seem insensitive or politically incorrect, but what exactly is wrong with giving functional yet obsolete computers to places where they can't afford new ones? I would think this would be a better place for them than in landfills.

Because very few are re-used. Shipping out obsolete electronics to poorer countries is a cheap way of disposing of potentially environmentally damaging waste - and that's what most of it ends up as - waste. Once it gets there this junk is dismantled/broken up/melted down/whatever often without the environmental and personal health and safety controls that are mandatory in rich countries. Both people and the environment suffer.

From the link:

The idea that software innovation would result in more mountains of computer scrap ending up in the dumps of Asia and Africa, contaminating the environment, and affecting the health of communities, is both offensive and intolerable,” said Baconguis.

[Trebuchet]

People I have personally talked to who have lived overseas have told me that in many poor countries in Africa and Asia every school and government office is running used Pentium II's and III systems with Windows 95 or 98. IOW, the obsolete systems we dumped 5 to 10 years ago. I'm not saying that's what's happening with all of them, but obviously plenty of them are being put to good use.

The others are probably still in geeks' closets gathering dust. ;)

[some_random_noob]

coffeecat is right - most of it is dumped, not used. In fact a lot of the stuff probably dates back 10 or more years, I doubt that many of those old computers would be useful (most are probably broken)

It's nothing more than the way that rich nations get rid of waste. Greenpeace is right, but yes I agree they should have mentioned Linux.

[Trebuchet]

I don't consider Greenpeace to be a purveyor of anything except anti-capitalist propaganda. YMMV.

[erlyrisa]

Commie claptrap - as usual the Linux community purvey themselves tobe the mindless left leaners. You would think that those that can program and use logic can apply logic to world issues aswell....

New computers = jobs
New easier to program software (ie .net) = jobs , especially Africa
Old PC's in developing nations = Learning + Jobs
Landfill in developing nations ; already a problem (though somewhat only to greenpeace)
China, pay's you for metal of any sorts (PC in developing nation canbe worth more as junk), eg Iraq , citizens are still stripping buildings cars etc and selling the metal to China.

I could go on and on.... It is very typical of the left to take 1 piont and blow it out of proportion without dealing with the most obvious logic. -be a programmer not a hippie linux freebie bong head.

[some_random_noob]

Commie claptrap - as usual the Linux community purvey themselves tobe the mindless left leaners. You would think that those that can program and use logic can apply logic to world issues aswell....

New computers = jobs
New easier to program software (ie .net) = jobs , especially Africa
Old PC's in developing nations = Learning + Jobs
Landfill in developing nations ; already a problem (though somewhat only to greenpeace)
China, pay's you for metal of any sorts (PC in developing nation canbe worth more as junk), eg Iraq , citizens are still stripping buildings cars etc and selling the metal to China.

I could go on and on.... It is very typical of the left to take 1 piont and blow it out of proportion without dealing with the most obvious logic. -be a programmer not a hippie linux freebie bong head.
Wow... sounds like someone works for Microsoft.

There are enough computers in the world, and if we're using the right software then we don't need to upgrade or buy more computers. I think it's perfectly fine if Greenpeace says that Vista is bad for the environment. What if everyone was like you? Using a flash new os with a 3d interface is not worth environmental contamination.

A 10 year old computer can still browse the internet, why buy a new one? 3rd world countries DON'T NEED any more computers - they're only using them because it's a cheap resource. The computers that get sent to 3rd world countries are not used 100% - it isn't recycling at all. Vista is a disgrace; we can't afford to destroy the environment for no reason. So far there have been no good reasons why the average person should upgrade to Vista.

I find it sad that you back a ripoff anti-competitive corporation and at the same time don't care about the environment. 3rd world countries will not die out if they don't have old computers, and most computers are very usable with Linux. If all computer users “upgraded” to Vista it would be a disaster.

We do not need to get Vista and most people can get their day-to-day computer use done without a brand new computer.

[Trebuchet]

We do not need to get Vista and most people can get their day-to-day computer use done without a brand new computer.Who are you to decide what other people need? Why are you using a Linux system when you could do something with a Commodore 64 or an Altair? What's wrong with you that you see a need for more than 64K RAM? How dare civilization and technology progress now that some_random_noob has got what he needs?!

You don't need a better computer, fine. I'll expect you to still be using your current one on 2017 with Ubuntu Zesty Zebra. But don't try to tell me what I or anyone else needs.

[some_random_noob]

Who are you to decide what other people need? Why are you using a Linux system when you could do something with a Commodore 64 or an Altair? What's wrong with you that you see a need for more than 64K RAM? How dare civilization and technology progress now that some_random_noob has got what he needs?!

You don't need a better computer, fine. I'll expect you to still be using your current one on 2017 with Ubuntu Zesty Zebra. But don't try to tell me what I or anyone else needs.
Look at it this way: If it's not ok for me to tell people what they need, then how about we employ Microsoft to that position?

Most people just use their computer for word processing, spreadsheets, internet and email - do we need Vista for that? Hell no. This has nothing to do with me "dictating" what other people do - it's about how Microsoft rams it down everyone's throat. We all know for a fact that most people just use their computer for word processing, spreadsheets, internet and email (along with the 99% of office computers and the computers of small businesses that don't need good specs). Given that, here's the two positions on it...

Mine: No one needs the aero interface to do the basics. Vista is a waste of money and day-to-day tasks can be done via Linux without a $2000nzd computer.

Microsoft's: We can bat around the public and do whatever we want with them. XP is far too insecure, everyone must upgrade their computers regardless of their computing requirements!!!!!

No one needs Microsoft's garbage. Perhaps you should argue to come to a conclusion instead of arguing to be a pain in the ***? (hint the lame Commodore and Altair references) Seriously, every day at some website I'm confronted by someone who aimlessly backs Vista giving absolutely no reason why I'm wrong. These are people exactly like you, who dodge arguments and always drag my argument off topic. I've said Vista is bad for the environment and quoted Greenpeace and you've came back saying I have no right to "tell other people what to use" and say garbage like "How dare civilization and technology progress now that some_random_noob has got what he needs?!" - which has nothing to do with my argument.

I find myself wasting my life on aimless arguments like this. There is no point in me arguing with someone who says that giving aero to dorky american kids is worth environmental contamination. But considering you're a sales rep it's no wonder you support Vista at the cost of the environment. You have destroyed all intelligence in this thread and I have to go shortly anyway, so consider this argument over. I refuse to argue with someone who dodges criticism and veers away from my arguments even when I use obvious evidence.

[erlyrisa]

Wow... sounds like someone works for Microsoft.

There are enough computers in the world, and if we're using the right software then we don't need to upgrade or buy more computers. I think it's perfectly fine if Greenpeace says that Vista is bad for the environment. What if everyone was like you? Using a flash new os with a 3d interface is not worth environmental contamination.

A 10 year old computer can still browse the internet, why buy a new one? 3rd world countries DON'T NEED any more computers - they're only using them because it's a cheap resource. The computers that get sent to 3rd world countries are not used 100% - it isn't recycling at all. Vista is a disgrace; we can't afford to destroy the environment for no reason. So far there have been no good reasons why the average person should upgrade to Vista.

I find it sad that you back a ripoff anti-competitive corporation and at the same time don't care about the environment. 3rd world countries will not die out if they don't have old computers, and most computers are very usable with Linux. If all computer users “upgraded” to Vista it would be a disaster.

We do not need to get Vista and most people can get their day-to-day computer use done without a brand new computer.

And my piont has been made! -reason without logic...the typical hippie claptrap.

you probably think recycliing is good for the environment hu.

better pc's = faster more productive future.... which gives more time for hippies to think about things they have no-idea of. -imagine if Msoft didn't exist, would we still be looking at green screens, or would we still be using monkeys at type writers.

Or maybe we should just keep at it with CRT monitors,,, hmm wonder how many more watts Nigeria would have to produce if everyone had to use to Hercules B/Whites.

Maybe developing countries shouldn't use computers at all - I mean what do they need them for - they should just stay the way they are and hang on to their Culture!

-oh a piont about Msoft and they way they push hardware to be useless - it's done so that the next gen Computer can be pushed again, then again and again - why - so that someday some little kid in Cambodia does his schoolwork via Voice Rec, can submit his homework to the Berckley via a Sat link and it would all be VIABLE!!!! - say that again VIABLE!!!


- if we did things the hippie way we'd all still be eating berries in a damp cave without any heating

PS this Post was written on Kubuntu on a P111 - why cause Msoft has been too Compatible with it's OS making it work on old hardware, therfore keeping the Value of old junk high, I wonder how much more electricity I am using, by keeping this old computer running?

- if you really want to bash an OS for creating PC junk blame Apple....Thier G3 is already dead, whereas the Msoft Equiv P2 is still somewhat useable. - though I am sure if you did the calculations, the amount of E saved just buy bying a G5 with LCD could recycle every G3 and G4 twice in under a month. -So really who here is the greenie - the guy that put's Jamican graffitie on thier archaic computer, or the one that just promoted the future and saved 14kw a year just by getting a new mac?

PS - did you know Msoft has a 3rd world program where they give-away thier OS on old computers - I'm sure they aren't running Aero, but they are most probably running .net3 so that the students of these countries are on the same playing field as u and I.


Did you know: Bob Geldof - has single handedly caused more famine and Poverty stricken establishments around the world than any other entity.


PPS: I love linux - but not as a Desktop OS and neither would Manju in india when he discovers he can't get a job cause he wasted his time learning Bash instead of Monad.

[daller]

I think the Vista release will push a lot of people and companies into the Linux world, eventually!

As of the waste, that's the individuals problem, not Microsoft's!

[megamania]

And my piont has been made! -reason without logic...the typical hippie claptrap.

you probably think recycliing is good for the environment hu.

Only an idiot believes that recycling is good. Waste is good, because it creates jobs for cleaning up the air and the environment. The more we pollute, the more jobs for de-polluting are needed.
And think about global warming: if that's a tru menace, we'd better invest in air-conditioning companies (and maybe buy a house on the K2).


-imagine if Msoft didn't exist, would we still be looking at green screens, or would we still be using monkeys at type writers.

Or maybe we should just keep at it with CRT monitors,,, hmm wonder how many more watts Nigeria would have to produce if everyone had to use to Hercules B/Whites.

That's why I have a Microsoft logo on my wall. I thank them for creating color monitors and LCD screens. Wow, what an amazing company - they even cared to make the "color monitor" technology open to everybody. Personally, I would have registered it as "What color do you want to see today?" technology - that would have made me rich.


-oh a piont about Msoft and they way they push hardware to be useless - it's done so that the next gen Computer can be pushed again, then again and again - why - so that someday some little kid in Cambodia does his schoolwork via Voice Rec, can submit his homework to the Berckley via a Sat link and it would all be VIABLE!!!! - say that again VIABLE!!!

That's interesting. I'd like you to share your experiences in Cambodia, since I use my holidays to go there and help the kids you're talking about.
In your experience, what do they need to have a better chance? I'll give you a hint: some of them need food, otherwise they have no energy to use "Voice Rec".


- if we did things the hippie way we'd all still be eating berries in a damp cave without any heating

But "we" who? Are you backed by a team? And are you sure things are either "the hippie way" or "not-the-hippie-way"?


Did you know: Bob Geldof - has single handedly caused more famine and Poverty stricken establishments around the world than any other entity.

I ask you two things now: source of that info, and your age, if you don't mind.

[Trebuchet]

Look at it this way: If it's not ok for me to tell people what they need, then how about we employ Microsoft to that position?

Most people just use their computer for word processing, spreadsheets, internet and email - do we need Vista for that? Hell no. This has nothing to do with me "dictating" what other people do - it's about how Microsoft rams it down everyone's throat. We all know for a fact that most people just use their computer for word processing, spreadsheets, internet and email (along with the 99% of office computers and the computers of small businesses that don't need good specs). Given that, here's the two positions on it...

Mine: No one needs the aero interface to do the basics. Vista is a waste of money and day-to-day tasks can be done via Linux without a $2000nzd computer.

Microsoft's: We can bat around the public and do whatever we want with them. XP is far too insecure, everyone must upgrade their computers regardless of their computing requirements!!!!!

No one needs Microsoft's garbage. Perhaps you should argue to come to a conclusion instead of arguing to be a pain in the ***? (hint the lame Commodore and Altair references) Seriously, every day at some website I'm confronted by someone who aimlessly backs Vista giving absolutely no reason why I'm wrong. These are people exactly like you, who dodge arguments and always drag my argument off topic. I've said Vista is bad for the environment and quoted Greenpeace and you've came back saying I have no right to "tell other people what to use" and say garbage like "How dare civilization and technology progress now that some_random_noob has got what he needs?!" - which has nothing to do with my argument.

I find myself wasting my life on aimless arguments like this. There is no point in me arguing with someone who says that giving aero to dorky american kids is worth environmental contamination. But considering you're a sales rep it's no wonder you support Vista at the cost of the environment. You have destroyed all intelligence in this thread and I have to go shortly anyway, so consider this argument over. I refuse to argue with someone who dodges criticism and veers away from my arguments even when I use obvious evidence.Nice evasive action there. :rolleyes:

OK, I yield to your clearly superior argument and vastly higher intelligence. Vista obviously heralds the end of life as we know it! It's a bigger threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists! It's the end times! We're all dooooooommmmmed! Run away!

[megamania]

Nice evasive action there. :rolleyes:

OK, I yield to your clearly superior argument and vastly higher intelligence. Vista obviously heralds the end of life as we know it! It's a bigger threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists! It's the end times! We're all dooooooommmmmed! Run away!
That's being evasive.

Fact: Vista will cause millions of computers to be dumped.
Fact: Most people will still do the same things (write a letter, send an email, work on an excel sheet) they used to do with their old computer, with no important improvements in productivity.
Opinion: is this good or bad?

Mixing the things together will not take this thread anywhere.

Regarding the "vastly higher intelligence" sarcastic claim, sometimes it's just that different people have different knowledge. He may (or may not) simply have a wider culture on a specific subject.

As for the nuclear weapons in the hands of the "Islamic fundamentalists" (whatever that means), I fear more that the people who already used it twice may use it again. On that subject, I think the U.S.A. should plead to the 5th.

[SnTholiday]

Technology will always have people upgrading. One example of that is HDTV and Home
Theater. How many people are going to get rid of their non-HD TV for a new one? Or how many people want the latest and greatest in Home Theater, be it a receiver, amplifier, or speakers? What about that new refrigerator with the 19" LCD screen, or that new washer and dryer that is even gentler on your clothes?

Everyone likes to pick on MS. I believe you get what you pay for.

[Trebuchet]

Fact: Vista will cause millions of computers to be dumped.
Fact: Most people will still do the same things (write a letter, send an email, work on an excel sheet) they used to do with their old computer, with no important improvements in productivity.

Opinion: is this good or bad?Neither. It's none of our business either. There are lots of things people buy that they don't strictly need. The individual in question is perturbed that Vista will somehow wreck the environment in a manner no previous OS or technology has. (Never mind that it has better sleep and hibernation modes and that newer CPUs use less power than many Pentium predecessors.)

But before he gets up on his moral high horse with regard to the environment, I'd like to know:

Is he running a 15-year-old CPU which draws less power than a modern dual-core?

Is he watching TV on a 13" B&W TV which draws less power than that 32" color?

Does his computer have a minimal load "green" power supply which draws less power?

Does he power his system up only for productivity applications?

Does he bicycle or walk to work instead of driving?

Is he using a LCD which draws less power than a comparably-sized CRT?

Does he keep his furnace thermostat at 65° F all winter? Is it a high efficiency furnace?

Does he refuse to run air conditioning until the temperate passes 100°?

Does he have fluorescent or LED lights in all of his light fixtures?

If he's not doing every one of these things and more, then he should stop pontificating about how other people are ruining the environment with their new operating system. If every computer user on Earth want to run a Cray just to run their e-mail client and can afford the electric bill, more power to 'em. It's none of his damn business; or mine either.

[erlyrisa]

I am enjoying this forum....!

It is interesting to note .. LOGIC before belief amongst fellow human beings.


---BOB Geldof:

-Live AID, and it's run off effect.....

-Free food and aid to the African Masses = a generation of Dole Bludging bread line beggars.

-I like the US system of live Aid better : ie wait for the country to topple or start a War for World stabilty reasoning. Take over, introduce your Kulture! and whalla , Vietnam and South Korea can forever thank the US for ever visiting them - put that up your Hanoi Jane.

PS. Cambodia would be at least 1.5 world if it weren't European administered. -as was Vietnam. unitl the US gave them a culture shock.

-US's plans for Less starving children....

Africa - They ****** up 20years ago and just said , F it, we'll do it later... now they have no-choice b/c China is trying to muscle it's way in.

Indonesia - we don't have unlimeted recourses - let's see if Australia can take on some responsibility.

Middle East - well we all know wat's going on their - you just can't help fundamentalist populations , eg Yugosalavia (Didn't the US clean up Nato's mess there?)

China ... Set up Wallmart i the nation - that'll give them something todo.

Pakistan/India -well Pakistan was given an ultimatum wasnt it - clean up ur act now or face obliteration from india.

-South Amereica - did you know Brazil now manufactures helicopters! - I'm sure your favourite holiday destination (Cuba) just ain't doing so well (We are all waiting for Castro to die)

and Communism... Eastern Block - Thankyou Ronald and Pope John Paul. Europe is forever in your debt.

[some_random_noob]

Neither. It's none of our business either. There are lots of things people buy that they don't strictly need. The individual in question is perturbed that Vista will somehow wreck the environment in a manner no previous OS or technology has. (Never mind that it has better sleep and hibernation modes and that newer CPUs use less power than many Pentium predecessors.)

But before he gets up on his moral high horse with regard to the environment, I'd like to know:

Is he running a 15-year-old CPU which draws less power than a modern dual-core?

Is he watching TV on a 13" B&W TV which draws less power than that 32" color?

Does his computer have a minimal load "green" power supply which draws less power?

Does he power his system up only for productivity applications?

Does he bicycle or walk to work instead of driving?

Is he using a LCD which draws less power than a comparably-sized CRT?

Does he keep his furnace thermostat at 65° F all winter? Is it a high efficiency furnace?

Does he refuse to run air conditioning until the temperate passes 100°?

Does he have fluorescent or LED lights in all of his light fixtures?

If he's not doing every one of these things and more, then he should stop pontificating about how other people are ruining the environment with their new operating system. If every computer user on Earth want to run a Cray just to run their e-mail client and can afford the electric bill, more power to 'em. It's none of his damn business; or mine either.
WOW YEAH, EXCELLENT IDEA!!!1 - do you know that it won't make a difference if one person does that? Think of how many stupid people there are which will never do any of those things. Besides, who has more responsibility for wastage - me or Microsoft? The big companies are meant to be doing all the environmental stuff, not me. Who the hell are you kidding when you make a statement like that? I'm not the one who has to be saving the environment, since I am just one person. And you say I shouldn't criticise Microsoft? Think of how big they are. They throw out far more than me. How come you suddenly say I'm responsible for wastage and that I can't criticise Microsoft when Microsoft is the one destroying the environment?

And here you are saying we should adopt a crappy os at the expense of the environment? That combined with your retarded sarcastic comments makes you look like an idiot, you shouldn't be debating if you have nothing to support your argument besides your own opinion. You haven't had any of your posts backed by logic or facts, yet you claim I'm still completely wrong?

Fact: Vista is nothing new and is not worth upgrading to for most people and it will damage the environment for no reason.
Fact: If the world was full of morons like you, we'd all be dead - the environment doesn't magically grow back over night. We cannot afford to waste it on a trashy os which has no new features.
Opinion: If I don't comply with a list of unrealistic objectives from some stranger in an internet forum, then it means I have no right to criticise a huge company that actually does the damage.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes erlyrisa, I will consider bashing Apple :D ... or maybe not? They produce nothing compared to Microsoft+Microsoft's partners (dell etc) right?

[samjh]

The concept that Vista will result in a "deluge of e-waste" doesn't make sense to me.

Obsolete hardware will inevitably be disposed of. It may happen tomorrow or 5 years time, but it will happen. If the waste disposed tomorrow ends up in a dump in a developing country, the chances are that the waste disposed 5 years later will also end up in a dump in a developing country. The end result is still the same whether it happens now or later.

There might be a small increase in disposed hardware, but it doesn't seem sensible to suggest that it will be a "deluge". Or that this same hardware will not be disposed of in the future.

The only way to stop e-waste from developing would be stop the development of new hardware and software products and technologies, and keep everything the same as they are now for all time. Even then, hardware will need to be disposed when they become unusable by damage or wear-and-tear.

[argie]

Someone mentioned shipping these computers to developing countries. I'm sure a lot of schools would be willing to buy these computers that you call 'obsolete'. In school, three years ago, I used computers with either 32MB or 64MB RAM, and they did the job (write console-based c program, compile console-based c program, run console-based c program). The curriculum hasn't changed much since then, so the tasks aren't all that different. But my school was one of the better-off ones, very few government schools have computers (matter of fact, they have nearly no books, and the libraries are permanently locked!). The problem however is power consumption. Maybe the Godson III will change that.

But I'm sure there are places in your own country which would gladly take old equipment. Any student would be happy to have a computer to work on, even if it seems a generation out of phase with the rest. And 'saving the environment' sounds noble, but all shipping and air freight emission included, how much are you helping?

Vista isn't the problem here, it's our rampant consumerism. The tasks most people do can be accomplished on computers that aren't all that fancy. My other PIII Celeron 733Mhz with 128MB RAM and a 4MB video card can do enlightenment's fading, transparency and zooming and I write all my documents, use the internet and occassionally play mduel in dosbox. In three months it will be 6 years old.

[Quillz]

I guess Vista is Satan reincarnated into a computer, eh? Seems like ever since it was released, there's been nothing but bad news.

[Trebuchet]

WOW YEAH, EXCELLENT IDEA!!!1 - do you know that it won't make a difference if one person does that? Think of how many stupid people there are which will never do any of those things. Besides, who has more responsibility for wastage - me or Microsoft? The big companies are meant to be doing all the environmental stuff, not me. Who the hell are you kidding when you make a statement like that? I'm not the one who has to be saving the environment, since I am just one person. And you say I shouldn't criticise Microsoft? Think of how big they are. They throw out far more than me. How come you suddenly say I'm responsible for wastage and that I can't criticise Microsoft when Microsoft is the one destroying the environment?

And here you are saying we should adopt a crappy os at the expense of the environment? That combined with your retarded sarcastic comments makes you look like an idiot, you shouldn't be debating if you have nothing to support your argument besides your own opinion. You haven't had any of your posts backed by logic or facts, yet you claim I'm still completely wrong?

Fact: Vista is nothing new and is not worth upgrading to for most people and it will damage the environment for no reason.
Fact: If the world was full of morons like you, we'd all be dead - the environment doesn't magically grow back over night. We cannot afford to waste it on a trashy os which has no new features.
Opinion: If I don't comply with a list of unrealistic objectives from some stranger in an internet forum, then it means I have no right to criticise a huge company that actually does the damage.So in other words, your idea of protecting the environment is bashing Microsoft? You don't actually have to do anything yourself, just shout loudly about how eeeeevvvvvviiliilllll Microsoft is.

Hypocrite.

[Trebuchet]

I guess Vista is Satan reincarnated into a computer, eh? Seems like ever since it was released, there's been nothing but bad news.Bill Gates is the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse to some people, so that makes complete sense.

[Naralas]

I don't consider Greenpeace to be a purveyor of anything except anti-capitalist propaganda. YMMV.

Sooo you don't think they are looking out for the environment? That's just a great big cover up for hating people with money? Why? They jealous of you too?

Next time you have a thought... let it go.

We don't even NEED anti-capitalist propaganda. Anti-capitalism is essentially the most obvious moral course anyone could ever take, the problem is 6 billion willfully ignorant drones... so never fret. If they don't listen to there OWN common sense, they wont listen to anyone ELSE until THEY are the ones with a majority backing.

[some_random_noob]

Why are you using a Linux system when you could do something with a Commodore 64 or an Altair? What's wrong with you that you see a need for more than 64K RAM? How dare civilization and technology progress now that some_random_noob has got what he needs?!

OK, I yield to your clearly superior argument and vastly higher intelligence. Vista obviously heralds the end of life as we know it! It's a bigger threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists! It's the end times! We're all dooooooommmmmed! Run away!

But before he gets up on his moral high horse with regard to the environment, I'd like to know:

Is he running a 15-year-old CPU which draws less power than a modern dual-core?

Is he watching TV on a 13" B&W TV which draws less power than that 32" color?

Does his computer have a minimal load "green" power supply which draws less power?

Does he power his system up only for productivity applications?

Does he bicycle or walk to work instead of driving?

Is he using a LCD which draws less power than a comparably-sized CRT?

Does he keep his furnace thermostat at 65° F all winter? Is it a high efficiency furnace?

Does he refuse to run air conditioning until the temperate passes 100°?

Does he have fluorescent or LED lights in all of his light fixtures?

If he's not doing every one of these things and more, then he should stop pontificating about how other people are ruining the environment with their new operating system.

Ohhhh yeah, really brainy there, listen to the sarcastic sales rep, he really knows his stuff!!!11!!!1

So in other words, your idea of protecting the environment is bashing Microsoft? You don't actually have to do anything yourself, just shout loudly about how eeeeevvvvvviiliilllll Microsoft is.

Oh no!!! Stop!! Spreading awareness does nothing!!! Stop posting your opinion on the internet in your spare time some_random_noob!!!! [/sarcasm] Yes I do help the environment, what the hell do you think? I use Linux and tell other people about it, that way we can use our current computers meaning computer manufacturers will be making less new stuff.

Hypocrite.
I don't see how you could possibly call me a hypocrite after posting so much garbage. Do you think I'd listen to an evasive, anti-environmental, vista supporting sales rep? I think that they should start banning sales reps from forums like this, they're always stupid. My step-dad spoke to a sales rep a few months ago about a computer that came with XP. My step-dad asked if we could get Linux with the computer, and the sales rep mentioned how we could install Linux once we'd bought it, but also said we'd still have to pay for the copy of XP even if we never used it.

Why have you signed up to a Linux forum anyway if you think Vista is so wonderful and worth getting? What do you get out of posting endless crap and sarcastic comments? Everyone I've met who has backed Vista so far has been retarded, its like some kind of joke - have you read your previous posts? Notice how much sarcasm there is and how you accuse me of e-waste and let Microsoft escape your criticism? I'm tired of arguing with complete strangers who don't even mention their country in their profile.

I argued against this other evasive guy who had nothing specified in his profile at another website, you should be friends with him. Here's the link: http://www.zillion.co.nz/community/forums/viewthread/23361/

Look near the bottom where scotiaimport asks what qualifications wobbly (the Vista-backing guy) has. Wobbly posts but doesn't state his qualifications and then scotiaimport asks wobbly a second time to list his qualifications - then there's a big pause. Below is wobbly's profile - it sounds just like you!


Name: Don
Location: Northland
Gender: Male
Marital status: Not specified
About me: Not specified
Occupation: Not specified
Favourite quote: Not specified
Favourite movie: Not specified
Favourite TV show: Not specified
Favourite book: Not specified
Favourite music: Not specified
Favourite place: Not specified

[erlyrisa]

the typical lefties recourse when they realise they are running out of arguments....

-call them a fascist or a child molester ,or the proponent to the end of the world.

All those anti G summit noobs, like Mr lord of the Rings here should think about how it is they that became 'Aware'.

Country States >
-WW11 and the the anti Bolshevik times result in England going 'Left' after teh war : untill Margaret the Home of Culture was so left that Lenin himself would of had to have joined the Free Masons cause the British left would consider him fascist.
-Europe : obvious Eastern Block
-Us, Hanoi Jane and her derivatives.

Social State >
-Baby Boomers Grow up in the Free-est and most advancing cultuer in Humanities history = time to think about the empty regions of space between their ears - although you can't blame teenagers for having no brains.
-The Iron curtain produces a stronger division of thinking between, lefts and rights. ..The silent majority become more silent as the exreme vewi pionts become more prominet ,, from opions about space travel through to nuclear advancement the ill-informed vocalise and socially engineer the future generations into the bleeding heart generations.
-Western cultures are transitioning from the locally grouped community order into larger state based mono-authoratative communities , people no longer know who lives in their streets, daily concern for infromation isn't a community concern but a state based single source .eg the Media.


uh I could write a whole essay .. all I have to say is the LEFT aren't left because they want to be - they are left becuase the state wants them to be. -It is easier to control a populous when their beliefs are state centric and their belief allows for domineering control in every aspect of thier lives, so leftist beliefs like... Safety First, Environment, Anti-Higher Engineering(Nuclear GM), Anti-Individualism , Anti-BIGBOY mentalitie (includes capitilism, coroporations the US etc), Terrorism (its a new one but taking off in the West like wild fire), so-on and so forth....
for example the Basic right for a human being in some extremist leftist democracies (or poly-cracies - becuase really it's not like our vote actually means anything, it's still the knee jerk reaction that runs the show) of lighting a fire has been taken away. One of the simplest and underlying reason for human evolution is now illegal in Commonwealth countries.

SO when some-noob thinks he is being an individiual exercising his piont of veiw.. it's just another prophet : the voice of the media being channeled through him. So that makes his god ,, the BBC ?

[some_random_noob]

the typical lefties recourse when they realise they are running out of arguments....

-call them a fascist or a child molester ,or the proponent to the end of the world.

All those anti G summit noobs, like Mr lord of the Rings here should think about how it is they that became 'Aware'.

Country States >
-WW11 and the the anti Bolshevik times result in England going 'Left' after teh war : untill Margaret the Home of Culture was so left that Lenin himself would of had to have joined the Free Masons cause the British left would consider him fascist.
-Europe : obvious Eastern Block
-Us, Hanoi Jane and her derivatives.

Social State >
-Baby Boomers Grow up in the Free-est and most advancing cultuer in Humanities history = time to think about the empty regions of space between their ears - although you can't blame teenagers for having no brains.
-The Iron curtain produces a stronger division of thinking between, lefts and rights. ..The silent majority become more silent as the exreme vewi pionts become more prominet ,, from opions about space travel through to nuclear advancement the ill-informed vocalise and socially engineer the future generations into the bleeding heart generations.
-Western cultures are transitioning from the locally grouped community order into larger state based mono-authoratative communities , people no longer know who lives in their streets, daily concern for infromation isn't a community concern but a state based single source .eg the Media.


uh I could write a whole essay .. all I have to say is the LEFT aren't left because they want to be - they are left becuase the state wants them to be. -It is easier to control a populous when their beliefs are state centric and their belief allows for domineering control in every aspect of thier lives, so leftist beliefs like... Safety First, Environment, Anti-Higher Engineering(Nuclear GM), Anti-Individualism , Anti-BIGBOY mentalitie (includes capitilism, coroporations the US etc), Terrorism (its a new one but taking off in the West like wild fire), so-on and so forth....
for example the Basic right for a human being in some extremist leftist democracies (or poly-cracies - becuase really it's not like our vote actually means anything, it's still the knee jerk reaction that runs the show) of lighting a fire has been taken away. One of the simplest and underlying reason for human evolution is now illegal in Commonwealth countries.

SO when some-noob thinks he is being an individiual exercising his piont of veiw.. it's just another prophet : the voice of the media being channeled through him. So that makes his god ,, the BBC ?
Wow you and Trebuchet do an awesome job of attacking my opinions/ideologies, but you do a really crap job with the original topic.

“child molester” “Mr lord of the Rings” “wwII” “lenin” “terrorism” - could you fly any further off topic? And how come me hating Vista automatically makes me a left-wing supporter? Oh wait, me being a left-wing supporter has nothing to do with this thread in the first place! You almost had me there!

Why can't you stick to the original argument? ...

It is a fact that Vista is not worth upgrading to because it has no new useful features besides security (mainly kernel protection), which should have been in XP in the first place. Having said that, the bottom line is that Vista is completely useless and not worth upgrading to. However, Vista will be used anyway; which then puts demand on computer manufacturers thus destroying the environment for no reason. It is also a fact that the environment can't magically heal over night. Given that result of facts, our final argument is this: should we destroy the environment for no reason?

The answer is no, so I guess I win. I don't care if you can write a &#%&*#$'ing essay on child molestation and wwII, because it has nothing to do with the argument. To cut a long story short: Vista will destroy the environment for no reason. You use nothing but avoidance to win and you fail to use any facts. The post I've quoted has nothing to do with Vista, proving you only use avoidance. Why not argue with what I've posted in bold?

[erlyrisa]

how easy was that...

and out comes the true character of all fundamentalist hippies - anger. and Fundamentalism.

-If it's not Vista or a corporation, it's about making me wear a yellow vest to work, if it's not that, then it's me smoking in Public streets ,,,, really mate if it were up to you and your cronies you would have banned Vista from ever being developed.... your type doesn't have the foresight or intelligence to understand what it is the rest of us are doing to better society.

-If you had of read my post carefully, you would understand that you aren't saying anything NEW - we hear your kinda claptrap all day via other avenues like the media for example.

-So unless there is some more indepth insight into the reasoning behind why you think Vista causes environmental impact, yet an old bomb with Linux don't you better just join your Medai frenzy friends Greenpeace, so that at least you can be categorized as a hippie.

-PPS - I am loving this thread, and mean no harm mate - It's all in good fun

(Which is why you could do well to listen to debate - instead of falling back on Fundamentalist Dogma)

[Coelocanth]

Here's my 2 cents:

The article is opinion and conjecture - there are no hard facts to back up the claim. In that vein, I've read a couple of articles suggesting that businesses with more than 100 employees won't be switching to Vista right away. Not worth it to them.

A few things I think the writer of the Greenpeace article fails to consider:

1) It's probably highly unlikely that the average user is going to run out and buy a brand new machine just to get Vista.

2) It's also probably highly unlikely the average user is going to spend a few hundred dollars to upgrade his computer just to run Vista on top of money he'd have to spend for a retail or upgrade version of Vista.

3) Probably the majority of those people that do go out and buy a new computer with Vista on it would probably have bought a new computer anyway, whether Microsoft had come out with a new OS or not.

In all these cases, I don't feel Vista can be blamed for generating more e-waste.

I'm no fan of Microsoft, but I don't agree with this Greenpeace article at all.

[some_random_noob]

Coelocanth is probably right, I don't see anyone in a hurry to upgrade. But environmental or not - most of us don't need Vista. I told my step-dad about the Greenpeace thingy and he's against that whole Vista "technology for the sake of technology" thing. It may not be bad for the environment now - but we shouldn't get into the habit of not caring. I'm not a hippy or environmentalist, in fact I wouldn't mind throwing my rubbish into a river considering that the government does nothing when they have the real responsibility. Greenpeace isn't evil, what is so bad about conserving the environment for future generations anyway?

BTW, the Sea Shepards provide great entertainment on tv :) doesn't watching them attack whaling ships make you feel like you're watching the game? :popcorn:

[erlyrisa]

Here's my 2 cents:

The article is opinion and conjecture - there are no hard facts to back up the claim. In that vein, I've read a couple of articles suggesting that businesses with more than 100 employees won't be switching to Vista right away. Not worth it to them.

A few things I think the writer of the Greenpeace article fails to consider:

1) It's probably highly unlikely that the average user is going to run out and buy a brand new machine just to get Vista.

2) It's also probably highly unlikely the average user is going to spend a few hundred dollars to upgrade his computer just to run Vista on top of money he'd have to spend for a retail or upgrade version of Vista.

3) Probably the majority of those people that do go out and buy a new computer with Vista on it would probably have bought a new computer anyway, whether Microsoft had come out with a new OS or not.

In all these cases, I don't feel Vista can be blamed for generating more e-waste.

I'm no fan of Microsoft, but I don't agree with this Greenpeace article at all.

At last some logic - the vulcan is within you.

this is at least an argument that even an an anti-corporation hippie can adhere too.

shame 2pair o gumboot noob's favourite corporation : greenpeace can't be helped when it comes to them destroying the environment.

--Things green peace has done to the detriment to the environment....

-Save the Trees in the 80's = a call for paper recycling which means there isn't a call for plantations to provide paper - amount of E and CO2 now higher that would it would be if we just bought non-recycled paper.
-Landfill Epidemic (the Memphis Barge) interesting to note the knee jerk reaction when this occured - now every-one recycles to the detriment of the environment via thermal and CO2 and who knows what other kinda pollution.
-Nuclear - shame how it's just know we are finally about to start mass mufacturing plants that could have been done as far back as the 70ies (although a bit pricey)
-Smaller Housing and Urban Sprawl (early 90ies) strangely enough if you fly over the new condensed Urban developments there seems tobe less trees and gardens and damn lot more airconditioners (don't you just love the fact that 100 years ago people knew better than the hippies of today)
-Forest Zoning and Soil Erosion (erly 90's), shame how what used to be free to wander is now only permissible to view via boardwalks and tour guides. The off shoot of this is that many Zoned forests and natural wonders aren't being visited, the area becomes rundown, un-appreciated and more of what would have been considered problematic occurs in the zoned areas : eg feral animals. What used tobe taken care of by the people that had a local affinity for the area is now decrepit and spoiling > exactly what was to be saved in the first place.... thankfully there are enough fruitcakes that pay to enter the popular zones, therefore procuring just enough for some environmental control.
-GM crops : although not a direct fualt (the technology isn't advanced enough just yet) -it's obvious that greenpeace just builds and anti GM bandwagon for salesmanship sake , even though GM isn't enterily viable for every application just yet.

---The brainwashing of a small but none-theless 'elite' that hold back technoligical advancements and engineer society moulding them into the easily swooned generaions of today ; which is probably thier most detrimental impact, the average Joe knows nothing of the environment because they aren't allowed to see it, nor are they interested to see it either. Today less and less people know what it is to 'Live off the land' and don't understand what it is to take care of your surroundings. The media generation is more interested in Cafe Lattés and shopping in chain Malls. -it's because green peace made it hard for the Free layman to be free that the new generation are the way they are.

-I am starting to rant so I better stop before I get a Migraine. - I just wish some of these Commie wannabe anarchist, climatologists had of had the priveledge of growing up in Cuba - maybe they wouldn't print Youthful Castro and Pinoché shirts with Hammers and Sickles if they had a clue.

Stars and Stripes forever! -unless China get's a bit Awry.



-Oh I better ad something here that averege noob could debate with....


Vista : Impact

Hmmm - yeah lot's of old computers that's bad.

-an argument.

The simple Mouse - although not invented my Msoft - it is they that put it into major use.
The components of a mouse = 1 big blob of steel as the ball, plenty of plastic and energy to manufacture.

Piont to be made:

We don't really need the Mouse for computer useage - so why even bother with other technical advancements eg. Vista with Aero and such?

Another Argument:

Vista: Future of computing and Vienna.

Next generation computers will be more Natural Human interactive - voice and gesture/hand writing rec will be the norm. In the meantime Msoft have to give an avenue for the average software developer to learn to program on the future model of computing. Vista is the Bridge to this, just like XP was the bridge to VMachine programming - which also has it's offshoot, .net and the next gen of .net will allow programmers to program complicated software and deploy to users without the user having to have to be scared of the software being corrupt : this allows programmers in countries like Nigeria to program usefull software and give up on thier other aspirations like hacking ur computer. It provides more jobs that people in the west don't want to do (We should be doing the more complicated stuff like better Voice Rec).

And another argument:

Vista and the 3d stuff : inspires people that would otherwise be un-intersted in computer usage, and I'm not talking about people like us on this forum, I'm talking about little Moshu in Bangladesh or Mohamed in Iraq : a black and white screen with a command prompt may get you and me drooling, but we all know that most people that have recently switched to mac only did so because of the bell's and whistles. -It's human nature tobe intersted in interactivity. : this also helps much younger kids to be able to use computers, and much older kids tobe able to use computers : eg. Grandma internet junkie now has an easier time to be able to set up a website that gathers locals to help build a new duck pond at the local bingo.

And another:

The new communication channels being deployed slowly call for a P2P type of internet, this will free up the server based internet allowing for populations that can't afford ISP type connections to still be active internet users (have a search around the internet in a different language, you will soon see that there is hardly any of the info that is available in English) .. which birngs me to another...

English is the spoken language of the net . Next gen PC's will be able to amalgamate searches and results in language of choice. - allowing for Africa to use the English net wthout having to learn our keywords. (How kind is the US to spread it's culture in your native tongue)


There are more reasons : just look further ahead and lose the tunnel vision.

[erlyrisa]

Coelocanth is probably right, I don't see anyone in a hurry to upgrade. But environmental or not - most of us don't need Vista. I told my step-dad about the Greenpeace thingy and he's against that whole Vista "technology for the sake of technology" thing. It may not be bad for the environment now - but we shouldn't get into the habit of not caring. I'm not a hippy or environmentalist, in fact I wouldn't mind throwing my rubbish into a river considering that the government does nothing when they have the real responsibility. Greenpeace isn't evil, what is so bad about conserving the environment for future generations anyway?

BTW, the Sea Shepards provide great entertainment on tv :) doesn't watching them attack whaling ships make you feel like you're watching the game? :popcorn:

Hmm GreenPeace - a mild version of PETA which is in effect a terrorist orgranisation.

-Who ever said anything about not 'Caring' as usual your bleeding heart is driving your opinion.

-Whaling : it's pretty obvious your a greenie
-Did you know greenpeace is again puttin the environment to detriment by trying to stop Japan.

Reason:

Japan IS whaling for RESEARCH (yes they may eat what they have researched -why put good food to waste)
The research is based on fish farming, they are trying to gather data on population densities, average growth rates, re-population densities and birth rates .. etc etc -expect Japan to start farming Whale populations, and in effect Boosting the population of their favorite Minke.
-It's always intersteing to note that indigenous populations like the Alaskan Eskimoes are allowed to Whale.
-Finland does whaling too - where's the TV broadcast of greenpeace for that?
again it's called media hype - your being duped by the hype - exactly what you hate -Sheep mentality Hype.

Again I apologise if I am doing detriment to your beleif system, we all must learn to live with the dogma of ones Religion.

[megamania]

-an argument.

The simple Mouse - although not invented my Msoft - it is they that put it into major use.
The components of a mouse = 1 big blob of steel as the ball, plenty of plastic and energy to manufacture.

Piont to be made:

We don't really need the Mouse for computer useage - so why even bother with other technical advancements eg. Vista with Aero and such?

You are... surprising to say the least.

Your "argument" should be phrased like this:
"the simple mouse:
The components of a mouse = 1 big blob of steel as the ball, plenty of plastic and energy to manufacture.
Everybody uses a mouse because it's convenient.
Today a new mouse has come out: it's the "What button do you want to click today?" (R) mouse. Instead of two buttons, it has two blue buttons, which make the clicking experience much more enjoyable.
People are rushing to the shops to experience this new creature, and 3 billion mice are expected to be dumped because people need the blue-button mouse."

I know, I know, I'm a true anti-capitalist...

[erlyrisa]

You are... surprising to say the least.

Your "argument" should be phrased like this:
"the simple mouse:
The components of a mouse = 1 big blob of steel as the ball, plenty of plastic and energy to manufacture.
Everybody uses a mouse because it's convenient.
Today a new mouse has come out: it's the "What button do you want to click today?" (R) mouse. Instead of two buttons, it has two blue buttons, which make the clicking experience much more enjoyable.
People are rushing to the shops to experience this new creature, and 3 billion mice are expected to be dumped because people need the blue-button mouse."

I know, I know, I'm a true anti-capitalist...

soo vista is nothing more than a pretty colour ontop of xp? then i guess xp was just a litle luna ontop of 98, and 98 just win3.1 with a start button, n 3.1 just 2 with colour paint brush and 2 just 1 with overlapping windows. hmm maybe i'll just use GWbasic to prgram up a text editor and do all me printing with a line printer.

---Vista -not just pretty colours, it's alot more than that.

-if there were a product to be guilty of minor advancements it would be an ipod.

[megamania]

soo vista is nothing more than a pretty colour ontop of xp? then i guess xp was just a litle luna ontop of 98, and 98 just win3.1 with a start button, n 3.1 just 2 with colour paint brush and 2 just 1 with overlapping windows. hmm maybe i'll just use GWbasic to prgram up a text editor and do all me printing with a line printer.

Surprising, I repeat.

[erlyrisa]

Surprising, I repeat.


U must be stunned

[iPirates]

I agree with megamania. The original topic has gone awry, and the examples backing up your "points" have gotten pretty stupid. I can't even figure out what sort of a point you're making anymore! Being neutral about the topic, I'd have to say some of these posts opposing the article are getting a little immature. U must be stunned? Grow up.

[erlyrisa]

the child is the first to go silent when he/she has nothing to rebuke.

[some_random_noob]

the child is the first to go silent when he/she has nothing to rebuke.
lol he must be talking about me?? "the child is the first to go silent when he/she has nothing to rebuke" - it sounds almost religious :D . erlyrisa could have just said "some random noob hasn't posted stuff for a while, maybe he's giving up?"

What's with the indirect speech?

[erlyrisa]

lol he must be talking about me?? "the child is the first to go silent when he/she has nothing to rebuke" - it sounds almost religious :D . erlyrisa could have just said "some random noob hasn't posted stuff for a while, maybe he's giving up?"

What's with the indirect speech?

Sorry mate - read the whole thread, not talking about u.

nie to see you back

[iPirates]

lol he must be talking about me?? "the child is the first to go silent when he/she has nothing to rebuke" - it sounds almost religious :D . erlyrisa could have just said "some random noob hasn't posted stuff for a while, maybe he's giving up?"

What's with the indirect speech?
I really don't know, and couldn't care less.
I guess you could interpret it as he making a comment on himself, really. Because he had "nothing to rebuke" regarding my post, and thus labelled himself a child. Anyways, it seems as if it's turned into more of a game now, I wouldn't waste my time if I was you.

[megamania]

Because he had "nothing to rebuke" regarding my post, and thus labelled himself a child. Anyways, it seems as if it's turned into more of a game now, I wouldn't waste my time if I was you.
Right. I like discussions as long as they're are useful - not the case here.

[TheApe]

Hi, all....
I've read most of the posts on this thread, there are great point of views, as there are poor ones.
Not that I'm judging(my english writing is not so good)... But I'm comparing to what I agree and think that's good for us. As this topic throw us to tell our opinion, let's go...

I've been a programmer for almost 7 years, and since about 3 years ago I started thinking I'm wasting my life in front of a damn lighting screen. Then I met ubuntu, and I "restart" liking computers. But the fact is that I still prefer a beach or a forest, or something that connects me with myself.

And that's my point. I think capitalism and tecnology growing put us distant from ourselves, if you know what I mean. We chat on Gtalk with a someone from China, but don't go visiting our parents or friends. As much as the technology grows we get more distant from ourselves. From the nature and etc.

The evolution is making we forget about ourselves. I don't know if it's necessary. How far we will go?

Besides all that "hippie" talking, I understand that we can't run away from the current system. We have to feed the capitalism system, otherwise we can't continue living. But that doesn't means we have to help acelerating(is that correct?) it's growing. Microsoft could develop a system that doesn't need a hardware upgrade. Of course they are dancing together wit the hardware manufactures companies... but... Or they could just , together with the new OS, launch a campaign of enviroment protection... Like when changing the pc, giving it to someplace that will not throw it on the garbage.
I can't see evolution without recycling...
And as bigger that are the companies and their influences, should be their responsabilities with the enviroment.

Let's grow with responsability.

Someone said that it's not a single person that should care about ambiental stuff but the big companies, I disagree with that. Everyone is responsable for what happens to the planet, so we should think before doing anything that would damage it.
Do we need a new pc? A new OS? That's an individual question...
Microsoft can launch Vista, that doesn't means I need to buy and use it.
There's a McDonald's store at each km of the city, that doesn't means I need to eat there.

I think I've wrote too much, and 've not been clear :lolflag:
But the thing is...

We live on a capitalism system, with lots of bad points. But the good point is that WE HAVE THE POWER TO DECIDE WHAT TO BUY.


(What we do may influence other people... :KS )

[Trebuchet]

XP was designed to run on hardware current 8 years ago (I'm running it on a 7-year-old machine). That's an eternity in computing. Short of Microsoft going "Right, this is as capable as Windows is ever going to get, so we're shutting down. It's been fun," I can't see any valid reason to expect they were going to freeze the required technology at the XP level with 2003 technology. They'd have been stupid not to design to take advantage of new technologies such as multiple cores and improved video capabilities. Say what you will about Microsoft's business practices (Don't get me started), they are not stupid people. Like any other business, they want to sell their products or services.

Vista will run on machines that are a year or two old, just not with all the bells and whistles turned on. So what? Nobody is forcing anyone to buy a new system; we're all free to continue to use XP or even (God forbid!) switch to Linix. ;)

[TheApe]

:lolflag:
That's my point... we have the choice!

And thank's God, mine is Ubuntu. hehehe

[megamania]

I can't see any valid reason to expect they were going to freeze the required technology at the XP level with 2003 technology.
The thread was about an operating system with a low job-done on resources-needed ratio. In other words, low efficiency.

I think nobody ever mentioned the possibility for Microsoft (or anybody else) to "freeze" to old technology as a good solution.

[TheApe]

I think nobody ever mentioned the possibility for Microsoft (or anybody else) to "freeze" to old technology as a good solution.
Microsoft and any other company or person should do more with less resources.
I agree with that...

[some_random_noob]

XP was designed to run on hardware current 8 years ago (I'm running it on a 7-year-old machine). That's an eternity in computing. Short of Microsoft going "Right, this is as capable as Windows is ever going to get, so we're shutting down. It's been fun," I can't see any valid reason to expect they were going to freeze the required technology at the XP level with 2003 technology. They'd have been stupid not to design to take advantage of new technologies such as multiple cores and improved video capabilities. Say what you will about Microsoft's business practices (Don't get me started), they are not stupid people. Like any other business, they want to sell their products or services.

Vista will run on machines that are a year or two old, just not with all the bells and whistles turned on. So what? Nobody is forcing anyone to buy a new system; we're all free to continue to use XP or even (God forbid!) switch to Linix. ;)
They should freeze the technology level regarding hardware - I understand that some rich people could link up all their electronics with Vista and have some kind of cheesy digital home... but how many people are going to be doing that?

We don't need the new hardware - what we need is new software which runs on our current hardware - Microsoft didn't achieve anything at a software-level (in security at least) with XP. My step-dad often tells me that Microsoft is stupid, because they put out XP and then expect people to upgrade to Vista. And the consumer is like "whoa! But you just sold me XP? Why couldn't have that been secure in the first place to save me from upgrading? The push for more hardware is useless if they can't have a matching standard for software.

I stick with my opinions that Vista is bad - you guys aren't right about just using alternatives, you're not thinking about the average person. XP is going to become a nightmare to maintain and as for Linux... what's Linux? For us its fine, but for the average person they can't maintain XP and don't know about Linux - so they opt for the easy option: Vista. It will work better, even if its a waste of money. People with little expertise would rather lose money.

Anyone understand the first two paragraphs?

[daller]

Microsoft and any other company or person should do more with less resources.
I agree with that...

Well, what can we expect from a company with stocks in hardware companies, and vice versa?

New hardware - New possibilities!

New possibilities - New hardware!

...it's an evil circle!

[iPirates]

Well, what can we expect from a company with stocks in hardware companies, and vice versa?

New hardware - New possibilities!

New possibilities - New hardware!

...it's an evil circle!
Yea, that's true.
If you're an avid pc gamer, chances are you've already got the equipment to run Vista, and Vista just may enhance that (don't quote me on that tho, I don't know a whole lot about it).

However, if your a user who primarily uses the computer for internet, word processing, or older games, then vista seems like a bit of a waste. I mean, why fork out soo much to make it... what, prettier? More "user friendly"? I don't consider a fancy desktop "user friendly". I think that Vista would have been a good program if they had made a "smaller" version of it. Something compatable with a decent mid-range computer. Instead of making it look super fancy, they should concentrate on making it better. I don't consider a fancy looking desktop more "user friendly", I consider a computer that works well, and is secure, to be user friendly. ( Like linux :) )

[Trebuchet]

They should freeze the technology level regarding hardware - I understand that some rich people could link up all their electronics with Vista and have some kind of cheesy digital home... but how many people are going to be doing that?

We don't need the new hardware - what we need is new software which runs on our current hardware - Microsoft didn't achieve anything at a software-level (in security at least) with XP. My step-dad often tells me that Microsoft is stupid, because they put out XP and then expect people to upgrade to Vista. And the consumer is like "whoa! But you just sold me XP? Why couldn't have that been secure in the first place to save me from upgrading? The push for more hardware is useless if they can't have a matching standard for software.

I stick with my opinions that Vista is bad - you guys aren't right about just using alternatives, you're not thinking about the average person. XP is going to become a nightmare to maintain and as for Linux... what's Linux? For us its fine, but for the average person they can't maintain XP and don't know about Linux - so they opt for the easy option: Vista. It will work better, even if its a waste of money. People with little expertise would rather lose money.

Anyone understand the first two paragraphs?Money substitutes for time and expertise, and always has. Thats why we pay skilled workers more than novices, and true experts more than skilled workers. Most people do not want to (or are simply incapable of) reaching the level of expertise that they can use Linux; they can barely do it with Windows. People also use their computers for many things besides e-mail and web browsing; for lots of people it's a gaming platform and a DVD player and a video recorder. It's not our place to decide what people should or should not have as long as it does no harm to others.

I simply don't understand your focus on what people need. People want and own lots of things they don't need: Hang gliders, race cars, Rolex watches, low riders, cashmere sweaters, 60" plasma televisions, Levis, $6000 quad-card computer gaming machines. Suggesting that we should only have what we truly need is pretty close to an outright advocation of socialism. Was that your intention? Has Linux advocacy now become synonymous with anti-capitalism and/or socialism? Last time I checked, the gent who started Ubuntu made his fortune in business.

[some_random_noob]

I simply don't understand your focus on what people need. People want and own lots of things they don't need: Hang gliders, race cars, Rolex watches, low riders, cashmere sweaters, 60" plasma televisions, Levis, $6000 quad-card computer gaming machines. Suggesting that we should only have what we truly need is pretty close to an outright advocation of socialism. Was that your intention? Has Linux advocacy now become synonymous with anti-capitalism and/or socialism? Last time I checked, the gent who started Ubuntu made his fortune in business.
What I mean is that its ok for enthusiasts to have all that high end stuff (cars or computers... whatever it may be) but my point is that Microsoft is portraying that everyone needs Vista wheres Vista is for enthusiasts.

I'm sure the manufacturers of lowriders try to bump people into the more expensive range, but they don't make every old car fall apart within a short time span. The companies that make cars make sure their cars last for a long time, with Windows XP... well, it was flawed all along and Microsoft knew it.

With Microsoft there just isn't enough push to make products last. We should be able to buy an OS and stick with it and leave Vista for the enthusiasts. With a car you can buy it and it will work pretty damn well for 10+ years, you don't need to spend a lot of money and there's not much pressure to upgrade. With Windows you HAVE to upgrade or you'll find yourself in the ****er very quickly. Regardless of needs you are forced to upgrade.

[erlyrisa]

http://www.technocapitalism.com/applet/introduction.html

-hover your mouse over the 3d Cube (if you have JRE) -I wonder if it is possible to have veiwed that page on a 2400bps modem and an 086

[rudder]

Sooo you don't think they are looking out for the environment? That's just a great big cover up for hating people with money? Why? They jealous of you too?

Next time you have a thought... let it go.

We don't even NEED anti-capitalist propaganda. Anti-capitalism is essentially the most obvious moral course anyone could ever take, the problem is 6 billion willfully ignorant drones... so never fret. If they don't listen to there OWN common sense, they wont listen to anyone ELSE until THEY are the ones with a majority backing.

Leftists always were best at name calling (you are a leftist, I assume?). Be careful who you call a "drone" and for what reason... if you are a lefty, you probably have the same naive and ultimately self-centered ideas running through your brain that you did in high school... who can listen to someone who is out of college and still thinks like a 16 year old (assuming you are even out of high school, otherwise why are you trying to wade into global politics?).

Communism, ah... there is a fine alternative. How many tens of millions were killed by the Soviet Union trying to get the grand idea right? Not to mention China, Vietnam, Korea, etc...

Socialism, yummy... welfare lines filling up and country going bankrupt, sign me up!

Capitalism isn't perfect, nothing humanity does is... but it's the best of what I've seen and I've seen them all.

Now, for my two cents worth on the topic this thread was originally started for:
As to whether Vista will create some giant deluge of waste in developing countries, I can't say. I simply have not done enough research to say with any level of certainty. My gut says there won't be much or if there is it will be offset by new technological gains, etc. Again, that's just my gut though.

[noalternative]

Someone mentioned shipping these computers to developing countries. I'm sure a lot of schools would be willing to buy these computers that you call 'obsolete'. In school, three years ago, I used computers with either 32MB or 64MB RAM, and they did the job (write console-based c program, compile console-based c program, run console-based c program). The curriculum hasn't changed much since then, so the tasks aren't all that different. But my school was one of the better-off ones, very few government schools have computers (matter of fact, they have nearly no books, and the libraries are permanently locked!). The problem however is power consumption. Maybe the Godson III will change that.


Unfortunately many companies are unwilling to do this because they're scared of data theft, which is the other reason opensource can be useful here.

Unfortunately, not many modern versions of Linux work on computers as old as you describe, aside from feather and dsl.

Consequently most organizations including canonical's recycling organization are asking for computers that are atleast Pentium III with 256 mb of memory.

[noalternative]

I stick with my opinions that Vista is bad - you guys aren't right about just using alternatives, you're not thinking about the average person. XP is going to become a nightmare to maintain and as for Linux... what's Linux? For us its fine, but for the average person they can't maintain XP and don't know about Linux - so they opt for the easy option: Vista. It will work better, even if its a waste of money. People with little expertise would rather lose money.

Anyone understand the first two paragraphs?

but why doesn't canonical promote xubuntu and ubuntu-lite more if it wants to promote older hardware? Why are the mozilla firefox people dropping support for Windows 98 and expanding the memory requirments for firefox 3x if opensource is so serious about recycling?

I bought a new computer to use ubuntu and more importantly firefox. It has windows media center xp on it, but I get a free upgrade to vista, which I am not sure I want, given all the drm stuff. I am putting ubuntu on it when I set it up and I have xubuntu on this one. This website stalls to a crawl on firefox with xubuntu, so I needed a new computer. The open source commuity hasn't been as thoughtful about people with older computers as it could be. Why doesn't canonical offer xubuntu alternate install in their shipit free section like they do regular ubuntu? Just this past week (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=352888) I helped a guy in the otheros/fedora/redhat board install redhat 7.2 on an old laptop because breezy brought it to a standstill and he didn't have a cd-burner or high speed access, so he couldn't install xubuntu.

I am not in love with the wasteful consumerist model but linux seems to pay lipsevice to the environment in many cases.

[erlyrisa]

I bought a new computer to use ubuntu and more importantly firefox. It has windows media center xp on it, but I get a free upgrade to vista, which I am not sure I want, given all the drm stuff. I am putting ubuntu on it when I set it up and I have xubuntu on this one. This website stalls to a crawl on firefox with xubuntu, so I needed a new computer. The open source commuity hasn't been as thoughtful about people with older computers as it could be. Why doesn't canonical offer xubuntu alternate install in their shipit free section like they do regular ubuntu? Just this past week (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=352888) I helped a guy in the otheros/fedora/redhat board install redhat 7.2 on an old laptop because breezy brought it to a standstill and he didn't have a cd-burner or high speed access, so he couldn't install xubuntu.


I have been using linux distros since redhat 5.
-It most cases, with me old P2's and P3's linux distros always needed alot more power to get any umph out of the system - I remmember having gnome1 running on a duron800,128mb - it ran, but sadly not like win2000 did, with heavy software like solidworks and CorelDraw.
-Sure my redhat distro also installed on a p2 compaq server (with 300 + 300 ram) and went quite well - but then I installed XP on it - went even better.

-I'll admit though that the latest distros run alto better out of the box then what an old redhat distro did, for example now I have ubuntu on the p3.800, (though now it has 384mb ram)

-then there is the major speed and memory footprint differences between Firefox and IE. - I don't care what you say, IE is faster (even though I don't use it(IE)) - although who cares, the next gen browser will be a .net WPF engine.


Now I may sound like a Msoft salesman even though I hate windows with a passion , I can do anything more than state reality, instead of tooting the anti-everything bandwagon.


oh - a note to Linux developers > there is no need to 'dumben down' the distros - if you ask me ,shove more into it : that way I'll have to buy another computer and promote the save-ing of the environment BY TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT and not cave dwelling.

[Trebuchet]

What I mean is that its ok for enthusiasts to have all that high end stuff (cars or computers... whatever it may be) but my point is that Microsoft is portraying that everyone needs Vista wheres Vista is for enthusiasts.

I'm sure the manufacturers of lowriders try to bump people into the more expensive range, but they don't make every old car fall apart within a short time span. The companies that make cars make sure their cars last for a long time, with Windows XP... well, it was flawed all along and Microsoft knew it.

With Microsoft there just isn't enough push to make products last. We should be able to buy an OS and stick with it and leave Vista for the enthusiasts. With a car you can buy it and it will work pretty damn well for 10+ years, you don't need to spend a lot of money and there's not much pressure to upgrade. With Windows you HAVE to upgrade or you'll find yourself in the ****er very quickly. Regardless of needs you are forced to upgrade.How do you figure Vista is only for enthusiasts? Most of its new features (Movie Maker, upgraded security, vast improvement in multi-tasking, etc.) all seem specifically targeted at typical users. Enthusiasts already know how to do these things; they don't need the OS to hold their hands. Enthusiasts buy new computers because they're enthusiasts, not because they "need" them.

XP will have a shelf life of at least 10 years after release (it was released in late 2001), probably more like 11 or 12 years. That is not unreasonable in the computing field. We don't expect Ford to carry parts for 30 year old Ford models. I see car commercials every day pushing me to buy a new car, but that doesn't mean Ford is forcing me to buy a new car. The small company where I work has a 7 year old UNIX-based system; the vendor been pushing us to upgrade for well over a year (and we're finally going to do it in March). How can Microsoft's 10 year cycle be too short if even UNIX is dated after 6 years?

I see no reason anyone has to upgrade from XP. Sure, you'll be left behind on software development, but if all you're doing is the same stuff you were doing in 1997 then Windows 95 or 98 should be adequate. OTOH, if you actually want to get more performance and more capabilities then you can upgrade to XP or Vista (or some flavor of Linux). Do you think Ubuntu would run well on a typical home system from 1997? Some of its features look to require pretty good hardware.

[argie]

Unfortunately many companies are unwilling to do this because they're scared of data theft, which is the other reason opensource can be useful here.

Unfortunately, not many modern versions of Linux work on computers as old as you describe, aside from feather and dsl.

Consequently most organizations including canonical's recycling organization are asking for computers that are atleast Pentium III with 256 mb of memory.

Yeah, sadly, I think this is true. DSL works really well on my old computer and Ubuntu with Enlightenment works well too (P III with 128 MB RAM) but atleast DSL works okay on 64 MB RAM and a PII in my experience, but I haven't tried on less than that. Keep in mind that my idea of 'new' computer is a PIV with 256 MB of memory :D


Communism, ah... there is a fine alternative. How many tens of millions were killed by the Soviet Union trying to get the grand idea right? Not to mention China, Vietnam, Korea, etc...

Socialism, yummy... welfare lines filling up and country going bankrupt, sign me up!

Capitalism isn't perfect, nothing humanity does is... but it's the best of what I've seen and I've seen them all.

OT but:
The Soviet Union had a dictatorship. I don't subscribe to the line of though that a dictatorship is necessary to sustain communism. The dictatorship killed those people. The Soviet Union could not have been communism by definition because AFAIK the means of producing goods were not in the hands of those who did the labour. The same for China.

[erlyrisa]

OT but:
The Soviet Union had a dictatorship. I don't subscribe to the line of though that a dictatorship is necessary to sustain communism. The dictatorship killed those people. The Soviet Union could not have been communism by definition because AFAIK the means of producing goods were not in the hands of those who did the labour. The same for China.

As i said before, If you prescribe to the communist system go live there. I always enjoy the way leftists always find an excuse why their 'Godsend' countries aren't / didn't work and why they don't live their, instead bring thier philosophies to light in polycratic nations, while re-engineering western society to be defacto socialist. Excuses included, oh they didn't embrace the marxist theology properly, they were a dictatorship, the west competed with them on unfreidly grounds (did you know Britain handed over a Rolls Royce Turbine, to the USSR, after WW2 as a gesture of conformity).

I grew up in Slovakia... being dictated by the USSR wasn't a problem as such - the problem were the people that abided and took advantage of a heirachal based system.(which is still a problem in the eastern block, x proliterate afficionados are now the mafia, and in effect still dictate) . Communism and the socialist state breed 'the top ten thousand' to be more concenered about what they can get out of the populous. Unlike the free economy system which breeds individuals to 'povide to the system' .

"the means of producing goods were not in the hands of those who did the labour. The same for China." - yes it is, that's why Russian **** always had rough edges and Chinese ****, is second rate quality. - the populous aren't going to work ,design, or pruduce anything half decent when their only incentive is wether or not a fellow proletariat will let them go home early.

the worst part is that in some western countries the same 'workforce' mentality had been adopted via unioinisation. Union boses and their cronies are the ones to decide, what the worker can and can't do. The run off effect is that the company don't do aswell as it could , and the workers don't get paid as much. Compare this to the US system, where the Gardener for Msoft was hired because he was the best (not just some Unionist cousin that needed a cushy job), the Gardener decided that some of his pay should be re-invested into the future interest of his workplace, I heard he drives around in a Ferrari.

Linux is in itself a product of the American culture too... it gave people the time to do things outside the means of daily survival.

About harming the environment: the proponents to the class that belive that they are enlightened of course push their theology onto the populous and try to control the individuals and other entities freedom : somewhat how those dictatorships funduamental structure is organised.

[Naralas]

Capitalism isn't perfect, nothing humanity does is... but it's the best of what I've seen and I've seen them all.

Democratic communism. All the equality (and then some) and a lot less slaughter of innocence. (Not necessarily the perfect system but when compared with your capitalism it looks good to me)

I agree entirely that communism fails because of people, but the same goes for capitalism. We need a system so pure that corruption is impossible, because we cannot trust each other. Capitalism absolutely, positively IS NOT IT.

Now not that I am saying people dying is any better, but when we are faced with an uncombable government backed giant such as money straining our lives at all times we are faced with suffering. Hopeless depressed people everywhere, until being hopeless and depressed becomes a ******* trend...

[rudder]

I agree entirely that communism fails because of people, but the same goes for capitalism. We need a system so pure that corruption is impossible, because we cannot trust each other. Capitalism absolutely, positively IS NOT IT.

I would not want to live in a purely capitalist country either. However, as a basis for society it is the best of the three. At least there you can work hard and make something out of it. The other two demand too much control over individual property, etc. What system will be so pure that corruption is impossible? NONE, since we ourselves are prone to corruption. Your wants are entirely unrealistic. In the face of that glaring fact, the systems that work best for long term stability and manage to keep productive members of society (the ones that keep it going rather than drain it dry) happy have a good number of capitalist influences.

[some_random_noob]

How do you figure Vista is only for enthusiasts? Most of its new features (Movie Maker, upgraded security, vast improvement in multi-tasking, etc.) all seem specifically targeted at typical users. Enthusiasts already know how to do these things; they don't need the OS to hold their hands. Enthusiasts buy new computers because they're enthusiasts, not because they "need" them.

XP will have a shelf life of at least 10 years after release (it was released in late 2001), probably more like 11 or 12 years. That is not unreasonable in the computing field. We don't expect Ford to carry parts for 30 year old Ford models. I see car commercials every day pushing me to buy a new car, but that doesn't mean Ford is forcing me to buy a new car. The small company where I work has a 7 year old UNIX-based system; the vendor been pushing us to upgrade for well over a year (and we're finally going to do it in March). How can Microsoft's 10 year cycle be too short if even UNIX is dated after 6 years?

I see no reason anyone has to upgrade from XP. Sure, you'll be left behind on software development, but if all you're doing is the same stuff you were doing in 1997 then Windows 95 or 98 should be adequate. OTOH, if you actually want to get more performance and more capabilities then you can upgrade to XP or Vista (or some flavor of Linux). Do you think Ubuntu would run well on a typical home system from 1997? Some of its features look to require pretty good hardware.
Well it depends who you're talking about... XP is out of the question for me anyway. The constant maintenance drove me insane. I don't trust free security software very much and I don't like the idea of paying for it either. Free security software has few guarantees and paying for security software per computer is just a ripoff.

I used to spend too much time fixing things and not enough time actually using the computer to do something productive. In my opinion XP only has a long life span if you have hundreds of dollars to waste on it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting to see people say that Ubuntu isn't considerate to people with old computers... but with Linux in general there's stuff like puppy-linux and damn-small-linux so I don't really see the problem.

[Trebuchet]

Well it depends who you're talking about... XP is out of the question for me anyway. The constant maintenance drove me insane. I don't trust free security software very much and I don't like the idea of paying for it either. Free security software has few guarantees and paying for security software per computer is just a ripoff.

I used to spend too much time fixing things and not enough time actually using the computer to do something productive. In my opinion XP only has a long life span if you have hundreds of dollars to waste on it.That hasn't been my experience with XP at all. It's certainly a lot easier to use and maintain than Linux IMO. To the average computer user, "recompiling the kernel" is something they put on the same level as "blueprinting my engine." It's not something any typical user looks upon as anything but witchcraft.

Interesting to see people say that Ubuntu isn't considerate to people with old computers... but with Linux in general there's stuff like puppy-linux and damn-small-linux so I don't really see the problem.Sure, but you're missing the whole point: Not all Linux distros are friendly to all computers. OTOH, there's nothing says Windows users can't use Windows 95 or 98 until Hell freezes over (I know several people still using 95 or 98SE). Distros with all the bell and whistles like Ubuntu or Linspire do need fairly modern equipment. "Sure, but what about official support?," you may ask. Just what did you think that LTS after Ubuntu 6.06 meant? Think you'll still get official support for 6.10 in 2017?

I have to wonder why free software by Windows programmers gets no respect from you but free software from Linux programmers is the cat's meow? Free does not always mean better (or worse). Most of the software I use on my PC is freeware; the only things on it right now I paid for is a roleplaying character generation program (written in Java) and the OS itself, XP Pro, which cost me a whole $35 for the full version.

[erlyrisa]

Democratic communism. All the equality (and then some) and a lot less slaughter of innocence. (Not necessarily the perfect system but when compared with your capitalism it looks good to me)

I agree entirely that communism fails because of people, but the same goes for capitalism. We need a system so pure that corruption is impossible, because we cannot trust each other. Capitalism absolutely, positively IS NOT IT.

Now not that I am saying people dying is any better, but when we are faced with an uncombable government backed giant such as money straining our lives at all times we are faced with suffering. Hopeless depressed people everywhere, until being hopeless and depressed becomes a ******* trend...

Democratic Communism > isn't that an oxymoron ? -your talking about socialism.
Capitalism absolutely, positively IS NOT IT. > among other things, its what brought you the computer your typing on.
-Hopeless and depressed people a f'''n trend > I wonder if North Koreans know what it is not being either of the 2. Yes the offshoot of the US mentality of 'survival of the fittest' is that some people won't be as fit in the established economic and social order. eg. alchohl and it's free purchase can do detriment to the weak. Thankfully the human sprit, and a call for social order sets up entities like alcoholics anonymous. , in the socialist state alcohol would be either 'served to the people' or the rehab centre would be entirely funded by the state - in which case: when has a state ever been able to fund anything that works. ie becuase the state makes the decision on what the people 'need' nothing ever get's done that IS needed , in the Polycratic system the entity that puts back to the system is a more locally vested interest entity that get's the job done. eg. New Orleans ,, the governemnt may 'help' but the local entity's with vested interest do a better job of helping ,eg. a building contractor building the new houses, not only biulds a house for cost but keeps the heritage of New Orleans - the state would normally biuld to budget - building without concern for character (you seen what people live in in Russia?). Your comment about 'we need' is the typical leftist slang that pushes your 'one shoe fit's all' mentality. ,again you are trying to make everyone be as you are, if your a vegetarian, then everyone should be a vegetarian, if you wear a yellow vest to work, then everyon should wear a yellow vest to work, if you wear a helmet with a flashing light when you climb a ladder ,everyone should wear a flashing light on top of their empty noggins. -this is socialism. the precursor to a dictatorial society (it doens;t matter whether the dictatorship is Lennin or a democratic vote - it is still dictating and robbing freedom to pursue individual aspirations, which is why it fails.)

-An intersting example is the socialist PC, one in which everyones computer is exactly the same - computers would get 'updated' or 'replaced' on the basis of what the state can afford. - or in your Utopia of the democratic communism, we would all vote online for which computer we want to be in our homes for the next 5 years., You see the underlying flaws of marxist theology is that it breeds conformity: I MEAN READ HIS BOOK all it does is rant about how to set up a society based on ignorant conformists.

-The US is a place where the people of the world, the huddled masses, the poor, the weak gathered TO LIVE FREELY , because they hadn't had the opportunity to 'live' in systems of Feudalism(although still better than Socialism) and other failing or Heirachal systems. The people of the US have inturn given back to the world by bringing it up a notch on the freedom scale.

About PC's and the Environment .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_computer_systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_of_China

[simonsphotos]

microsoft is becoming the biggest power on earth with something as intangible as software they ARE rulling the world, the fact that they have puposely abandoned XP as for serious updates like DX-10 is a disgrace, most people I repeat most will want to move to vista lots of games will soon require DX-10 and so 100% of pcs will be scrapped because microsofts dictates it so. as someone correctly put it as much as computers get faster programs get slower, there is also the power issue to consider, the huge amount of power needed to run these machines that in some cases get as much done as they did 5 years ago because the software is so slow and poorly efficient that we need ever more powerful computers.

if you want the full history of ms glory and discrace go here: http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html

[erlyrisa]

microsoft is becoming the biggest power on earth with something as intangible as software they ARE rulling the world, the fact that they have puposely abandoned XP as for serious updates like DX-10 is a disgrace, most people I repeat most will want to move to vista lots of games will soon require DX-10 and so 100% of pcs will be scrapped because microsofts dictates it so. as someone correctly put it as much as computers get faster programs get slower, there is also the power issue to consider, the huge amount of power needed to run these machines that in some cases get as much done as they did 5 years ago because the software is so slow and poorly efficient that we need ever more powerful computers.

if you want the full history of ms glory and discrace go here: http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html

that was very enlightening (a ghandi pun)
"
-Word documents have become excessively large and unwieldy, and occasionally they are corrupted while being saved to disk so that Word will crash while trying to read them at a later time.
"
*that used to happen to me plenty of times, don't know how bad it is now, luckily ther is n alternative.

"
Hackers, script kiddies and other wannabees get to take their pick from the wide choice of elementary security weaknesses to exploit. Some recent and highly virulent worms, for example, spread so rapidly because they could crack remote share passwords in about twenty seconds. (This did not stop Microsoft from running an advertising campaign in spring 2003 that centered on hackers becoming extinct along with the dodo and the dinosaur, all because of Microsoft's oh so secure software. Unsurprisingly, this violated a few regulations on truth in advertising, and the campaign had to be withdrawn.)
"
*Actually the Monopoly that provides the OS for the world has somewhat of a responsibility to 'educate' via flaws. It also provides a means to research what is possible to hack. - I am sure microsoft studies all avenues of hacking , to further be able to keep ahead of the competitors - imagine the amount of data they have just on the techniwues of hacking, simply by leaving flaws in thier OS.


Don't you hate the fact no-one uses linux. I mean you can buy the magazines at the store with distributions and instructions for usage , yet when of my friends gets a linux distro given to them, they are soon to leave the CD for me saying - "Do you want this" cause they don't.

[hiloguy]

I'm not about to dispose of my office computers until Mr. Gates makes it mandatory by no longer supporting XP. At that point, unless we can convert to Ubuntu (or some other OS at the time) and still run our publishing company, how will these then-obsolete computers be of any help to anyone to whom we might donate them? If we donate them to a school, or whatever, and XP is no longer viable, they will then become e-junk anyway.

Thank you, Mr. Gates, for yet another environmental disaster for no reason other than to satisfy, momentarily, your insatiable greed.

[megamania]

Don't you hate the fact no-one uses linux. I mean you can buy the magazines at the store with distributions and instructions for usage , yet when of my friends gets a linux distro given to them, they are soon to leave the CD for me saying - "Do you want this" cause they don't.
Personally, I don't care if nobody uses linux. I'm not a fanatic, I'm a user. It's a computer, not my life.

Also, I feel pity for people who blindly follow the leader - it's usually because they're so small they need to stay in the shade of a giant to feel bigger.

[chestnut1969]

Hmmm, having just installed Vista to give it a thorough going over, e-waste could be a concern. The Apple ad's re major surgery are spot on, to get any decent performance from Vista major surgery was indeed required.

FYI, after surgery to 2gb DDR Ram, 2mhz Dual core AMD 64 with a very powerful Nvidia card ,I still only get a Vista experience of '3'. God only know what you need to run to get the full experience.

And what an experience; it took almost 3 days to get installed, drivers are a complete shambles blah blah. Early days, it can only get better.

Linux/Ubuntu is just a dream compared....

Why do I put myself through this pain - so I can really understand both sides of the coin so to speak

[pjkoczan]

I've seen this thread take many a turn, and I'd just like to add my two civil cents from a technical point of view.

It is true that the computers of today are much more energy efficient than those of even a couple years ago. However, in many cases overall power consumption of the desktop is up. I think the main culprit is the video card, which has partly been the cause of no less than 5 machine crashes over the last two weeks at the lab where I work. Video/graphics cards are HUGE power consumers, so much so that you need more highly-rated power supplies (the reason for said crashes was that the power supply couldn't handle the load, and things fell apart...figuratively).

The graphics requirements for VIsta are pretty big, especially if you want all the shiny new windowing features. Ergo, you need a new graphics card and then a power supply, and given the general load that Windows puts on machines, one could argue that a new fancy computer is going to take more power than an old, bare-bones computer with little or no extraneous hardware and a lighter operating system. I know that there are exceptions ("but my computer is idle most of the time") and that Ubuntu is a relatively heavy Linux distro, but I believe my point has been made...technological advancement does not necessarily equate to higher efficiency or less power consumption. For instance, I mean, look at how smart, shiny, and feature-filled cars got over the past decade. However, fuel efficiency didn't really improve (except for a few cases...but that's the exception, not the rule).

What would be best for everyone involved, in my mind, would be to develop and advertise inexpensive hardware with a focus on energy efficiency. Instead of touting a 3.4 GHz dual-core with 2 GB of RAM, a massive hard disk, and generally more computer than 80% of the world would need, tout the 2.4 GHz with 256 MB of RAM and a 40 GB hard disk, which is more than enough to write email and do word processing and the like. That way, you could still have a decent system for the light user, and they would probably sell very well to those types of users. You'd have your new shiny systems and still be energy efficient. However, it would need software that could run reasonably well on light systems, and that's where Vista fails...miserably.

<aside>
I should really see how much power the 3.2 GHz box with slightly massive video card in my office uses compared to one of the 1 GHz old machines in our server room.
</aside>

[erlyrisa]

i've got a cat.

2 years ago I used to feed it food from the can - I even bought bigger cans to save some cents (even though my cat would look up at me to say - 'what, duck liver again!') Now you can get sachets of cat food, individual little meals, each one priced at about the same a can is yet only containing .33 of the contents. My cat is alot happier now that she gets a new surprise every meal. Occasionally I go back to the can, just to see if she still likes it - she does and it's obvious she is indulging in a re-lived experience. Then thier are the times she catches a mouse and starts meowing when it stops moving. She is so cute. What I can't get her to stop doing is sleeping on my keyboard , for some reason the clicky texture is something she likes.

[megamania]

The graphics requirements for VIsta are pretty big, especially if you want all the shiny new windowing features. Ergo, you need a new graphics card and then a power supply, and given the general load that Windows puts on machines, one could argue that a new fancy computer is going to take more power than an old, bare-bones computer with little or no extraneous hardware and a lighter operating system.
There many voices (from all sides, not only in the linux community) pointing out the silliness of an unefficient system like Vista. I'm pretty sure it will be a success anyway, but it's absurd for a company like Microsoft to come out with such a system after years and years of work.

If they had started a new o.s. from scratch, in the same amount of time they would have come up with a better system (see Apple). Obviously, they had not planned that it would have taken so much time to fix all the holes that windows xp has (had), and thought that creating vista on top of xp would be money- and time-wise.

Still, some people believe this is anticapitalist, hippie talking. Saying "wow" to the latest toy appears to be more mature and productive.

[rubbrduck]

Thank you people, that was fun!

[erlyrisa]

Still, some people believe this is anticapitalist, .

I am still unsure if you moved to bologna after your "hip-life crisis" or if you actually grew up there. In the latter case I can't blame you for being you. Just like I can't blame some of my relatives when they go on about 'the good old days' of the hammer and sickle.


Another case for computers and the saving of the environment....

We wouldn't even know that 'the planet' is 'sick' if it hadn't have been for the evolution and popular adoption of the modern PC. -strange how as a civilisation we had to create tangible garbage in order to create intangible garbage: hippie rhetoric.

[Trebuchet]

What would be best for everyone involved, in my mind, would be to develop and advertise inexpensive hardware with a focus on energy efficiency. Instead of touting a 3.4 GHz dual-core with 2 GB of RAM, a massive hard disk, and generally more computer than 80% of the world would need, tout the 2.4 GHz with 256 MB of RAM and a 40 GB hard disk, which is more than enough to write email and do word processing and the like. That way, you could still have a decent system for the light user, and they would probably sell very well to those types of users. You'd have your new shiny systems and still be energy efficient. However, it would need software that could run reasonably well on light systems, and that's where Vista fails...miserably.I can honestly see some merit in this idea, but even supposedly "simple" tasks on computers are often not so simple anymore. E-mails come with videos attached. Grandparents edit and e-mail their digital pictures. Junior high kids are self-publishing pamphlets and fliers for their clubs or classes. People record and edit TV shows on their computers or remix music for their MP3 players. Game graphics get more and more sophisticated and the games themselves have vastly improved AIs. (Don't blame me; my favorite computer game is still Civilization 2. I don't even own Civ 4.)

It's just not as simple as it used to be.

[cunawarit]

Personally I predict a deluge of cheap hardware more than good enough to run Linux hitting Ebay. That's a good thing!

[megamania]

I am still unsure if you moved to bologna after your "hip-life crisis" or if you actually grew up there. In the latter case I can't blame you for being you.
Well, it's time for you to know that I'm a bank manager in an international bank, dealing with customers whose yearly turnover is above € 100.000.000 (onehundredmillion euros). I've been doing this for the last 15 years. That says much about my limited, hippie view of the world, right? You could work as a psychologist.

That said, I promise myself it's the last time I waste my time with you.

[pjkoczan]

I can honestly see some merit in this idea, but even supposedly "simple" tasks on computers are often not so simple anymore. E-mails come with videos attached. Grandparents edit and e-mail their digital pictures. Junior high kids are self-publishing pamphlets and fliers for their clubs or classes. People record and edit TV shows on their computers or remix music for their MP3 players. Game graphics get more and more sophisticated and the games themselves have vastly improved AIs. (Don't blame me; my favorite computer game is still Civilization 2. I don't even own Civ 4.)

It's just not as simple as it used to be.

I wholeheartedly agree that things aren't as simple as they used to be, and advancements in technology and computing capacity/power have pushed that along nicely. I have a very nice, shiny, technologically advanced box at home, and I make good use of it.

My point is, that level of power should not be the bare minimum just to run a computer. I mean, I can watch video emails, edit digital photos, and publish pamphlets using some of the old PIIIs with 256 MB of RAM lying around at work and still have resources to spare (point of interest, it's because these are mostly I/O bound processes). I could probably play more than a few games.

New technology can be great, but not everyone has to be on the cutting edge, and hardware and software should be available so that people can make a choice like that for themselves. With Vista, you essentially have no choice.

[Trebuchet]

I wholeheartedly agree that things aren't as simple as they used to be, and advancements in technology and computing capacity/power have pushed that along nicely. I have a very nice, shiny, technologically advanced box at home, and I make good use of it.

My point is, that level of power should not be the bare minimum just to run a computer. I mean, I can watch video emails, edit digital photos, and publish pamphlets using some of the old PIIIs with 256 MB of RAM lying around at work and still have resources to spare (point of interest, it's because these are mostly I/O bound processes). I could probably play more than a few games.

New technology can be great, but not everyone has to be on the cutting edge, and hardware and software should be available so that people can make a choice like that for themselves. With Vista, you essentially have no choice.The only thing I disagree with is that there is no choice. People are quite free to:

1) Stick with XP (supported for at least another 3 years)
2) Switch to Linux or other open source OS
3) Switch to a Mac
4) Buy a system with Vista; or upgrade a relatively new one
6) Don't use a computer at all; or use a public one

I want to get a new system soon. Not because I'm gung-ho for Vista (I'm not!), but because my seven-year-old system is really starting to show its age and a lot of new software (especially some games I'm interested in) needs a bit more oomph than a PIII with 512 MB of RAM. It's primarily software (plus some other hardware issues since I don't want to sink more money into this system) that are driving me to a new system, not Vista. I am, in fact, looking for a system with the hardware I want (dual core) that still has XP and is in my price range. No joy so far. But at least the nice thing about computers is the longer you wait, the more system you get for your money.

Once I get a new PC, who knows? I might even use this one as an Ubuntu box and see if it'll make 10 or 12 years.

[erlyrisa]

I've seen .............
....
....
really see how much power the 3.2 GHz box with slightly massive video card in my office uses compared to one of the 1 GHz old machines in our server room.
</aside>

I wouldn't mind seeing a more modular style of computer.

eg .http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml - the MARK-8

a computer that came as kit form. - you actually had to solder/snap lock it together yourself.

Something of the modern variety could be done today, but alot of the design that has gone into the 80's and 90's PC's makes the modularised PC a bit difficult to make. The road ahead though maybe different with the view to stackable CELL processors a possibility. (Though I am sure we will always find something to push the limits of a CPU's ability ,even when their are ten stacked one ontop of another)

An interesting system could incroporate....

A handheld PC
A CPU 'POWER BOX' - connects to Palmtop via HID (Human Interface Device) high speed cable or if possible wireless.
A GPU 'POWER BOX' - connects to CPU 'Power Box' via a PCI-e FibreOptic Cable. an of course a monitor or two (or ten for a high end model)
A Data Sorage 'Power Box' - I wreckon wireless
and WiFi capable peripherial devices. - like the printer - which still communicate via the handheld.

In this scenario the handheld palmtop would have a longer life span, and only power users needing more processing capablity would actually go out and buy specialist products for doing high end processing. The added advantage could also be that as long as communication protocols can be updated/converted as new CPU/GPU units come out you should have the ability to string the together - in effect just adding more power to your current setup (aka stacking).

I have made the presumuption that the keyboard is a thing of the past.


We can already witness this 'Handheld + BigPC' relationship in the PS3 and it's handheld... the handheld could slowly take over the 'front end' to the PC , while a request for more power can either be purchased as a device, or leased to users when required (via the net or local cafe's) the IPOD is also somewhat similar (although more of just a protable storage device - in effect the two major companies, APPLE/MSoft are pushing the hardware on both fronts , WinCE on the HID/APP end, and IPOD on the storage front)

Bill Gates is also giving out African Handhelds - in the presumption that the future african generations won't even need to use a keyboard.


The next generation tech after the modular one, would of course be the solidstate and quantum one. Expect the StarTrek Crystals to be a reality - I'm unsure of the amount of layers a Blu-ray disc has, but if you took a square cm section of bluray disc, and instead of spinning it just moved the laser in x/y direction, you would probably have a 500Mb startrek style storage device(albeit the startrek device re-fracts the single piont beam into the lattice structure of the data nodes(the flipflops) and reads the overall change in luminescents of the cube of crystal at strategic or multiple resolute pionts). The quantum computer on the other hand is probably a little further away, but nonetheless I give it 5yrs by the time some-one actually performs reliable calculations on one, and another 5 before a mass munufaturing technique is possible (give or take 5 years).
....imagine the plastic(oil) saved just by turning the fully working desktop into a handheld., the world has already saved millions of barrels just by switching to LCD screens., then there is the scintist using a cheap yet powerfull PC to invent the next silicon based plastic (there is alot more sand than oil on the planet)

[erlyrisa]

if there is interest.... http://www.tfot.info/
(http://www.tfot.info/)

as the linux community usually states to complainers about specifics of the os or associated software.... instead of complaining, help us fix it.

[simonsphotos]

new computers video card aside use the same as old, my new C2D E6300 uses 65 watts whereas my old athlon XP 2600+ used 68 watts so there i have just over twice the processing power for the same elctric power, the power consumption of ram has stayed about the same if not lowered, there is more power efficienzy than before or rather we can now do more with the same power so i say if you are doing heavy stuff liike video encoding then sure a new faster computer that uses about the same power maybe a little more is a great idea as you will perhaps have it on half the time, if you just use the computer idly like going on the internet it's not worth rushing out and changing it, I wated until mine failed to get a new one and no i would not rush out and gwet a new one just to run microsofts ultimate crap on it i mean cmon what increase in productivity is there probably we will go backwards and I don't need to sit at my computer and say wow 500 € on a new computer was well spent just to see a shiny user interface that does not really need this latest hardware and only looks good and induces a false sense of security in its reliability, as ugly as dos linux or any os may look it is usability and reliability that count.

[Trebuchet]

For another take on the Greenpeace report that started this thread you might look at this:

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/29C5599A-FCD8-4E30-9AD5-5497999ABA1B.html

Greenpeace ends up their report by demonstrating that it didn't really employ any factual, investigative reporting or actual comparisons based on merit. The final criterion of the report, and perhaps the only relevant, meaningful, and differentiating comparison they even considered, was a rating based on companies’ own reports of the e-waste they actually recycled.

By basing their entire "Green Guide" on little more than some half-assed googling, Greenpeace managed to come up with a laughable conclusion that also helps to show how clueless they really are on actual environmental issues:

Companies that report on electronic waste recycling do so by providing annual or cumulative weight or units of electronic waste recycled. This metric does not allow an evaluation of how companies are doing based on (past) sales. It also makes it impossible to compare the recycling rates of different companies, given that every company makes a different portfolio of products of various weights e.g. mobiles only versus wide range of household appliances.

Ideally, Greenpeace wants companies to report on recycling volumes/units based on the sales in year x (average age of the product when it becomes electronic waste). So, if the average age of a HP PC when it becomes waste is six years, we want HP to report how many PCs (units or weight) it recycled in 2006 based on sales of PCs in 2000 as a percentage.

HP has devised a takeback metric based on % sales. Their 2006 Global Citizenship Report states that HP’s recycling/reuse volumes were 10.3% of sales. If every company adopted this metric, it would allow us to compare percentages of HP products recycled in 2006 (e.g. 10,3%) to other companies’ recycling rates.

Top score goes to HP, the only company using a metric based on percentage sales.

Wow! So despite being a top contributor to the PC e-trash problem, HP "wins" because they have a goal of taking back a tenth of the garbage they ship. That's about as many Macs as Apple sells. That means HP is not recycling nine times as many of their PCs as Apple manufacturers, every year!


One cannot trust activist groups to provide accurate information because their agenda will almost always supersede the truth; and you can't tell which are true. Just because they have a big name doesn't mean they have any commitment to accuracy.

[some_random_noob]

One cannot trust activist groups to provide accurate information because their agenda will almost always supersede the truth; and you can't tell which are true. Just because they have a big name doesn't mean they have any commitment to accuracy.
I agree with you there, but inaccurate or not there is still an obvious threat to the environment. I wouldn't mind contaminating the environment by using useful technology, but Vista is a load of crap that doesn't have any benefits. Most people don't have any reason for "upgrading". Its just a forced upgrade on people who don't know better.

It takes up 700MB of RAM just when its idle. And you need 2GB to run Aero perfectly. Which is just a waste really. Microsoft deserves the flak from Greenpeace.

If you say the report is inaccurate, then good for you, it probably is. But if you're backing Microsoft at the same time then you have problems. Not that it matters to me, Greenpeace is a good organisation regardless: Informing computer manufacturers to go green, giving energy efficiency a voice etc. Its all good, unless you're an ******* who makes money at the expense of the environment ;)

[Trebuchet]

You didn't even bother to read the article, did you?

[some_random_noob]

You didn't even bother to read the article, did you?
No, but I didn't need to. http://www.roughlydrafted.com is pretty roughly drafted itself. Who cares about all that garbage they wrote? (yes I read it, SOME of it anyway) I don't care if Greenpeace has screwed up, damaged the environment themselves or hyped things up to get attention.

Looks like a bunch of stupid retards who have nothing better to do with their time than focus on the bad side of a good organisation. Are you suggesting that Greenpeace is wrong, and that we should ditch energy efficiency? What's your alternative? Use non-renewable energy? Blood for oil? Silence environmentalists?

You're good at dodging the point. You should work for roughlydrafted and help them write useless crap. You're basically telling me that Greenpeace is bad, regardless of all the positive things they do. Their awareness campaigns and promoting of cleaner alternatives easily out-weighs their failures.

[Trebuchet]

Environmental awareness is all very well if it leads to the proper corrective action. If it leads to improper corrective action, or worse, to "corrective" action that is actually counterproductive, then it's not such a good thing. Spending hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars, for example, to stop global warming when that warming may well be caused by increased energy from the sun rather than human activity would be counterproductive. The money spent fighting the unfightable would have been better spent on medications, or peacekeeping in war-torn nations, or better education. All things are tradeoffs. If you use your resources (time, money, people, etc.) trying to accomplish the impossible then those resources are unavailable for other more realistic goals.

There's nothing wrong with wanting cleaner air or less waste. But let's consider that waste ultimately is a quality of life issue and recognize that not everyone thinks it's a priority. The poor man in Niger struggling to feed his children doesn't have the resources or inclination to make sure that he's leaving a zero-carbon footprint. That's something he might consider when his kids are fed, clothed, educated, and don't have to worry about some rebellion carrying his sons off to war.

The report I cited showed that Greenpeace is far more concerned with the appearance of environmental friendliness than the actual behavior. They clearly don't even conduct real research. They've moved beyond being advocates for the environment and now are just another radical political group.

[some_random_noob]

Environmental awareness is all very well if it leads to the proper corrective action. If it leads to improper corrective action, or worse, to "corrective" action that is actually counterproductive, then it's not such a good thing. Spending hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars, for example, to stop global warming when that warming may well be caused by increased energy from the sun rather than human activity would be counterproductive. The money spent fighting the unfightable would have been better spent on medications, or peacekeeping in war-torn nations, or better education. All things are tradeoffs. If you use your resources (time, money, people, etc.) trying to accomplish the impossible then those resources are unavailable for other more realistic goals.

There's nothing wrong with wanting cleaner air or less waste. But let's consider that waste ultimately is a quality of life issue and recognize that not everyone thinks it's a priority. The poor man in Niger struggling to feed his children doesn't have the resources or inclination to make sure that he's leaving a zero-carbon footprint. That's something he might consider when his kids are fed, clothed, educated, and don't have to worry about some rebellion carrying his sons off to war.

The report I cited showed that Greenpeace is far more concerned with the appearance of environmental friendliness than the actual behavior. They clearly don't even conduct real research. They've moved beyond being advocates for the environment and now are just another radical political group.
I agree with you on almost everything there :D ... but I don't think that the damage they've done means much, enough damage is done already. Awareness is the most important thing for them at the moment as most people are pretty oblivious of environmental issues - Things like the AL Gore movie go a long way.

Just another radical political group? Maybe, but there are too many people on the opposite side of the scale, Greenpeace is balancing it. I'd rather have another radical political group than another ignorant government.

[Trebuchet]

Things like the AL Gore movie go a long way.Yes they do - convincing me this is all hype rather than science. You're going to use a guy whose house uses 20X more energy than the average American's and buys so-called "carbon credits" from a company he himself founded and owns stock in as a role model? Gore is a hypocrite. GW Bush's house in Crawford Texas is "greener" than Gore's mansion. I don't care if Gore's film won an Oscar; all that does is confirm to me that Hollywood is inhabited by a bunch of imbeciles and politically-correct sheep.

If Mars wasn't showing signs of global warming (melting icecaps at its poles) I might buy the "it's man's fault" argument. As it it is, unless we're to assume Martian war machines use internal combustion engines, I have to conclude that global warming is far more likely part of a natural cycle of temperature fluctuations caused by our Sun. Since our planet has been warmer than it is now for most of its existence, I fail to see this is anything to panic about. Nor can I forget that 30 years ago many of the same environmentalist groups were warming us about the impending Ice Age.

Sure, let's clean up our air and wean ourselves off petroleum. But let's do it for the right reasons, not because of an artificially whipped up panic.