Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 11th Jan 2009 23:31 UTC
Permalink for comment 343108
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-11-05
I think you need to look a little further than the confines of your own home, and your own country. I'm talking about the total energy costs of computing generally to a society. That includes businesses and institutions and the giant server farms run by the likes of Google. The amount of energy used by IT is enormous (add in indirect costs, like cooling and air conditioning) and governments are starting to turn their eye to it. In the EU, for example, there is already a determined attempt to reduce energy consumption of electronics via legislation. If you think this isn't going to become a big issue all over the place, you are in for a surprise. Since Microsoft is the prevalent provider of operating systems they are right in the firing line.
Secondly, I was not referring to the stability of Vista. FWIW, I run Vista64 and it is perfectly stable, if rather clunky. I was thinking more of Vista's appeal to corporates and institutions and of its hardware requirements (as was, on release), compared to XP. Even the most rabid fan of Microsoft must admit things here do not seem to have gone exactly according to plan.
Edited 2009-01-12 05:44 UTC