"Martha Adams" <mhada@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I think we have an interesting collision here. It's "more eye candy
> complexification using more electric power" vs "the power costs
> significantly more and the eye candy doesn't improve usefulness
> anyway".
>
> The collision arises in context of those nice small Linux machines
> that don't even need fans. Meanwhile, the cost of electric power
> is only going up as fuels and power generation costs grow.
>
> Cheers -- Martha Adams [cola 2007 Feb 28]
Wow, You make less sense than taking 3 of Roy's posts, diluting them with
a Mark Kent lecture, sprinkled with some KÃhlmann invectives and then
scrambled in a tumble dryer for 3 weeks.
>
>
> "Dean G." <dguttadauro@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1172674842.379281.26680@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> On Feb 28, 6:05 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>> Obeying Microsoft: Is Wine the way?
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | Using security as an excuse, Microsoft, in its infinite semiwisdom,
>>> | decided awhile back to dictate what versions of Vista can be run
>>> | in a virtualized environment. The main result of Microsoft's
>>> | restrictions may just be to drive such users away from
>>> | Vista entirely.
>>
>>
>> This is true. XP can be virtualized, and it FITS better in such a
>> system than Vista. Why buy Vista ? Eye candy doesn't get work done,
>> and Vista has little else to offer. What it does offer is more than
>> offset by the resource requirements and the new limitations imposes by
>> Vista.
>>
>> Moreover, from an environmental standpoint : How much extra juice (in
>> kilowatt hours) will Vista's eye candy cost than XP or Linux ? Vista
>> has hefty requirements, and to get all of the eye candy, you need at
>> least a GeForce 8800 GTS, which can draw up to 160 watts.
>>
>> Let's see, at 160 watts * 8 hours a day * 365.25 days = 467520 watt
>> hours.
>>
>> The average residential rate is 9.86 cents per kilowatt hour. That's
>> just over $46/year, every year, for eye candy. That doesn't even count
>> the addition wattage used by the upgraded CPU and addition memory many
>> systems will require. For a business it is even worse. Consider an
>> office with 100 such PCs, and the annual cost of eye candy (ACEC --
>> pronounced Akk ! Ekk !) is over $4,600. But that's probably only half
>> the equation, as all that energy creates heat. Unless you live in
>> cooler climates, you will probably need to spend at least that much
>> for additional cooling (air conditioning), bringing the cost up to
>> almost $10,000 per year, every year, for Vista's eye candy.
>>
>> Wow - Vista is the gift that just keeps on ... taking.
>>
>> Dean G.
>>
>
>
--
|
|
