digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Linux Prevents Obsolescence: Could Prevent Millions of Tons of E-Waste

ecogeek.org — A British study on the benefits of open source software has determined that Linux machines live 2X longer than Windows machines. The amount of computer waste in the world, it turns out, could be halved just by going Open Source!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • subgeniusd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31Article point: "Most versions of Linux will run on a Pentium 1 with 128MB of RAM, while Slackware can run on a 486."

    That should have said many distros but certainly not most these days. And for those that find Slackware a bit "deep" Slackware based VectorLinux runs with the above specs and is much easier to install and use.
    • JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -34/+27GNU/Linux most definitely would prolong the life of most computers. With every release of GNU and Linux the software becomes more efficient and refined (parts will be completely rewritten just for this) while windows gets more and more bloated.
    • betterth, on 10/12/2007, -63/+82That's a stupid way of looking at it. Linux prevents obsolescence not by programming todays desired effects and programs to work with low specs, which it seems to claim, but rather by stagnating.

      If Linux looked and operated competitively to Mac and Windows based PCs, they will age just as quickly.

      As much as the linux people want to believe Linux was hand coded by God himself, if you want newer, more functioning and faster running programs, you need new hardware. Which means throwing the old hardware away. That doesn't change by running Linux. You can't run WoW on linux with a P1 and 128MB of ram. If you want to game, or run photo editting, or watch movies, or listen to music or play webgames, you'll need a substantially more powerful computer. And as games increase, movies increase (from DVD to HD formats), etc etc, you'll need newer computers.

      I'm sorry but the only way to prevent obsolesence is to stagnate and ignore new technologies and ignore what consumers want in the way of better and quicker functionality, /PERIOD./

    • RedLion, on 10/12/2007, -28/+26"With every release of GNU and Linux the software becomes more efficient and refined (parts will be completely rewritten just for this) while windows gets more and more bloated."
      is this why every release of kde uses more ram? is this why ubuntu doesn't run on old hardware where other distros like slackware run without problems? Oh please, stop making stuff up, astroturfing sucks.
    • geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -14/+21"is this why ubuntu doesn't run on old hardware where other distros like slackware run without problems?"

      Ubuntu's Fat Kernel was designed (aka configured) to be used with hardware of this era. Slackware's was designed (aka configured) to run on anything that can boot 386 code. But not much is stopping you from building an Ubuntu kernel that can boot a toaster oven, or a Slackware kernel that's built only to support modern hardware (and thusly drop a few hundred megabytes from its distribution). And don't even get me started with Debian and its "we'll boot on anything, literally" stance.
    • Override, on 10/12/2007, -12/+27"is this why every release of kde uses more ram? is this why ubuntu doesn't run on old hardware where other distros like slackware run without problems? Oh please, stop making stuff up, astroturfing sucks."

      It could be argued that he was talking about the GNU toolkit and the Linux kernel. KDE != Linux. Just because you can't get a default Ubuntu/Kubuntu install running on older hardware, doesn't mean it wouldn't run fine if you ran it without a graphical environment, or with Xfce, or Fluxbox, or any other more lightweight window manager.

    • ahsteele, on 10/12/2007, -11/+14Another key point is that Linux boxes are often times a secondary machine. Sure I'll keep my older hardware around and run Linux on it. No sense in throwing away perfectly good hardware if all I want to do is run a version of Linux on it. I keep both a high end PC and Mac around for demanding computing and a Linux box around for other tasks. I guess it is a means of keeping some hardware from being tossed but it is more of a nice to have than a have to. Further, I'd probably just run an older version of Windows on the same box if Linux didn't exist. I guess my point is that this article is pretty lame.
    • OmegaNine, on 10/12/2007, -17/+2This just makes a computer last another year or two, its not really going to make anything better, just prolong it for a year.
    • berwiki, on 10/12/2007, -21/+25performance-wise, on my home machine, window XP is much more responsive than Ubuntu Edgy on the same hardware.
      (in terms of loading office, explorer vs nautalis file browsing)

      This article is purely Microsoft FUD.
      i run linux but i am appalled at this article.
    • R34C7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21The problem is not windows creating obsolescence, the problem is the fact that computers are built with harmful chemicals and parts that are not economically recyclable. Obsolescence in the marketplace is great for the economy. What we need is higher demand for computers that are built with environmentally neutral materials and easily recycled parts. Unfortunately this would probably drive price up as well.
    • shakin, on 10/12/2007, -8/+25@betterth

      That's not true. While sure you can't run WoW on a Pentium, that performance metric doesn't necessarily apply to the rest of the desktop. Modern systems should be massively underutilized. What exactly does OS X and Windows do that makes them better, yet suck up CPU cycles and RAM? I can't think of anything. They have limited window management, limited configurability, and poor software management (I am not talking about installing binaries from the web). What they do have is nice GUIs to configure everything that they let you configure and nice wizards to simplify complicated tasks. Those don't require fast computers.

      Also, when comparing Aero to Beryl/Compiz I can tell you without any doubt that Vista's heavy video card requirements are unnecessary. Beryl runs smooth on my integrated i915 video chip which only uses 8 MB of system RAM for memory. There is zero chance that Vista can run Aero on this video chipset, but Beryl runs just fine. That tells me that somewhere along the line Aero became bloated and now has system requirements that make computers obsolete before their time.

      While I may not agree 100% with this article, it does have some merit. You can run Linux with a user interface such as XFCE and extend its life quite a bit. Linux's flexibility gives it the ability to run on old hardware while it also has the ability to make full use of modern hardware.
    • JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14KDE isn't Linux ***** it just runs on it.
      >"If Linux looked and operated competitively to Mac and Windows based PCs"
      Beryl beats vista and Mac any day.
    • DonRoberto, on 10/12/2007, -14/+6But, can beryl run on a P1 with 128 Mbytes of RAM? No it can't, heck, you need a Gpu with hardware acceleration to do it. That means that to a degree Linux is keeping up with MS and Apple, meaning older hardware is also useless for a modern linux, making this article null and void.
    • argotechnica, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16@betterth: I think you're missing the point. Users who need cutting edge applications will always need cutting edge hardware... but most users are *not* running cutting edge apps.
    • dhughes, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6@ JonForTheWin

      Applications such as KDE are "Linux", GNOME is "Linux", Firefox is "Linux" - Linux is just the kernel, what people refer to as Linux the OS is really GNU/Linux which is the kernel and open source applications, if it wasn't for the GNU project Linux wouldn't be much today other than a black screen and a blinking cursor.

      Remember the "S" in OS is for System - Wikipedia definition "...comprising a whole where each component interacts with or is related to at least one other component and they all serve a common objective."
    • dwbell, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13@betterth I just saved a P!! 266mhz pc from the dump by installing Elive linux. It provided the whiz bang Vista Ultimate eyecandy with animated desktop and icons. Firefox, email, GIMP wordprocessing, spreadsheets, IM (with webcam) etc. removed Blender and the Video editing software because with a 6GB HD there was no need. By the way there was still 2.7GB free space for storing Pictures etc.
    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I run up-to-date Debian Unstable on a 350MHz K6 laptop, right now. It may not be a Pentium1, but how many people would even think of using a machine from 1998?

      What I don't expect it to do is what it was never able to do: Full motion video.

      I don't bother to run a full KDE desktop, either, even though it ran KDE 1 quite well. Software bloat is not a Microsoft invention, but, as the article points out, it infects Linux-based systems at a far slower rate.

      The old laptop is showing its age, certainly. USB1, unaccelerated graphics with shared memory, but it _runs_, and it runs the latest applications.

    • shakin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15"But, can beryl run on a P1 with 128 Mbytes of RAM? No it can't, heck, you need a Gpu with hardware acceleration to do it. That means that to a degree Linux is keeping up with MS and Apple, meaning older hardware is also useless for a modern linux, making this article null and void."

      Probably not, although there is no reason why you can't put a hardware-accelerated GPU in a P1 system. You'll need an older video card, but it may still work. Either way, that's beside the point. Nobody's claiming you can run any piece of hugely complex Linux software on a P1 system. Blender (3d modeler) probably won't run well on it either. Some tasks simply require lots of CPU/GPU power.

      Most importantly, running a lean Linux desktop doesn't render it less useful than a full KDE + Beryl system. Many Linux users run a very lightweight window manager like Blackbox and still run modern programs. Maybe that's the difference... with Windows or Linux you need to run an unsupported version of the OS to put it on very old computers, so you get compatibility problems, while a modern Linux kernel can run on older computers, so you just swap out the memory and CPU-hungry programs like KDE or Gnome for smaller programs without losing compatibility.

      What I'm trying to point out is that because of Linux's great flexibility it is able to scale down to slower computers more easily than Windows or OS X. Bloat creep is much slower. In fact, the upcoming KDE 4 is said to have a much smaller memory footprint than KDE 3.x despite the fact that KDE 4 is far more advanced and has far more features.
    • XTX7X, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Doesn't make a difference to me. I would upgrade either way for games. If you open source people ever come up with a way to game on linux that wouldn't require a 6 month upgrade cycle, I'll go for it. But because games are physically limited by hardware, not software, I'll stick with Windows. Trying to game on linux is like trying to ride a bike with the breaks on...
    • hackajar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1And the Tech industry can get it's market 1/2 as well...
    • JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@dehughes

      Yeah I know a lot of misinformed people refer to a lot of userland programs as "Linux". That's why I very clearly said "GNU and Linux". And if you want to include the popular userland programs with GNU, my point is still very very valid. Because unlike windows, Firefox, Gnome, (I don't know about KDE), and many many other very popular userland programs more often than not get more and mare refined and much faster while windows becomes more and more bloated and slower.

      Is this true with ALL popular programs? Of coarse not. But for most, yes it is. If you guys want to nitpick all damn day about how you define "Linux", it doesn't matter, my point still stands well. As new releases of windows get bloated (vista being a perfect example), the latest versions of GNU/Linux are still extremely comfortable (with bleeding edge apps? No, but for everyday use YES) on four year old hardware and offer BETTER 3D desktop effects with Beryl and what-not on that same hardware and it all runs very comfortably.
    • ThePet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@betterth

      "If Linux looked and operated competitively to Mac and Windows based PCs, they will age just as quickly."

      From my point of view Linux beats Mac and Windows based PCs in looks and operation. Even on older hardware.

      "You can't run WoW on linux with a P1 and 128MB of ram."

      I think you're missing the point... the article didn't say Linux could run WoW on old hardware. Pulling stats out of my ass, I'd say most people with computers don't need all the power they have. Think of all the businesses who need brand new hardware to run Vista, but could easily get the same tasks done running older hardware with Linux.

      Needing more power for the latest 3d game is not the same as needing more power for the latest OS/window manager.

      I don't game, but I like to keep up with bug and security fixes. I also love to play with brand new functionality, try to stay on the edge. With Linux I don't need to always upgrade my hardware in order to try out the latest and greatest. However, my laptop would probably choke on Windows Vista.

      My wife and daughter have older computers running the latest versions of Ubuntu. My wife used to run XP until I convinced her to try Ubuntu, she's amazed at how much more responsive and functional Ubuntu is on that particular piece of hardware.

      So just because you may need more power for WoW, that doesn't mean everyone does. And I'm standing by the stats from my ass that there are more people that don't need the power than those that do.
    • TimDigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What people miss is that we're going back to client/server, who says in the near you future you won't able to do high end video/photo editing /games etc....all within the confines of Firefox

      sounds a tad out there, but it could be where we're going......in this case a high end pc is irrelevant
    • diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Windows IS e-waste.
    • copiloto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There is something that is not being considered: most hardware for education, for example (and especially in developing countries), is obsolete according to US standards and needs to be maintained for lack of funds to upgrade. You can't just throw these computers away. Linux is fundamental to maintain these computers alive.
  • schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -17/+32Here's a nice picture: http://www.kuteev.ru/ph10/edf4.jpg

    FWIW, here are some related good articles:

    Linux Could Prevent Use of 4,200,000,000 kg of Fossil Fuels a Year
    http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/459/

    Use GNU/Linux and help save the planet
    http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/use_gnu_linux_and_help_save_the_planet

    Going green
    http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/going-green/2006/12/19/1166290549494.html

    Computers in schools are an environmental time-bomb
    http://opensourceblog.itproportal.com/?p=213

    How Windows XP Wasted $25 Billion of Energy
    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/11/how_windows_xp.phpRelated

    Open Source Terraforming
    http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/cascio20070216/

    Vista poses environmental dangers
    http://www.computing.co.uk/computing/news/2174400/vista-poses-environmental

    Greenpeace: Vista could trigger a deluge of electronic waste
    http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/84816/from/rss09

    Vista gets slated - by the Greens
    http://www.webuser.co.uk/news/news.php?id=107813
    • GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -16/+36@schestowitz

      Going by that logic, games, 3D graphic applications and even XGL / Beryl will cause "millions of tons of e-waste". If people don't want Quake 4 at 1600 x 1200 or Aero, they can turn it off. If they do, they can leave it on and get a new $100 video card and a gig stick of RAM. If they're misled enough (mostly by people like you) to believe you must by an entire new computer to experience Aero, they're the kind of people who would buy a new computer for Linux anyway. Saying that Vista is bad for the enviroment because it offers a new GUI is stupid. People don't have to use it, they can turn it off.
    • Philluminati, on 10/12/2007, -32/+9@ GawtMilk

      "Saying that Vista is bad for the enviroment because it offers a new GUI is stupid. People don't have to use it, they can turn it off."

      Your sooo wrong.

      You can't turn the GUI off in Windows.

      It's impossible. You closest you can do is boot into safe mode.

      In Linux the gui is merely an application. (Albeit it a complex one with the need for driver configuration. But still it's just a program that can be shut down or told not to start on boot.)
    • zdislaw, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18@Philluminati
      GawtMilk said you can turn off the new Aero GUI, not the entire GUI.
    • Philluminati, on 10/12/2007, -23/+10@zdislaw

      It doesn't matter if the GUI is on or off. It's system requirements that force you to throw away an old machine. Home Premium is home premium with or without Aero.
    • CrazyZ, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15Substitute Unix for Linux in any of your comments and you have the exact same arguments I've been reading about for over 15 years. Why hasn't Unix made the difference? It's better, more stable, and has a smaller footprint than Windows.....

      Drinking too much koolaid can kill you.......
    • CrazyZ, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21Just to add. I've yet to run a distro that handles power management properly if at all. Some I'm wondering how Linux is better for the environment when I can't even get a distro to put a laptop into sleep mode.....
    • Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -18/+3sox "kill_dash_nine.mp3" -t ossdsp /dev/dsp, *****.
    • mechmike0034, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8And, http://www.deoss.org/positive/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=42&Itemid=43, as well as http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?search_id=326686869&t=12714

      Out of the landfills and into the hands of those who can benefit from the technology.

      Puppy Linux http://puppyos.com is the bomb on older boxes!

  • ksool, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10While I'll say that the article is probably accurate, I don't think its a strictly windows vs. linux thing. I'd say that aside from gaming and other resource intensive apps, you can really stretch the lifetime of a computer if its properly maintained and malware free. This is probably easier to do with linux, and considering linux favors a more tech savvy crowd, it's not entirely surprising.

    That, and windows tends to over estimate their minimum requirements. The whole rage to buy a new computer to run aero or vista will probably create a whole lot of unnecessary waste when people can stick with xp or an aero-less vista on their current machine.
    • Philluminati, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15
      Agreed.

      An obsolete computer is one that you need to replace away because it is obsolete - It won't run the program / GUI / Game feature you want. People can still run Windows 98 if they want. That has games and a gui and uses hardly any resources.

      It's not the platform thats the problem...Its the USE of that system....And it's up to the people to decide if they want to be green and keep the same machine for years or if they don't.
  • richardland, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2The min requirements of windows is mainly not the OS itself, but the fact every thing you want to do with it requires another 50MB program to do it.
    • GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -7/+850MB program?

      Only the simplest programs are less than 50MB. Most are three or more gigabytes thesedays. Photoshop, Cinema 4D and Adobe Lightroom, including the libraries they create, tack on an extra 15GB to my hard drive.

      That's nothing though. I can get a 500GB hard drive for a hundred and something bucks.
    • betterth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10My full photoshop/imageready installation is around four hundred megs.

      The only programs on my computer that take up more than a gig are games.

      WoW: ~8GB
      Vanguard: ~16GB

      etc etc
    • Harabeck, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Hows Vanguard? I havnt gotten around to trying it.
    • GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@betterth

      I have lots and lots of cache on disk from heavy use. Makes it run faster, so I don't delete it.
    • ldkronos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Adobe Lightroom is under 40MB.

      Even its library database file for my 17000 photographs is only 250MB. Of course, those 17000 photographs take up about 100GB, but that doesn't really count...those exist entirely separate from Lightroom.

      Now, you can also count its image cache, but thats really hard to quantify. You can keep it really small or let it get really large
  • Philluminati, on 10/12/2007, -15/+21"It looks like Vista is almost certainly going to result in a mass dumping of perfectly good computers. For an operating system that, basically, offers two new features,"

    - There's a second one?
    • scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -14/+5What's the first new feature? The 3d desktop? If I got anything other than home basic, I'd switch that crap off anyway. alt-tab ftw.

      As for the 'mass dumping', that's not really what will happen to older computers. Personally, I'll just sell the innards on ebay, or give the whole thing away to a friend.
    • RedLion, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18There are a few hundred ones... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Features_new_to_Windows_Vista&oldid=113532657 but since you're obviously trolling I wonder why I'm answering you in the first place...
    • XVampireX, on 10/12/2007, -14/+16I didn't know DRM is a feature ;)
    • RedLion, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12XVampireX: is it a feature then that on linux you can't play legally hd-dvd/blu-ray media and also DVD media unless you buy some third-party commercial codecs?
    • scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6Redlion: as a Microsoft fanboy in the Linux section, you're the troll by default ;P
    • XVampireX, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4You mean I can't play it legally? Oh, I didn't know... Oh well ;)
    • teknomunk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11RedLion: Are you aware that the exact same thing is required of Windows, the only difference is that codecs usually come with the DVD drive or preinstalled at the factory. It doesn't, however, change the fact that the codecs are third-party and that you are paying for the, the price is just hidden.
    • MWeather, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10It's such a burden hiding my Linux machine when the DVD enforcers come by to ensure all my codecs were legally purchased.
  • ImTheDarkcyde, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27yeah, because linux users don't really have to worry about playing the latest games
    • XVampireX, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5If we had any "latest games" then we'd play them, and that's not the point, it would still consume less power than Windows does.
    • JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -12/+10You mean like Quake 4 which runs slower with windows than my Gentoo GNU/Linux system and Counter Strike: Source which I was just playing with Cedega only to get banned from one of my favorite 24/7 Dust2 servers by a noob admin for having a 5.2 KDR?

      Hey that's why the windows kids hate us so much. They're afraid of the HEADSHOT
    • straxus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3That used to be a problem for me. But anymore, the latest Windows games suck balls imo. (With the sole exception of the upcoming Spore). But I can play damn near any of my 'older' titles on my Linux laptop. I'm currently playing Homeworld, and occasionally fire up UT2004 and DoD:S to keep my reflexes up.
    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Let's see... I'm sure I have the latest version of Nethack around here somewhere...
  • CrazyZ, on 10/12/2007, -14/+13Okay, I'm just plain sick of all these "Linux is the holy grail" stories.

    Here's a news flash. Linux is almost identical to Unix as far as the security, stability, and requirements to run go. Unix is ages old. Unix hasn't been able to accomplish any of the things that Linux is supposed to do. I've been reading bbs's, forums, IRCs for 15 years and subsitute Unix for Linux and you have the exact same age old arguments.

    Why doesn't Unix or Linux have a greater market share? Why does nobody except the tech elite know about or use it?

    I am not knocking the advantages of using free software and all that good stuff, but there has to be a critical piece of the puzzle missing if Unix couldn't make the in roads that everyone now is expecting Linux to make. Which by the way it really isn't no matter how many articles end up on Digg.

    Waiting to be dugg down......as usual.
    • CrazyZ, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5Yes, I understand that Unix is proprietary compared to free, but the platform itself is pretty much the same as Linux......
    • XVampireX, on 10/12/2007, -17/+8Blame microsoft for their monopoly, and Linux is not the same as Unix, it's based on Minix, idiot.
    • Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14@XvampireX:
      Um. Linux is seriously not based on Minix. It may have been partially inspired by Andrew Tenenbaum's book on operating systems, but they share none of the same code, far as I know.

      That said, Linux, Unix and Minix are all POSIX-compliant, which is where all this 'based on' ***** comes from.

      Reserve your cries of 'idiot' until you're sure you're not as black as the pot you're addressing, please.
    • underthelinux, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6The reason you get dugg down is not because you don't like linux, its because your argument is unfounded.
      Its like saying Windows 98 is the same thing as DOS. Don't forget that UNIX was not created for the average consumer. Unix existed for servers and such. The reason microsoft has its market share was because it scored the deal to bundle its OS with hardware companies (dell, gateway, compaq).

      If you don't try for the market share, you'll never get it. Why release firefox, when IE exists? /rhetorical
    • CrazyZ, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Yeah it's based on Minix, so what. Thanks for calling me an idiot when you can't really answer the question. Unix and Linux are in the same family. They utilize the same GUI's, the same CLI structure, and have all the same features and toolsets. Unix is proprietary and Linux is opensource, but they are almost identical in every way. Unix and the Unix world has made the very same arguments that the you Linux fanboys have been making for years longer and yet there is very little consumer market penetration. How is Linux going to be different? I've used it extensively for a good many years and all I've seen come out of it is beryl/compiz and pretty widgets. Pretty much the same thing that MS's been doing. Where's the innovation? Linux tries harder to copy MS in form and functionality to sway a larger userbase and it's gotten pretty much nowhere. The underlying problems still exist even after 10 years. It's still a pain in the ass to configure many aspects of the kernel and the overlaying GUI's. Install applications, dependencies, Video cards. arcane CLI commands. Lack of solid business applications, games of course. I could go on and on.

      But let's not look at where Linux is still continuing to fail the end user just like Unix and instead just call me an idiot.....
    • XVampireX, on 10/12/2007, -7/+51. Unix and Linux are POSIX it's true, but Linux is still based on Minix (At least inspired). You can ask the man himself.
      2. Open Source and Free Software are not the same. And Linux is Free Software.
      3. I'm using Linux only for a year now.
      4. http://www.rpgdot.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=3166014#3166014
      5. Chicken and Egg, man.
      6. Microsoft copies from Unix, you idiot.
      7. Innovation? You call Windows Innovation? I see much more than Beryl and Compiz and Pretty Widgets on Linux... I see functionality :) Also, Beryl and Compiz also have usable effects like the desktop cube which helps users with working on multiple desktops easily. And scale which helps users quickly switch to their window if they got many open.
      8. There are only a few places where it's hard to configure, the rest I found much easier than Windows (And that includes software installation).

      I can go on, you're still an idiot.

      Oh and the only reason why Linux is still not dominant on the Desktop is because of Microsoft monopoly. That doesn't mean that they are better...
    • CrazyZ, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3@XVampireX

      Nice comments.... I didn't say Microsoft was innovative. I said Linux wasn't. Everything a Linux distro provides to the end user, MS or Apple have already done, and no Unix hasn't been copied from in many regards as the GUI is Apple and MS's playground, and they all have Xerox to thank for that anyway.

      The only thing any Linux distro has done in the last 5 years is try to re-invent the wheel that MS or Apple has already invented, and the OSS community has failed in almost every regard. Name 10 applications that have even half the market penetration of their MS or Apple counterparts, then tell me why the average end user who has already purchased the better MS or Apple based product should throw it all out the window and migrate to any Linux distro?

      I'll help you.

      1. Quicken2006
      2. TurboTax
      3. Quickbooks
      4. PhotoShop
      5. GarageBand
      6. Office
      7. AutoCAD
      8. Adobe Premiere Elements 3.0
      9. Any home design or planning software
      10. iTunes, or any other online Music store and interface.

      Nuff said.


    • curtisc, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@shakin

      I apologize for being off topic, but could you tell me how you got beryl to work on your graphics card? Is there a guide you followed or something? I've been trying to get it to work with my ati 9600 pro card and it's definitely not smooth.
    • dwbell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3CrazyZ, at this point the only 2 things that are holding back Linux marketing share is gaming and a marketing department.
    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"Why doesn't Unix or Linux have a greater market share?"

      Because you're not thinking about _which_ market.

      UNIX servers and proprietary mainframes have indeed existed for decades longer than Windows. But Windows has no presence in mainframes, and Windows "servers" are a joke compared to what UNIX has been successfully doing the whole time.

      If you mean, specifically, single-user graphical "desktop" computers, then you must also mean those machines which were too slow to run UNIX when the choice was only UNIX and DOS.

      The "desktop" is a very recent development. The reason people think it's everything is because it is what they _see_. It is the only computer they have experience with, and therefore they assume that it is the only computer. Microsoft Windows does indeed have a huge mind-share, because that is what people have been accustomed to _seeing_.

      Microsoft was so completely focused upon the "single user desktop" that they didn't even include a TCP/IP network package in Windows95 for the first 6 months it was shipping. It also was and is impossible to run a Windows based machine without a GUI, so it is worthless as a replacement for UNIX.

      Linux, in comparison, is highly effective in a server environment. GUI or no GUI, hard-disk or boot-CD or boot-flash or boot-memorystick, the hardware requirements of Linux are exceedingly small and it runs on almost anything. Cell phones to mainframes, what Linux has been supplanting is the proprietary OS, proprietary protocols, proprietary formats.

      The overwhelming majority of the top 500 supercomputers in the world are running Linux.

      A large majority of the every-day servers reachable on the 'Net are running Linux. More than that are running F/OSS server software, even if they're running it on Windows. But don't forget UNIX, which is running on many of those servers too.

      Windows runs on, what, i386 and IA64? Windows might as well be considered a niche OS selling to game otaku.

      Microsoft is an island in a sea of OpenSource. Microsoft contines to leverage their closed protocols, their proprietary formats, their "mind share" and familiarity, to sell less functionality than is available for free to anyone who looks outside the Microsoft sphere.

      But come on! Most people don't even think that there are people who believe in a different _religion_ than they do, and there's not a religion in the entire world that has more than a 50% market share. :^)

      The vast majority of computer users, if you sat them down one day with FireFox and OpenOffice on Linux, wouldn't know or care that they weren't using "Windows".

      The single, overwhelming reason you think Microsoft has the "market share" you think they do is because Windows is pre-installed on retail OEM hardware. You _see_ it. It is advertised.

      Look anywhere else than retail OEM, and Linux is flourishing.

    • CrazyZ, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@curthowland

      What you write looks very good, but considering that MS servers still account for over 50% of the enterprise server market share compared to Linux at about 30%, and over 70% of the messenging server market share compared to about 7% on Linux platforms, with both rising, and if netcraft is to be believed at all, then IIS 6.0 is chipping away at apache, so I fail to see how microsoft is the niche player in either the business or consumer realm? I won't even try to quote numbers for things such as Office etc. Now with Apple starting to really gain momentum, both Microsoft and Linux will most likely loose a little bit to them as well. I will not deny that Linux is definitely making inroads on the server side, but it cannot be denied that Apple is already chipping away at not only MS's consumer market share, but Linux's as well. Since Linux has more to loose, you do the math.
    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ CrazyZ,

      You're counting _sales_, not running servers.


  • FrankieB078, on 10/12/2007, -11/+8We're worried about "computer waste" now?? *Rolls eyes*
    • XVampireX, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2dugg you up, that was funny.
    • cooppw02, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8"We're worried about "computer waste" now?? *Rolls eyes*"

      You're joking, right? Computers have significant amounts of lead and mercury in them. They can't just be thrown in the trash, they must go through a special recycling process.
    • sanford42, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4i'm no "environmentalist whacko", but, i did work for a company that handled recycling of discarded computers located right in the middle of the Dallas/Ft Worth area. it's a LOT of waste, and most of it is toxic. We literally took in 2-3 truckloads of discarded computers each day.

      and by "truck" i mean "fully loaded 18-wheeler trailer", not "beat up 88 datsun pickup"

      yeah, the average home user throwing a Pentium II system in the trash may not be much, but, when a large corporation considers going with Vista and is "forced" to upgrade, say, 5000 machines, that turns into a lot of waste.

      basically, all they're saying is instead of 1.) wasting money on relatively useless upgrades, and 2.) throwing all those systems in the trash, just throw a linux distro on them and keep the machine.
  • XVampireX, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10What about the electricity/energy these computers produce? :P
    • ldkronos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I don't know about you , but my computer consumes (not produces) energy
    • dhughes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4 I think you mean "use".

      edit: too slow.
  • kil0byte, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7We might as well go back to 14.4 modems as well, and greenscreens with coax. More speed = more energy = more waste. And who needs a GUI? Everyone in the world should become a systems administrator in order to download videos and mp3s.

    People aren't exactly running out to upgrade to Vista. It's just going to be what you get on most new PCs. I know for sure we aren't upgrading any systems to Vista- period. XP will be supported for the next 8 years, so this argument is somewhat moot.

    I do agree that linux lets you blow off the dust of your old P1 and get that blazing 133MHz system to chomp through-- what exactly? Reading ELM or Pine? Browsing the web with Lynx? What the hell do you do with a computer so slow it can't run any modern applications? PUT LINUX ON IT! ;) Keeping these energy inefficient POSes around sounds like more of a waste to me-- they should be recycled...
    • XVampireX, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4You have no idea what the meaning of System Administration is, those who use their computers have to work with their computer, they have to manage their computers, in some way. Lets just say that everyone is a system administrator.

      And there are plenty of great things that you can do with slower computers. Put them as routers, put them as web servers, or use their resources for one of those @home projects. There are also games for the console (nethack, there are others, of course). And if you got enough ram (64mb) you can work in a lightweight X environment (That means a window manager of some sort).
    • kil0byte, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I do know what systems administration is, since I am a Systems Administrator!!! Wow me with your literal acrobatics.

      I just don't to see things the way you do (so u criticize me). People don't want linux IN GENERAL because they do not want the learning curve or the responsibility associated with total control of a computer system. So they hire others to "administrate" their systems, and they get easy to use point-and-click OSes that allow them to use the computer as it was meant-- a TOOL.

      And all the great things u mentioned-- making routers, web servers, etc. Is that efficient? Using all these old energy hogs with fans and moving parts, when you can just buy a netgear or run a webserver on a webhost? Come on...
  • tonyellard, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6This article assumes that what drives users to toss out computers is the operating system...which isn't always the case. If I upgrade hardware, it's generally because I can't play a game or can't play a game well due to hardware limitations. If photoshop starts to seem pokey on me I might look at throwing some extra memory into my box or think about upgrading my processor. OR if the hardware market makes a change that forces me to throw out a bunch of my hardware in order to upgrade further (cough...pci-e...cough..), then I might consider it.

    People like my parents, who are not computer saavy, had their computer for 5+ years and only replaced it when I told them that they needed to upgrade lest I go insane trying to care for their old PC. Enterprise customers most likely have some sort of lease agreement that allows them to swap out equipment every couple of years to stay on the bleeding edge of hardware. While XP has been on my desktop, I've been through 2 or 3 computers at work, as they are constantly upgrading and taking my machine to replace even older ones elsewhere in the company.

    Although major releases like Vista may drive a decision to upgrade, in the corporate world where undoubtedly a majority of the computers are, they aren't going to be jumping right on board with Vista.

    Linux, Windows...whatever plays World of Warcraft.
  • jlebrech, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1680% of the worlds population only needs a 600mhz CPU and 256mb of ram. Yet with Windows Vista you still need a 2Ghz CPU for Joe average to run his word processor.
    • CrazyZ, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Have you seriously run any of the latest popular Linux distro's recently? You really think that a 600mhz PC with 256mb of ram is enough to run them efficiently?

      I've run a 700mhz Pentium II with 512mb of ram and some versions of Redhat and Suse in years past and sorry to report but they ran like crap. I have two workstations. One is an AMD Athlon 2600 with 1gig of ram and an ATI 9600 Video card dual booted with XP Pro and openSuSe 10.2. XP runs faster in some things and slower in others, and neither OS is any less stable than the other. I have a workstation that is an AMD 64 X2 4000 with 1gig of ram and a BFG6800 video card dualbooted with Vista Ultimate and Ubuntu 6.10. Same exact thing. Neither loaded OS is faster than the other or less stable.

      I couldn't imagine either of my workstations running these OS's with 600mhz processor and 256mb of ram. They'd suck.
    • Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6@CrazyZ:
      You're using the wrong distro for a lightweight computer. Try Slax, Xubuntu or Damn Small Linux.
    • coredump0x01, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3I've run Knoppix on a Pentium 2 233MHz 256MB pc100 with no hard drive and it was usable, even from the CD as long as you don't let it use KDE, even KDE wasn't horribly unusable, just took longer for programs to load. If you really want to revive old hardware, Install DSL, Arch Linux, Vector Linux, Deli Linux, or any of the many distro's specialized for old hardware. Of course old machines won't run the latest, fattest distro's w/o 256mb+ ram, but use the right distro and they fly. I've run DSL on a Pentium 1 120MHz with only 32mb EDO RAM and it was just enough for web browsing/word processing. It's still in use by people who come over for them to check their myspace/email, right next to the Athlon 3500+ media center PC that runs Arch and Myth TV.
    • dhughes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@ CrazyZ My five year old AMD 2200, 1.5GB RAM, ATI 9600XT running Beryl with lots of fancy animations and other options turned on, and it runs fine.
    • XTX7X, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Sure, but whoever suggested a light linux distro... No. The point was that 80% of the world only *needs* that, but lightweight distros are so bloody damned hard to configure and get software working that i'd say fewer than 10% of computer users could figure it out. I'm pretty experienced with Linux and I've never been able to get them to do what I want. As for other distros like Ubuntu, my 500 MHz K6/512 MB SDram runs it like *****. If only I could switch back to Windows 98.. it's completely unusable now. My old PIII 1 GHz/384 MB RAM/ Geforce 2 MX died under SuSE 10. New distros really take faster hardware than most people would like to think.
    • superpotential, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@crazyz

      yes, if you run xfce or gnome instead of kde. i've got xubuntu running on a 600mhz with 256 MB RAM and it runs openoffice and firefox pretty smoothly (except for the god-*****-damn sliding comments on digg). that's 90% of what average joe wants out of a computer anyway. even youtube and dvd playback work great.

      i've also got a 300mhz ultra-mobile PC running debian and fluxbox, which i carry around. it runs firefox 2.0 a little slow but definitely usable. mind you, these are the latest versions of these distros i'm running with all the security fixes. on the other hand, microsoft stops supporting their old OSes, forcing users to upgrade software, which has even more stringent hardware requirements every time.
  • czeman, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Linux or Windows......it's a matter of personal preference. I prefer the security and stability of Linux, but I also like the ease of use Windows provides. I am all for Linux, but Linux won't beat Windows unless it becomes much easier to install most programs and resolve software dependencies. Not everyone wants to be a Sysop.

    That said...the real problem with computer waste is not the OS, but the idiots throwing their computers away instead of selling them or giving them to someone else that can use them.
    • MrSunshine, on 10/21/2007, -4/+3Less new hardware to produce = more unemployment
    • MrSunshine, on 10/21/2007, -2/+2Sorry, shouldn't have been a reply to your comment.
  • trakais, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5open source my ass, there are no photoshop alternatives (gimp does not have 16 bit or CMYK support ...), no illustrator alternatives (inkscape doesn't understand my AI files, and crashes on larger SVG files), no serious RAW editors (maybe LightZone, but it's java and has limited features), no CAD software, no normal Flash editors/creators, no PDF editors etc.

    LINUX is for coders, servers and simple office machines. it's not for work!
    • lisuebie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Don't you think there is a leverage problem here? So far, MS has locked up 98% of offices. Who is going to put vast amounts of time and money into producing ever fancier work applications for a non-existent user group?

      As the second and third worlds get into computer usage, as state and country level tax-funded governments come up for upgrade, if even a third of them choose to go with linux, then suddenly the user base will justify the development. That is my prediction at least.

      And I don't think that linux users are all unwilling to pay for proprietary programs. There just have to be enough buyers to justify the programming effort.
    • arglborps, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3open source my ass, there are no photoshop alternatives (gimp does not have 16 bit or CMYK support ...), no illustrator alternatives (inkscape doesn't understand my AI files, and crashes on larger SVG files), no serious RAW editors (maybe LightZone, but it's java and has limited features), no CAD software, no normal Flash editors/creators, no PDF editors etc.

      LINUX is for coders, servers and simple office machines. it's not for work!

      To be fair CinePaint (a.k.a. FilmGIMP) does support 16 bit, but that doesn't help the GUI abortion that it represents. Same with InkScape. I've tried to like it. I've ignored the fact that I have to run it via X11 on OS X, I've ignored the fact that due to this all the dialogues for opening and saving files suck a banana, and are just completely ignorant of all things OS X, but I simply couldn't cope with finger acrobatic ***** like Control+anykey shortcuts and much more than that I couldn't stand the usability abortion that InkScape is. How can anyone be productive on such software? It's a riddle to me...
    • mooninite, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"CMYK support"

      Gimp has had CMYK support since 2005. Check out the 2.3.x release branch.

      I hate trolls.
    • Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1GIMP seriously has CMYK support? I'd swear I just read a blog entry a couple of months ago written by a guy who does graphic arts for a living. He says he uses GIMP at home but has to use Photoshop at work because of the CMYK thing. The article was interesting because he feels that GIMP offers most of what Photoshop offers for the average user, but he couldn't recommend it because of the lack of CMYK support. He must have been using an older version of it and just didn't bother to upgrade.

      Thanks for the heads up.
    • KingWrecked, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4
      "open source my ass, there are no photoshop alternatives (gimp does not have 16 bit or CMYK support ...)"

      http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/

      "no illustrator alternatives (inkscape doesn't understand my AI files, and crashes on larger SVG files)"

      Doesn't crash on mine.

      "no serious RAW editors (maybe LightZone, but it's java and has limited features)"

      Dunno about that one but I have no use for it anyway.

      "no CAD software"

      http://www.tech-edv.co.at/lunix/CADlinks.html

      no normal Flash editors/creators, no PDF editors etc.

      Sure if I dug hard enough I'd find something

      LINUX is for coders, servers and simple office machines. it's not for work!

      Or on the other hand if you mean you can't get Photoshop, Illustrator, AutoCAD, Adobe PDF creator for Linux it's undeniable but if you look hard enough and can afford to put in the time you can find most things.
    • superpotential, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@arglborps

      the fact that software sucks on linux is not linux's fault. you're comparing free software (gimp) to something you pay a lot for (photoshop), and imho the free one does pretty damn good for being free. if adobe made photoshop for linux, i'd be willing to buy it. but until then, don't blame the OS itself.
    • goyira, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@trakais
      Maybe Linux is not for YOUR work. I'm a chemist and Linux IS for my work. It can run all the programs I need for my job (in Windows I don't have all the software I need, and the software that support windows runs faster in Linux anyway).

      And, in the other hand, coding IS work for some people.

      Man, you need to stop that ego. Graphic Design is not the only profession in the world and even if the fact that Linux doesn't have the software you need were true it does not make it bad. Just not for you



  • Kuhnaydeein, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I wonder where Macs would appear on the obsolescence graph... Not only to people keep the hardware forever (See: My 1984 Apple //c, G3 All In One, G4 iMac, Macintosh IIsi, PowerMac 7600 A/V... and I plan to keep my 12" PowerBook G4 just as long!) as well as the fact that you can install the latest version of OS X on anything with a G3 Processor Up to current machines (And all the older ones with software).
    • arglborps, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1No kidding and it runs quite acceptably. That's what most non OS X user don't know. Although OS X gets tons of new features with each major (major here means .x) version upgrade, Apple also appears to optimize the ***** out of it.

      10.2 on my G3/400 MHz was molasses. 10.3 was acceptable 10.4 is quite OK.
  • thelimopit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I try to keep my hardware for as long as possible, ie until it breaks. Up until quite recently I had a six-year-old secondary 13.5gb HD and secondary DVD/CDRW in my PC, both of which still worked perfectly. I am a gamer, but I'm really not bothered about playing the latest titles because there's a massive back catalogue of utterly adequate games to discover out there, and they're pretty damn cheap too.

    Also, if I do upgrade, I give all my old parts to my dad who puts them to good use in his PC - and as he's even less bothered about having the latest hardware than me, it works out quite well.
    As the old saying goes: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
  • Toast1185, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I think eWaste is created by people wanting to play games and have fun with their computers. I could still be running windows 98 if I felt like it.
    • superpotential, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3ewaste is fine, just make sure it goes to africa or asia intact.
  • hokeywhiteboy, on 10/12/2007, -18/+7Give it up FFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I have worked in IT for 25 years, and I can tell you that Linux will never be mainstream. NEVER!

    LINUX WILL NEVER BE MAINSTREAM!

    LINUX WILL NEVER BE MAINSTREAM!

    LINUX WILL NEVER BE MAINSTREAM!

    LINUX WILL NEVER BE MAINSTREAM!

    LINUX WILL NEVER BE MAINSTREAM!

    LINUX WILL NEVER BE MAINSTREAM!
    • Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7Wow. Looks like the MS shills' brainwashing is screaming in desperation. Either that, or the Spirit of the Ballmer is in ya'.
    • subgeniusd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@hokeywhiteboy - if Linux is such an inferior OS in _your_ opinion why do you care so much? You got sexual issues with that cute penguin or something?
    • Doriath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I have worked in IT for 25 years,"

      Dude, you're obviously not even 25 years old.
  • TurdFurgison, on 10/21/2007, -7/+10What about all the power used when searching the forums for hours to do something as simple as mounting a drive. No thanks.
  • masterofNone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5i wonder what the typical hardware refresh period is for a mac.
    • cecplex, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I'd imagine it's between 3-4 years; however, that's very biased and any stats you see would be very biased as of late due to the tremendous changes Apple's been doing to their hardware. (Example: Intel's were released and EVERYONE jumped for joy.) Once the upgrades level off again, we should be able to get a better view at the refresh periods.
    • arglborps, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I still have my 7600/132 (used to be a PPC 604!) upgraded with a G3/400 card a new graphic card, an ultra ATA controller + disk and run OS X 10.4 on it (yes it is possible with a few tricks). I'm not thinking about trying out a few Linux distros just for ***** and grins.
      That thing is now 11 years old and still OK.

      I might as well put OS 9 on it just to run virtual gamestation (playstation emulator) on it again... So much for games.

      Having said that I also have a 17" Aluminium G4 PowerBook. Still fine, though 4 years old already, too.
  • cecplex, on 10/21/2007, -6/+9This is the most ridiculous article I've ever read. The reason Linux is less prone to E-Waste is due to it's ability to run on lighter and cheaper hardware configs. This is like saying modern day gaming systems are a waste because they run on high quality hardware, WE'D SAVE BILLIONS IF EVERYONE PLAYED A NINTENDO STILL! Give me a break. Hardware choices are a matter of the performance expected, and while Windows Vista's requirements are a bit ridiculous, that doesn't mean that "Open Source" is the answer. I have OS X Tiger running on a 400Mhz PPC Processor just as smoothly as it runs Fedora Core 5.

    I still can't understand why the world praises open source as the savior...I love it, but come on, these articles are just inflated *****.
    • Fordi, on 10/21/2007, -3/+3Question:
      If better hardware is the key to good gaming, why do more Super NES's still sell on Amazon than PS3's?
    • cecplex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm not sure how you read that post and derived that "Better hardware is the key to good gaming"; however, if the price points were the same, I'd imagine those numbers would level off. (And yes, Super NES had great games, and maybe that's why people still want them.)
    • lisuebie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually I understand that the new Neverwinternights is being based in game play on Baldur's Gate. Point is, good gaming is much more game concept and joy of play than resource hungry better shading, life-like physics and gorgeous pics. Most modern games are about potency comparisons rather than game joy. Why else is Counter-Strike the reference? That game is nearly as old as I am :)

      So really what we need now is a linux-loving philanthropist to fund a small group of game-developers in creating a set of low-resource high-fun open-source modifiable linux based desktop games. And then fund the advertising campaign to make them known.
    • subgeniusd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"So really what we need now is a linux-loving philanthropist to fund a small group of game-developers"

      Sounds like a call-out to Mr. Shuttleworth. Of course then we'd have 100 Ubuntu submissions/day here instead of the usual 20 or 30.............
  • hiney, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6...and cause thousands of hours of e-frustration!
  • homli, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5What about the impact on the power grid? Running more, older PCs rather than less, newer PCs means burning through quite a bit more electricity.
    • cecplex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I didn't even consider that, newer technologies are utilizing power better, especially in the past 2-3 years. (As noted with the decrease in the "Speed Race" and an increase in the "Power Consumption Race"
    • XTX7X, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That's very true. Core 2 Duos are using 40% less electricity than the previous generation of chips and are obscenely faster. the only monster we really have to slow down would be the graphics cards. Come on, my 8800 GTS eats up nearly 200W.. ATI's R600 is going to be 300!
  • Nodaki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Even my mom wants a new computer every 5 years. In computers OLD=UGLY. You can't blame people for ditching their beige CRT and crappy tower. Linux will not solve vanity.
  • EzarKun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3who is this author? I am using a P4 2.8GHz, 1Gig of Ram, ATi x3000 (all visuals ON + Aero).
    And everything is fucntioning faster than XP. Just some glitches here and there I guess, cause I am still working in RC2 lolol:p
  • glue, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Computers generally take longer to become obsolete anyway. Imagine being in 1987 trying to use a machine built in 1977. Now, imagine today using a machine built in 1997. You can still go on the internet, you can still run office software, you can still play Half-life, etc.
  • chrispat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1You are all ***** stupid if you think that running Vista means throwing away a computer and switching from Windows do Mac does not. Bottom line many people have run computers with Windows from the 90s to today can you say the same for Mac? No to use OSX you HAVE TO BUY A NEW COMPUTER FROM APPLE ONLY.
    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Actually, my PowerMac G3 from 1998 runs OSX (10.2) at home......

      What was your point again?
    • arglborps, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I've been using OS X ever since. It's not like there have been no OS X users up to this day. So, yes there are old Macs and even quite some old ones of them (G3 upwards) can run OS X 10.4 quite nicely, or 10.3 which is pretty good, too.
    • chrispat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I didin't say you couldn't run OSX on an older MAC I said that if I were going to switch from Windows to MAC I would have to buy new Hardware. And I have a PC from 2000 that runs Vista just fine.
  • sruffelman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Who actually waits for his computer to completely die before getting a new one?
    • Aliarse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Me.

      I've no need to upgrade for the things i do with it, only when i really truly need to upgrade will it get upgraded. Not because theres a new game out that requires xzy to play at 1280x1024 with 16xAA/AF so i get about 25 fps.

      My current rig is about 3/4 years old, although my GFX card is about 8/9 years, due to my "New"er one dying recently.
  • haooken, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I hear snake oil works wonders...
  • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hrrrm... this reeks of bias.

    I like linux as much as anyone, but do you really thing computing habits(power consumption, upgrading hardware, etc...) change just due to the OS?
  • lisuebie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"A typical hardware refresh period for Microsoft Windows is 3-4 years. A major UK manufacturing organization quotes its hardware refresh period for Linux systems as 6-8 years."

    What I miss in this discussion is the understanding that most PCs aren't home office and game toys, but business tools. And if MS is going to phase out support for XP and its compatible programs, then businesses have a problem. They can go with MS and pay MS's prices and buy new machines to support Vista, or they can look around to see what will likely last longer the next time around. And far as I know, most business usage doesn't need high powered machines- just something to handle spread sheets, data banks, basic office and functioning networks with reliable security. And somebody to fix the glitch when one pops up.

    MS is basically saying- here, we've fixed our security problems, we've made interaction with our system easier. Now you MUST migrate with us, and pay us for the privilege, because we are not going to support our old systems anymore.

    Some folk are a bit twitchy at the imperative.
  • dr-steve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9A serious aspect that hasn't been touched: Corporate refresh cycles and the current different usage populations of the two stated environments.

    In the "real world", corporations plan on hardware refresh cycles. Due to politics, needs to keep people on a common platform, etc., corporations plan on a 3-4 year (at most) hardware lifecycle. (Yes, there are many examples of companies that don't, but most large companies DO.)

    Whatever platform is being used, it will be refreshed in that span. And the older hardware will be recycled. Right now, the core platform is Windows. Hence, Windows platforms are recycled at a high rate. If/when Linux becomes predominant in major corporations, the same Linux boxes will be refreshed at that higher rate.

    Home servers, skunkworks operations, etc., are a different story. They aren't subject to the refresh cycle, relying instead on low-cost platforms. Linux is a more solid choice, these populations will have longer lifecycle equipmenet, hence, the "age" of the average Linux box is boosted.

    A solid study would normalize with respect to usage patterns. Common corporate environments vs. common corporate environments (will your business exec put up with a six-year-old system, say, a Celeron 450?). Home vs. home (how many non-tech friends do you have that are still running Win98? Win2K?). Skunkworks servers vs. skunkworks servers.

    Then you'll have meaningful results.

    Steve
    • CrazyZ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Best comment yet. I dugg you up for your level headed and realistic comment. What you say cannot in anyway be denied by either camp.
    • AlbinoRaven, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Agreed,

      It's unfortunate that as technicial staff we tend to live in a self created bubble of newer, better, faster. I suppose the same could be said of any trade, plumbers/electricians/carpenters want better materials and tools too.

      However for some of the home clients I service occasionally they still run P1 with windows 3.11 or 95, mainly because it's a tool they know how to use and afford. The corp/government environments I contract to are built to purposely evergreen their equipment to make sure that they have a capital expense built in for the year while also giving that tax deduction of equipment amortization over a four year business continuity plan.

      In fact every month the GoC dumps the amortized equipment/cars/office stuff/odd stuff on auction here:
      http://crownassets.pwgsc.gc.ca/search/regcom-e.cfm

      For the corp side of things, usually they deal with refuribishers as it's expensive to dump hazardous materials into a recycle program. If the corp finds a refurbisher, the company can recover some capital from the sale of older equipment. eBay is an excellent example, where else can you buy all the equipment a defunct ISP used to use for DSL services?

      Between the two, gov/corp, they typically have a plan to sell their old equipment and avoid the landfill. The home user is more likely to put a box by the curb than an office is. The fact it's linux or windows or an older Mac is a canard. It really has everything to do with the responsibility of the organization and the processes in place to deal with phased out hardware and equipment
  • jimmiejaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's not the OS that's keeping the machines around longer, it's the user. *nix users are more apt. to upgrade hardware, X, Firefox on a P1/128M... Windows users (gamers not included) are more apt to buy a whole new system.

    Yes, console apps only, elinks(has tabs) mp3blaster, mutt... all make a fine box, even with 64M, but you can't compare to a GUI box.

    Execpt for security fixes, general rule of thumb, "If it's not broke, don't change it"
  • gadfly22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4While the linux vs. MS debate is endlessly fascinating (as usual), an important corollary of this story is (I think) being overlooked.

    Linux on machines = machines being used longer = fewer computer sales by Dell, HP, Gateway etc. = a compelling reason for those companies NOT to offer machines loaded with Linux.

    MS is the computer-maker's friend, so long as it cranks out new versions of Windows that forces -- or at least makes people consider -- upgrading their computer hardware, whether entire systems or new RAM or new and more compatible peripherals. The Linux crowd (of which I'm one) will need to keep relentless pressure on those computer-maker's if Linux -- which really is ready for the desktop -- is to be a common offering as a built-in product. Otherwise, the Dells of the world have every incentive to ignore Linux and hype their good friend Windows.
  • writerboyVSgod, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I bought the second gen iMac, gave it to my mother because she just needs a machine to surf online and edit photos. I got a G3 iBook and after using it for a few years gave it to my girlfriend who has been using it ever since for college and teaching. In that time I also got a MacMini (Running Ubuntu), which I use as an entertainment TiVo type thing. Now all I use is my MBP, but nothing has gone to waste.

    I got my grandmother a Dell with Windows two years ago and I basically have to zero the hard drive and start fresh ever 9 months. It is so full of viruses, bloatware, adware, garbage that it becomes unusable. That iMac I gave my mother has been running (and on!) for about 2 years straight and hasn't given her one problem.
  • The_Dude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+550% reduction in hardware sales doesn't sound good for the economy to me. In fact, sounds like it would cause job elimination, among other things.
    • AlbinoRaven, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yup,

      Don't say it too loudly though or people will start to think.
    • Eccles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Do you go around breaking windows? Because that would create job opportunities for glaziers and installers.

      You improve people's lives by destroying jobs, not creating them. Most people worked in farming in the nineteenth century. Farm technology has made it so that less than 10% of Americans work on farms. Are the rest out of work due to those job-destroying combine harvesters? No, they moved to producing other things -- like computers.

      If computers were fast enough and capacious enough that no one needed to upgrade, then the money we didn't spend on new machines would be available for other things, and people would work to create those other things instead. My refrigerator isn't obsolete in three years, nor my dishwasher, but that hasn't killed the economy.

      Along those lines, I've wondered if we're starting to reach a plateau in video gaming. The PS3 and Xbox360 support High-Def, making them a big win over the older systems. And even a Wii looks much better than an N64. But how much more room for improvement is there? How many more generations will there be before the improvements no longer matter enough for people to care?
  • digi691, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Now that M$' bloated OS will have windows users throwing away their old PCs, I will be able to save them all and create my super Linux cluster to take over the world! Now I just need to breed all the gerbils to keep the wheels going that power them :-/
  • TabooTreez, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1That is very sad. Considering all the metal, platic, and etc. used to make the computer. It is also sad because of how many people around the world that could have used these computers to learn or maybe even find a job on or a way to get food for thier families. They dont even have the previlage to use a computer or even have eltircity for that matter. While the money hungry nations have piles of old computers laying around in garbge dumps and billions are spend on bombs....
    • subgeniusd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ummm .... isn't this what the One Laptop Per Child initiative is all about?
    • AlbinoRaven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Which will become, "One laptop per child seized by the local guerilla militia to be used to smash the oppressive police state regime".

      or

      "One laptop per child only to be sold to provide for larger concerns like food/water/clothing"
  • Punch405, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2When my router died, I took a 766MHz dell with 256M RAM (Rambus, NOT going to buy any more) and slapped Slackware on it. Stuck in another NIC, and use that for my router. I didn't have any other use for it anyway. Works like a champ, and besides the power requirements being higher, it's far better than a standalone router box.

    /still have my first PC, Panasonic Sr. Partner circa 1985, and it still works
    //packrat
  • gertin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Really, Unix-like operating systems makes older hardware useful again? And the sky is blue you say? What a world we live in.
  • captaineuphoria, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Linux is superior.
  • goofballjm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7My desktop is a P3 500 running Gentoo. I got it for free from a school I was doing IT for back in '04. My machine that was about the same age died on me and they gave this to me. I added some ram, an 80GB drive, and a CDRW. The machine has been fine ever since. It's 8 years old, hosts 3 websites, runs DNS, Samba for file sharing, proxy for internet use, hosts a shoutcast stream, on top of everything else. I moved a year ago and have rebooted the machine only 3 times.
  • infra172, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1And if we all went to DOS we'd never have to upgrade ever. How long has Linux been around? And there's still no easy, uniform way to install software or hardware. Windows is superior to Linux.
    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"And there's still no easy, uniform way to install software or hardware."

      Go away, Troll. The counter-examples have been posted so often and so widely that you must be deliberately copying from the Microsoft playbook.

    • argotechnica, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Easier is not always better. That's why Linux is not "uniform": customization equals control. 'Cause anyway, do you *really* know what your Windows box is doing behind the screen when you're not looking?
  • MrShifty, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Ironically, the site displays funny in Firefox. Here's the text:

    So it looks like Vista is almost certainly going to result in a mass dumping of perfectly good computers. For an operating system that, basically, offers two new features, this is certainly unfortunate. But what can be done? Well, A report from the government of the United Kingdom discussing the benefits of open source software indicates that Linux could certainly alleviate this problem.

    "A typical hardware refresh period for Microsoft Windows is 3-4 years. A major UK manufacturing organisation quotes its hardware refresh period for Linux systems as 6-8 years." A significant difference...a doubling even, of the lifetime of a computer.

    Thus, a world using Linux would be a world with half the computer waste (and, admittedly, halved sales for Dell and the rest.)

    A widespread switch to Linux could prevent millions of tons of waste from going into landfills. Every computer not needed would prevent the use of 240 kg of fossil fuels. Spread that out over the 17.5 million computers that wouldn't be going obsolete every year and Linux could deliver the world a much more sustainable future.

    The good news is, the world looks like it's increasingly ready to upgrade from Windows. Most of Asia has switched, as least in part, to Open Source Software (OSS); some countries, such as Indonesia, also think that Linux changes scofflaws into legit users. Cuba has reported a 500 percent increase in Linux installation in two years; of course, they can't really get Windows due to export restrictions. Big Blue is giving a specific tutorial to switch from Windows to Linux, and two out of three Dell customers are now demanding that The Bird be pre-installed.

    Many versions of Linux will run on a Pentium 1 with 128MB of RAM, while Slackware can run on a 486. It's also generally free, and available for download, so there's no packaging or shipping associated. Linux, it turns out, is far and away the most green way to run your home computer system. And, these days, it's as simple, as usable, and almost as pretty, as OSX or Vista anyhow.
  • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3My bittorrent server runs on a 1GHz Athalon that I pulled out of someone's trash. I have a 350MHz K6 laptop that, while it certainly isn't useful for transcoding video, works very well as a backup machine.

    Even that 350MHz K6, from 1998, runs the latest kernel, OpenOffice, Firefox and Konqueror, and certainly every command-line tool there is.

    It's not that "Unix style OSs make older hardware useful", that's almost an absurd statement.

    Turn it around. The hardware is not "un-useful", in fact the hardware is exactly the same. It is that the operating system that people _THINK OF_ when they think of PCs has become such a resource hog that you need a supercomputer to run it.

    Innovation works to make things faster, smaller, cheaper. That's why the price of computing hardware has dropped so remarkably.

    It is only software which people seem to accept as constantly getting slower, bigger, and more expensive. And while Linux 2.6 is certainly bigger than Linux 2.0, it will at least run on the same hardware.

    "Another version of Windows, another new computer". And people act surprised?

    • argotechnica, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius-and a lot of courage-to move in the opposite direction." -Albert Einstein

      So I think you've found the key: "the hardware is exactly the same." OSes have just become bloated.
  • starguy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3LINUX DON'T CUT IT ON THE LOW END - and here's why...

    What is needed on the low end, is a good distro, that can (1) run on a 486 or Pentium 1, (2) run decently on a machine with only 32mb RAM, (3) fit in under 500 mb harddrive space, (4) support lots of old ethernet drivers and video card drivers, (5) support a modern browser (Firefox or Opera), and (6) can be ghosted.

    After evaulating all the old linux distros compiled for 486, and I mean a lot of them, as well as some funky far out stuff... Windows 95 with Opera kept winning out every time. The fact that in ran in under 32mb of RAM, ran a modern browser like Opera, and could be ghosted, cinched the deal. (As a plus you add the Resource Meter to the Startup Item, and have it warn with resource use got over 90%... and adding Process Tamer helps)

    There was a whole HUGE generation of 486 and p1 machines that shipped with 32 mbs of RAM and 640mb drives, and this is the box you are LOCKED into when dealing with old machines. The only thing useful you can do with these machines are turn them into SNES emulator game boxs or a real poor mans websurfing station. Anything that can't meet what I call the 486/32/640 spec is upgraded to that, or parted out.

    Apple stuff does not fare well for recycling, because it makes a very poor websurfing station (the old Mac webbrowsers crash a lot and are hella slow)... and so most of Apple stuff gets junked or loaded with old mac games and given to kids... as all you can do on them is play around in wordprossors or a paint program or play video games. The old 8bit relics too get junked, nothing you can do with them but add them to your antique collection.
    • subgeniusd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I stopped by Staples this morning (for overseas friends a big US Office Supply chain) and noticed Lenovos on sale for $399. 1.6GHz/512Ram/40GbHD/15.4"screen.

      Point being that decent hardware is available so cheap these days that only a tiny fraction of the computing public cares about keeping ancient hardware on life support. That said I really admire diehard hackers who can make their old setups sing and dance.

      "What is needed on the low end, is a good distro, that can (1) run on a 486 or Pentium 1, (2) run decently on a machine with only 32mb RAM, (3) fit in under 500 mb harddrive space, (4) support lots of old ethernet drivers and video card drivers, (5) support a modern browser (Firefox or Opera), and (6) can be ghosted."

      Slackware reportedly runs with these specs and if you can do better with Win 95 then you are really "special".
  • 0siris, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1No firefox support?
  • LANjackal, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The article's right. I run Xubuntu on a 2001 Toshiba laptop that chokes on XP. While the experience isn't perfect, I have a working PC where I wouldn't have had one otherwise. That is admittedly one of the advantages of Linux: because it's not commercial, there's less incentive for the developers to make it more hardware demanding than there is for Windows.
  • FredSpeaking, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Yeah, this article is almost entirely BS. The only way I could see this type of claim being true is if he were referring to the practise of reusing old PCs in place of embedded devices (routers, media bridges, etc), which frankly is in no way related to "Windows E-waste".
  • KevinJim, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"A British study on the benefits of open source software has determined that Linux machines live 2X longer than Windows machines"
    Also, real life make clear that " Linux users live much longer than windows users" Because we don't have to frustrate our selfs too ***** much !!!
    Still wander why they call BSOD, Blue Screen Of Death ?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.