Software has always and will always require new and better hardware. This isn't going to change, ever. So the right thing is to work on better recycling and remanufacturing programs, with strict regulations banning the landfilling of electronics, and strict manufacturing controls for new electronics, with a goal of manufacturing everything from 100% post-consumer materials.

Also, computers that are incapable of running Vista are still usable. They can (and will) be sold on the used market, like on ebay. Reuse is always the best.

Can't the software developers make it their aim to squeeze more performance from the same hardware? From what I've read Vista will have a very snazzy new interface, which I'm sure will be very nice but it requires much more GPU resource and therefore more electricity.

My mobile phone can do most of the basic stuff (Read emails, surf the net, play music) from 1 or 2 Watts, whilst PCs are starting to come with 1000W power supplies. Doesn't seem that clever to me.

Why are we picking on Microsoft? If i want to run OSx on my current pc can I? No I have to go buy new hardware.

I certainly don't know how all companies, or even most, are going to do it, but many of them aren't even going to touch Vista for a year, and even then, won't even consider it until the end of their next depreciation cycle.

There certainly won't be a mass upgrade just to be able to run Vista; just look at the adoption rates of Windows XP or Windows 2000 before it.

If anything, the jump in requirements for Vista will slow adoption in the business.

As far as the home market goes, home users typically don't upgrade their Windows OS; they get a new version of the OS when they get a new computer anyway.

When you write software for a computer, it will work forever in that machine with the same performance.

If you get lured to shinier programs and interfaces that require more computing power is another different problem.

But the main point I want to assert here is that you don't need new hardware if you don't need new software. And probably you don't need new software.

Also there is a more rational way of developing software within the open source movement that always has alternatives for using all the potential of any computer, no matter if it was built in the 90's or even before.

So stop whining and install linux.

Adam V beat me to it mentioning Open Source. It seem that only paid for software requires more hardware each time you upgrade. I made the upgrade to Linux a couple years ago and each time I upgrade a package its gets faster on the same hardware, I finally reached a point where there isn't any reason to upgrade my little old laptop as it runs better all the time and none of the new big heavy ones have anything I want. I'm thinking I may just buy a spare like mine on ebay just in case.

As far as needing a new machine to run OS X (previous comment), I'm running 10.4x (latest version) on a 7 year old iMac - and for its use I have no reason to replace it. Its a 600 MHz G3 processor (4 generations old), and 512 MB of RAM. So as far as picking on Microsoft - and the PC producers, I think its totally fair.

When Apple went from OS9 to OSX, a tremendous shift in the system, it didn't require a whole new machine. Just a software upgrade.

When Apple switched from Motorola (G series) to Intel processors, they've continued to support the G series.

While Greenpeace is picking on the short lifespan of the iPod, Apple computers have tremendous utility over time. I once saw a 15 year old original Mac in a docs office. How many PC life cycles is that?

If you don't have an apple and want OSx, you need a new machine.

On a purely web design point, the "Somebody says:" placement is a bit confusing on this site, since it appears below the person's comment instead of above it.

The cartoon bubble arrow is a bit too subtle.

(Which is my roundabout way of saying that I didn't make the Open Source comment, it was the poster below me.)

Ok, maybe it's just too obvious, but what of the packaging. I can't be the only one who is shocked that they are using up that much plastic to house a disc and a manual.

If you don't have an apple and want OSx, you need a new machine.

Yes, but once you have it, you can keep it for 5-10 years. My wife's powerbook was built when Windows 98 was the standard OS. It's now running Tiger, and is ticking along just fine.

"OS X: The ultimate Windows Service Pack"

Yes, but once you have it, you can keep it for 5-10 years.

OS X, like any other commercial OS, is built for planned hardware obsolescence. And Apple, being a hardware vendor, is perhaps more single-handedly responsible for forcing complete system upgrades than any other computer manufacturer.

Apple makes fantastic products, but I've quit buying them, because it's just too expensive and too environmentally reprehensible to keep upgrading a whole system whenever I need to run the new OS.

I've survived with the same laptop for four years, and a homebuilt PC tower which has existed for nine years -- with a single motherboard and processor change.

I've been running some form of Linux on the tower since 2000. The notebook has UbuntuLinux. Why? Because every release becomes faster, and does more, even on the same hardware.

For the most part, all software can be written to run more quickly and use less resources, but the industry has turned toward more easily maintainable (i.e., quicker release cycles -> more money) code which is less optimized. Faster hardware supercedes a lot of the would-be optimized code.

But it's also true that vendors sell faster hardware because they can; people want it, companies make it, and it becomes the standard.

Like anything else: consumers want the fastest, latest, best, and people are willing to sell it to them.