It is quite true that new Windows releases have almost always triggered waves of computers being trashed and new ones being bought.

I think that might have been understandable back in the days of the earler pentiums. A pentium 300 really was much faster than a pentium 75.

But at the point we're at, computer are so fast that a simple OS shouldn't be able to make a modern system (1.5ghz+) crawl. If you want eye candy, fine, delegate that to the video card. But what's up with Vista's CPU, RAM and HD requirements? It's just a OS, and it doesn't seem to do much more than XP. Talk about bloatware...

Linux with XGL looks better anyway: Here.

While it is true that Microsoft pushes the sale of newer hardware with each new release, no one is forced to buy the new OS. Millions of people still use Windows 98 and will continue to do so even though it is not supported. The perceived need to buy the newest version of Windows is hype and marketing. There is no functional reason that consumers must buy each and every latest version of Windows. And it is not just residential users who are still using 98, I have worked with quite a few companies that run 98, simply because they have an application that runs on it that they have never upgraded, and don't plan to.

It is also true that many Linux flavors run much better than Windows on older equipment, but Linux now also runs as well or better on new equipment.

The OS itself does not make or break someone as being green, because if you look hard enough, you will find someone more than happy to take your old machine and use it for a web or mail server.

It's true that nobody is forced to upgrade, but I think the point is that Microsoft could - if they wanted to - make a OS just as good as Vista but that doesn't take as much system resources. At times I wonder if they even bother optimizing for speed and size or if they are have a deal with Intel to keep things fairly big and slow...

I've used Linux for years on servers and desktops. The "forced hardware upgrade" portion is somewhat true: you can run Linux on a 10-year-old computer--although you may not be able to do the things you want with it.

An enormous drawback of Linux is omitted from the article, however: Getting Linux to suspend to disk (or worse, to memory) is a chore that most distributions -- Even the those that purport to be the friendliest/easiest to use -- don't enable or even include by default. Moreover, the same hardware that suspends flawlessly in Windows frequently works "somewhat to not-at-all" under Linux.

The net result is simple: If I want to save power when I'm not using my machine, I have to save everything and do a complete shutdown, which I'm not willing to do for a period of less than a few hours -- It's too inconvenient and is much harder on the hardware than suspending to RAM.

For-profit OS will never truly disappear, because non-expert small-scale and home users need a product with (relatively) proven security and reliability. Large corporate departments who can hire Linux techs can save a lot of money on licenses, but they have to pay the techs.

I'm all for Linux, but for an individual's e-commerce and online banking, there's not even a color of a guarantee for your privacy and security, unless you learn to become your own linux programmer.

If the OS code is proprietory and opaque to the hacker, it takes more time and effort to construct trojan horses and viruses. With MS you're at least relatively protected.

Unless you climb the learning curve, with Linux' code you're not.

Linux has always been able to suspend just fine for me, unlike the hundreds of Windows XP system our office runs which tend to hang coming out of suspend.
I'm running Linux happily on a 1.2GHz laptop with a 60W power supply and my server is a 500MHz fanless mini-itx board running from a 60W power supply also. That max rating is if I load down both systems with external USB drives and such they both use much less during normal use.

I've had more problem with the suspend feature of Windows than of Linux..

Rob, in general it is agreed that Linux is safer than windows. If I was the average user, I'd be a lot more worried about windows spyware, viruses, adware and keyloggers than security on Linux.

The main problem with Linux is still that you almost can't buy a system with it installed. Most people never install windows, they just use whatever comes with their computer.

I do think the story about the guy who told his father that Linux ubuntu was Vista is very telling. Nowadays, most of what people use is an office suite (OpenOffice is fine for that), a browser, a email program and maybe IM. All of that works pretty much the same way on Linux as on Windows. The average user doesn't care.

As a tech novice who has come to loathe microsoft and needs a new laptop, is there any good, reputable place on the web that willl walk me through getting a laptop with nothing installed on it and installing a Linux OS?

If you don't feel like suspending your Linux system, just have it run ClimatePrediction.net in the background to ease some of the guilt. I keep it running 24/7 on my Mac Mini that acts as my home server.

The only problem with upgrading your parent's computer to Linux and telling them it's Vista, other than the lying part, is that there are still sites out there that need Internet Explorer to work. They are few and far between, but they do still exist, particularly if you work for a large corporation or are a customer at some banks.

Hazel: Your best bet is to check a local computer shop and see if you can get a used laptop with better specs than your current one. And I'm sure they'd be more than happy to help you install Linux on one since a lot of the guys there are probably Linux geeks themselves. But if you want to go it alone, Ubuntu will walk you through the steps when you boot from a LiveCD.

Or you could go with a refurbished MacBook, which are available from Apple for under $1000.

TreeHugger is anti-Vista because it produces waste?! What else should we boycott? HD-DVD renders old DVD players obsolete. IPods relegated tape players to the scrap heap. TiVo kicked my VCR to the curb. A surprisingly anti-progress sentiment coming from the science and technology author. Asserting that Linux is a greener OS because it isn't as advanced as Vista is a ridiculous argument. This article isn't about being GREEN, it's about being against corporate hegemony. That is a fine position to have, but it doesn't belong on TreeHugger.

TreeHugger is anti-Vista because it produces waste?! What else should we boycott? HD-DVD renders old DVD players obsolete. IPods relegated tape players to the scrap heap. TiVo kicked my VCR to the curb. A surprisingly anti-progress sentiment coming from the science and technology author. Asserting that Linux is a greener OS because it isn't as advanced as Vista is a ridiculous argument. This article isn't about being GREEN, it's about being against corporate hegemony. That is a fine position to have, but it doesn't belong on TreeHugger.

I would like to respond to this one. First, let's not assume that Treehugger has a unified policy on anything, we don't. To my knowledge, Treehugger does not issue boycotts, policy statements, or anything similar. If they do, I have never heard of them.

The examples you give are ones where a new technology has made an old one obsolete, generally because it is more efficient. I would argue that Vista is not that; it has made nothing obsolete, nor is it more efficient, it is actually less. So I think it is a different animal.

Basically, I think its a gimmick to sell computers, and make some money for a select few. Is that being against corporate hegemony? I don't know, I'm all for making money. But when your going to unnecessarily trash 10 million PCs to do it, I really don't see how you can divorce corporate responsibility from the environment.

mark

For computers with Ubuntu Linux pre-installed, try system76.

Well I use a mac with with MacOSX .4.8 on it .I'm all for Linux any anti -windows thing is great with me!I think Vista is a lame copy of MacOSX but ,all aside.I think it has many bugs to get out !I think "leopard" MacOSX.5 mite have some bugs but,it will b easier to take my 2004 iMac to migrate to that.

I've been using various Debian/Ubuntu variants on my home PC (six year old 1.6ghz P4) for about a year now, and I'm at the point of ditching my XP install. To my mind, an operating system should do just that, operate the machine. It certainly shouldn't require hardware upgrades or dictate what I can and can't do (DRM etc). That alone is reason enough for me to go nowhere near it.

One thing Linux has opened my eyes to is the utter scam that is most computer marketing. The ads shout about dual core this and that, yet for the average user, a decent email client, office suite and web browser is pretty much all that's needed, and you certainly don't need to upgrade to Vista for that. If switching to Linux/BSD can keep perfectly servicable PCs in circulation rather than in landfill or shipped of to India to be stripped, I think the green credentials are valid.

"A surprisingly anti-progress sentiment"

"New" doesn't always equal "Progress"...

I'd be all for Vista if it was better and more optimized than it is. Each new release of Mac OS X has been faster than the previous one on old hardware, and AFAIK each new version of the Linux kernel has been faster (2.6 vs. 2.4 in my experience), though the Desktop environments have been getting a bit slower...

Microsoft should try to emulate that quality.

New technology is not REQUIRED to render things obsolete. Most people still have VCR, DVD, and tape players. Nor are the triggers that spark the steady roll of progress restricted to efficiency. Progress is about making things better; and more often, power and new features are what define an upgrade. Microsoft isn't going to trash 10 million PCs. The culpable parties would be the PC owners that dispose of them incorrectly. Is Pepsi to blame when I throw an empty can in the trash? It may be vogue to blame Microsoft for everything, but you've simultaneously let 10 million others off the hook.

Your own article suggests that these are DEFERRED upgrades. Nowhere do they state that 10 million PC's are ending up in the trash. Instead it warns that the surge will stress the computer recycling pipeline. If Vista results in computers being prematurely discarded, that means that schools and charities will receive more functional computers rather than the mostly useless ones they normally get. Meanwhile world leaders are trying to figure out how to bridge "the digital divide" by getting low cost computers to the 1.2 billion children in the developing world. 10 million in the UK is a good start. These are the kinds of things we should be discussing on TreeHugger rather than this overplayed and tedious Mac/Linux vs Vista debate.

Hi Dude,

You are raising some interesting points here, particularly about what makes electronic equipment obsolete, the definition of progress, and to what degree corporations have the responsibility to make their products efficient.

I would suggest that new technology gives users a choice - they can ditch what they have, or they can stay with what they got. I do agree that everyone makes that decision on their own - if you like your tape recorder, stay with it. The decision to trash it and get an mp3 player is completely up to you.

It's true that Microsoft isn't going to trash 10 million PCs, but they are an interested party in the equation. They want you to, because if you don't, then you can't run their new product. I'm asking people to take a look at that and see if Vista really offers you anything, and to weigh the benefits of Vista against the other options out there, and the ramifications of trashing your PCs. Me, in most cases I don't see the benefits.

Is Pepsi to blame when I throw an empty can in the trash? It's a new idea, but yes, they are. They are responsible for delivering their product to me in the cheapest way possible. The market already puts some constraints on this - I'm not going to pay an extra three dollars for a gold plated can - and I'm not going to pay $400 dollars for Vista and then buy a new computer to run it on either. So I do think it's Microsoft's job to deliver me an efficient product, instead or market me something I don't need.

You mention the computer recycling pipeline as if there is an organized rational way to recover these materials. There isn't. It's burned in open pits, smashed apart by prison labor, or warehoused in your basement where 75 percent of this trash still lies. There is no demand for 10 million more trashed PCs, the world is up to our eyeballs in trashed PCs. And the heavy metals are leaking into the groundwater, the lead is poisoning kids, and the air is full of dioxins from burned insulation around copper wires.

I'm all for bridging the digital divide, but it's facile to believe that access to technology is the most important thing these kids need. Drinking water, medicine. This is not a tired old debate about what OS to get, this is about stepping off a treadmill fuelled by million dollar marketing departments, getting corporations to take some social responsibility, and about truly evaluating your own gadgetry needs and making good choices based on the evidence.

And a major computer manufacturer (Dell) is finally offering desktops and laptops without Windows pre-installed. I know most of the tech-savvy people out there build their desktops, so they don't worry about pre-existing software. But it's harder get a new bare-bones laptop.

I won't claim Dell computers are great (I haven't used them), but at least they're trying to help the open-source movement.

Open Source Desktops and Laptops:
http://linux.dell.com/desktops.shtml

And for Hazel's comment: I use Ubuntu now, and I felt this walk through was pretty good:
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/index

Why doesn't anyone seem to be mentioning the excessive use of hard plastic packaging Microsoft is using on every single edition of Vista. Mac OS X comes in a card box and the only plastic is the DVD. Linux can be downloaded with zero packaging. Microsoft really should be brought to book about this.