OK, while I can see where this 'could' be considered a good thing as far as lower power usage is concerned, laptops are extremely difficult to repair, fragile, and nearly impossible to upgrade. Their batteries don't last very long and need to be replaced every 8-12 months with use. Also laptops are a major target for thieves.

A desktop computer however is just a box (that can be recycled) holding a power supply (that can be upgraded and/or recycled), a motherboard that can be easiy updated, upgrade, or replaced (and recycled), etc... A desktop computer is more reliable than a laptop that you carry and bounce around all day.

Regular desktop harddrives are made with metal platters, laptops use glass platters (drop a laptop HD on the floor and you have more borken glass bits than a hand grenade going off in a greenhouse).

The extreme expense of laptop part makes them disposable electronics, to be pitched and replaced rather than fixed and reused. (A Lenovo replacement screen for example on a 1-yr old laptop is $600... or I can just trash the laptop and buy a new one for $500 from DELL).

So, yippy, we are getting better power usage from laptops, but boo for them still being electronic trash that is nearly impossible to maintain.

-Lego

Just a moment of nostalgia to pre-global warming days when I learnt about spreadsheets on a Compaq just like the one in the picture from a man called Mr Cooper, now sadly departed.
Now, back to green issues...
Apple isn't always the greatest green influence with it's love of short product life cycle (is it just giving what the majority want and the market demands?)... but I think we have to admire what is an absolutely beautiful piece of design.
OK, we instinctively know is not going to last as long as something similar from Lenovo but that doesn't stop it being sexy.
Apple have listened and the list of nasties in the components is less and I think they're moving in the right direction.
Finally, I confess... I want one. I don't have an iPod and I'm sure it would take me years to get used to another OS other than XP... but that doesn't stop me wanting one.
Does that make me a bad green person?

=== authors' response follows ===
I want one too! But my Mac G4 is only 4 years old and working fine so it'll have to wait.

Addendum to post and your comment.

The old "IBM compatible" thing started when Compaq designed this behemoth PC, which led to today's circumstance where companies still largely don't buy Mac - it was a targeted strategy by Big Blue to exclude competition for their dying mainframe business that got this started.

Most big US companies lease their Windows PC's and when one is broken they often swap it out, whether desktop or laptop. On-site repair staff is too much overhead for corporate IT departments to carry. I have bought such animals when they go off lease or are broken and getting them back to consumer ready condition is a challenge as the lease agreements often specified OS versions that disabled all entertainment possibilities (no CD playing on the job is a common one).

There are strong personal freedom pluses to having a corporate leased laptop instead of desktop. Road warriors can rationalize being able to play DVD's while traveling overnight, and are able to avoid the blocking and censorware as long as not logged onto the proprietary network, Then too there is the ability to work from home as needed.

That said, I imagine corporations will see Apple's focus on entertainment integration as yet another reason to disallow Macs from lease programs. The result may well be a segmentation of the market into cool and green laptops vs uncool ungreen workhorses - but this is speculation.

I have to say that Lego has a point. My daughter's one year old gateway is junk, the dvd drive died, the internet card just died, and they want hundreds to fix them. when something breaks on my desktop (4 year old box, upgrades inside) it costs very little for the part and I can do it myself. I love the look and the idea of the Mac Air but there are advantages to the desktop.

Here is a good article about 10 things that IT departments hate about laptops

And I still have my 25 year old Kaypro II and it still works perfectly.

=== JL's thought ===
Have a look at the Consumer Reports ranking for PC reliability and a different view emerges.

What Lego said.

Typically, making smaller things requires more refined resources and more energy, and the end result is more fragile and difficult to repair. This means we should think very carefully before we buy.

And for what? So I can sit alone in a coffee shop and surf the web? Read a book, go to an internet cafe, talk to a friend. Leave the box at home and enjoy your society.

I am a giant fan of desktops such as the Cubit, some of which have no fans, all of which are made for total upgradeability. Just drop the component into a tray, and slide the tray into the case.

Furthermore, the world is clearly heading towards online computing, where you sign in and get all your stuff wherever you are. This can be a further benefit because a dumb terminal or very lightweight computer can run all the stuff you need with very little brain power. These terminal will be much less impactful than the highly refined laptop.

Allright, here we go...
Big props to Apple for making a laptop that actually uses solid state memory (expensive version of Macbook air). This design jewel will actually use less power. Here's the catch... I'm a mechanical engineer at a big producer of Electronic products. As a standard practice we judge the ecological impact of our products (ecoscan) which includes the components, packaging and energy use. The funny thing is... energy use makes up about 80% of the ecological impact of most of our products (I work on kitchen appliances) It's also amazing to see how much energy a lot of products still consume, just because they are still plugged into the grid, even when they are "off". That's where the laptop wins from the desktop. As far as those "bad" substances used... I would love to hear from all green designers about a material that can replace PVC for its insulating properties. This is not about making a conscious choice to pollute the environment. It's about a conscious choice to prevent your house from burning down...

Allright, here we go...
Big props to Apple for making a laptop that actually uses solid state memory (expensive version of Macbook air). This design jewel will actually use less power. Here's the catch... I'm a mechanical engineer at a big producer of Electronic products. As a standard practice we judge the ecological impact of our products (ecoscan) which includes the components, packaging and energy use. The funny thing is... energy use makes up about 80% of the ecological impact of most of our products (I work on kitchen appliances) It's also amazing to see how much energy a lot of products still consume, just because they are still plugged into the grid, even when they are "off". That's where the laptop wins from the desktop. As far as those "bad" substances used... I would love to hear from all green designers about a material that can replace PVC for its insulating properties. This is not about making a conscious choice to pollute the environment. It's about a conscious choice to prevent your house from burning down...

Yes, this is like being happy because cell phone sales beat landline sales (which I'm sure they did a long time ago).

There's no reason desktops can't be built with the same power-saving capabilities, but in an upgradeable fashion. I personally run a mini-itx desktop system with a Pentium M chip. It's low power, and I'll upgrade it piece by piece to extend its useful lifespan into the 5+ year range.

Yea, laptops are definitely lacking on the upgradeable aspect. I've found a report on the energy intensity of manufacturing computers. Turns out that only 19% of the energy a average computer uses over its lifetime comes from being plugged into the wall. That means about 81% of that energy is used to manufacture the computer!!!! I doubt the energy savings of a laptop justify the cost (economic and environmental) of buying a new one.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4183/Energy-Intensity-of-Computer-Manufacturing

One major green factor of the Mac Air is overlooked - no built-in removable media drive. Apple did it with the 5.25", the 3.5", and now laser discs. The concept is to move away from disposable media, and towards networked data. Not to say this is for everyone, but it is happening slowly, and disc burners will have their last stand as archive storage/backup, before being replaced by whatever "the future" holds. : )

It'll be difficult to compete with movie/music downloads using ground transportation to deliver media. Netflix, Blockbuster and Apple are all racing toward download delivery. Oh yeah, video games too.

I had the Osborne 1 in 1981, which inspired the above Compaq. I remember thinking, "Wow, the Compaq has such a big screen!"

I know ergonomics isn't exactly an enivronmental issue, but they also make you hunch over like an ape.

Re: upgradeability, I think you have to take into account that the vast majority of people only use their computer for the internet and MS Office and don't need to upgrade often. For instance, I bought a second-gen iBook G3 in 2001 that lasted me five years without a problem – I only had to replace the battery in the last year. And I even sold it on to someone who uses it just for internet and MS Office when I got a MacBook (I need a faster machine to run Adobe Creative suite).

I think Nick makes a good point about the green benefits of solid-state memory and no optical drive. And the fewer moving parts, the fewer parts to break. I was taken aback at first by the MacBook's lack of DVD burner, but I've realised I could actually get by very nicely without one!

Ergonomics I think are the real sticking point: I have my lappy hooked up to a 22" flat screen, which has got to kill any energy savings. Does anyone have figures on that?

How long did the Compaq last?

The new Mac is undoubtedly lovely, but I agree with some of the comments - a desktop is much more upgradable. I run a desktop based on a pentium m too, and appreciate the savings I can make based on the laptop designers' focus on energy efficiency.

This mac will be landfill one day. A prettier type of landfill no doubt, but still landfill.

Not everyone is best served by a desktop computer. I take my MacBook with me to client meetings so that supporting data can be accessed on a moments notice, I can go to my accountant's office and he has access to all of my financial records without having to print out a massive paper statement, and yes when it is a beautiful day I can get out of my office and go work in the nature we are striving to protect.

At my previous job, I maintained a small office of ten desktop computers, and over the entire six years I worked there the only upgrades we made were to the memory and hard drives, both of which can easily be done to most laptops.

While it may take additional research and development efforts to make computers smaller, I am not convinced that the reduction in raw materials, packaging & shipping weight (one laptop box instead of separate CPU & monitor boxes), and lower power consumption doesn't offset most of this initial expenditure. Of course, no manufactured product is ever going to be 100% free of environmental impact, so we make a choice about what meets our needs while doing the least harm. I feel that a laptop fills that role.

John, I think the "more laptop sales than desktops in 2007" is a factual mistake, and the newspaper (or the editor who made the headline) got it wrong. See for yourself – this is what the article says about sales:
"Analysts say U.S. laptop sales rose 21 percent in 2007 to 31.6 million, while desktop sales slumped nearly 4 percent to 35 million. Overall, laptops are still underdogs, but they're expected to account for the majority of U.S. computer sales in 2008 and of worldwide sales in 2009."
Strangely, this contradicts what the article states earlier on, i.e.:
"Last year, for the first time, American consumers bought more of them than desktops. Sixteen of the 20 best-selling PCs on Amazon.com this holiday season were laptops." But please read carefully: "Sixteen of the 20 best-selling PCs on Amazon.com this holiday season were laptops" is being used to back the theory of more laptops than desktops being sold nationwide in all of 2007.
Not so convincing, I think. This article really annoyed me when it was originally printed on the front page of the LA Times in December. To me, the headline seems completely unsupported by the facts. Am I missing something? If so, please help!

=== author's response follows ===
Looks like you may be right with respect to 2007 versus 2008 as the "Cross Over" point.

The headline was dealing with long term rate of change and the story (apparently) should have qualified that it was a prospective change - not an already existing - situation: e.g. the crossover is just in front of us, not in the past.

This is similar to Federal Reserve Bank advisers deciding to adjust interest based on a project increase in inflation. Most people think the action is taken with respect to "now" but it's really a steering action to reshape the future.

As to why the headline did not match temporal reality, probably a case of editors spinning the facts to grab interest and sell papers - happens all the time.

Prospectively, however, the trend remains the same: laptops are projected to dominate the PC market in the same way that iPOD was once projected to dominate the personal music player market before it actually did.

Thanks for your diligence in pointing this out.

I got a new Sony TZ laptop! Never going back to buying a desktop. Ultra-small and mobile.

Far better than any Mac (which Apple has copied from time to time) that I ever used.

Though in some areas, I think desktops are better.