Re: Vista and global warming.
- From: Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:21:52 GMT
On a sunny day (Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:35:15 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in <TG2wh.1165626$084.1138270@attbi_s22>:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
Lemme get this straight, that OS needs 'better hardware', and that
better hardware uses more power.
So just to power Vista we need to build 11 extra nukulear plants?
hehe
Vista is not 'green'.
V I S T A I S N O T G R E E N
Any comments?
Are you saying that Linux OS can be "greener" than Microsoft OS?
I was saying in view of your own posts, that Billy The Gates better
had focus on lower energy consumption then transparent desktops and
'copyright protection'.
Sure Linux runs on the smallest possible hardware and so is by
definition a lot greener then Vista, and should be made mandatory on
all computers for that reason alone.
But the issue was that Vista is not of this age ,and will cause flooding,
early ice-ages, global devestation, shortage of fuel such as oil,
extra pollution when new nukeplant need to be build and the second
Tjernobyl happens, etc. [hurricanes too].
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Vista and global warming.
- From: soutjhyDin
- Re: Vista and global warming.
- References:
- Vista and global warming.
- From: Jan Panteltje
- Re: Vista and global warming.
- From: Sam Wormley
- Vista and global warming.
- Prev by Date: Re: In their rare lucid moments, relativists admit that black holes do not exist
- Next by Date: Re: Fast women have to be kept " on the down low ".
- Previous by thread: Re: Vista and global warming.
- Next by thread: Re: Vista and global warming.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
