On Feb 28, 6:05 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Obeying Microsoft: Is Wine the way?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Using security as an excuse, Microsoft, in its infinite semiwisdom,
> | decided awhile back to dictate what versions of Vista can be run
> | in a virtualized environment. The main result of Microsoft's
> | restrictions may just be to drive such users away from
> | Vista entirely.
This is true. XP can be virtualized, and it FITS better in such a
system than Vista. Why buy Vista ? Eye candy doesn't get work done,
and Vista has little else to offer. What it does offer is more than
offset by the resource requirements and the new limitations imposes by
Vista.
Moreover, from an environmental standpoint : How much extra juice (in
kilowatt hours) will Vista's eye candy cost than XP or Linux ? Vista
has hefty requirements, and to get all of the eye candy, you need at
least a GeForce 8800 GTS, which can draw up to 160 watts.
Let's see, at 160 watts * 8 hours a day * 365.25 days = 467520 watt
hours.
The average residential rate is 9.86 cents per kilowatt hour. That's
just over $46/year, every year, for eye candy. That doesn't even count
the addition wattage used by the upgraded CPU and addition memory many
systems will require. For a business it is even worse. Consider an
office with 100 such PCs, and the annual cost of eye candy (ACEC --
pronounced Akk ! Ekk !) is over $4,600. But that's probably only half
the equation, as all that energy creates heat. Unless you live in
cooler climates, you will probably need to spend at least that much
for additional cooling (air conditioning), bringing the cost up to
almost $10,000 per year, every year, for Vista's eye candy.
Wow - Vista is the gift that just keeps on ... taking.
Dean G.
|
|
