No article to point you do, but I'm not sure of the validity of your idea. It sounds good, and I'd certainly like it to be true, but older hardware is not always "greener" just because it's less powerful (in terms of memory and clock cycles) -- sometimes it will draw more power simply because the power supply is less efficient, or the CPUs on newer machine can scale their speeds down to the point of consuming an almost insignificant amount of power. In Apple's case, upgrading your monolithic CRT machine to a newer LCD one doubtless results in some power savings (I have no data to back this up).
I've not seen a study like you're asking about, and would guess that it doesn't exist, unless Mark Shuttleworth funded it. On 6/11/09, ask <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi > > Does anyone know of articles describing, if Linux is more "green" than > commercial software like Microsoft, Apple etc.? I believe this is true > due to > > - Linux runs with less hardware requirements, thus you don't have to > upgrade with every OS upgrade > - Linux is noncommercial and does not push for users to upgrade > hardware > - Linux is noncommercial, thus waste less paper, energy and staff on > various adverticements > > Any third party articles on this? > > > Thanx > > > Ask Josephsen > > > -- Daniel --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Linux Users Group. To post a message, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit our group at http://groups.google.com/group/linuxusersgroup -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
