July 10, 2007 9:44 AM PDT

Mac desktops are 'smarter money,' says CIO

Related Stories

Keeping pace with open source

June 29, 2007

Apple invites Windows users on Safari

June 11, 2007

Microsoft looks beyond Windows Server 2008

May 16, 2007

Vista for the masses

April 4, 2007
Related Blogs

Next iMac to use new keyboard?

July 9, 2007
Property asset management company Capital & Regional is evaluating Linux desktops and Apple Macs as a way to reduce its dependency on Microsoft.

While the U.K. company has about 700 PC users and currently runs Windows XP Pro and Office XP Pro, Chief Information Officer Richard Snooks has criticized Microsoft's aggressive licensing policies.

"We are feeling the pinch of the aggressive revenue targets of Microsoft," Snooks said. "We are asking ourselves, 'Are they (Microsoft) fit for our business?'"

In particular, Snooks isn't convinced by the arguments for upgrading to Microsoft's latest Windows operating system, Vista, and is actively looking at alternatives, including a small trial of a Suse Linux desktop inside the IT department.

"I feel we are being railroaded, and the market generally forced (us) into a corner or even a cul-de-sac. In a free market, we have made Microsoft dominant, and now we have the collective responsibility to reverse this situation to re-establish balance and competition. If I am being driven down the Vista route, then an Apple Mac is smarter money and cheaper."

Snooks said the browser-based ATMs at Capital & Regional's shopping outlets could potentially run on Suse Linux with a Firefox browser, while Apple Macs may be a better alternative to Windows PCs.

A Microsoft representative said the company offers a range of licensing agreements for different business needs and cited security and energy efficiency as benefits of moving to Vista.

"Vista is the most secure, reliable and flexible OS available from Microsoft, and is easy and cost-effective to deploy and maintain," she said. "The reduced complexity facilitates maintenance and support, which allows IT management time to be deployed more effectively elsewhere, and the in-depth security ensures protection of sensitive data at all times."

Andy McCue of Silicon.com reported from London.

See more CNET content tagged:
U.K. company, CIO, Linux desktop, SuSE Linux, SuSE


Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Not sure on the reasoning
"If I am being driven down the Vista route, then an Apple Mac is smarter money and cheaper." To me it sounds like he doesn't want to go down the "Vista route" because he feels he's being pressured to go that way. If you go down the Mac/Apple route then you'll just end up on a different route attached to another single vendor, but this time with both hardware and software. Based on his reasoning it seems like the Linux route would be the way to go.
Posted by Charleston Charge (362 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Multiple OSes
The point is that you can run any OS on a Mac. And your basic Mac
has more built-in features than you will find on your bargain
basement or comparably priced PC.
Posted by ppgreat (1128 comments )
Link Flag
His Reasoing is Valid
If everone keeps going down the MS road, then MS will continue to get worse and worse as they focus on the $.

Apple, Linux, are both viable if they do the job. While MS may technically cost less today, if they do keep on the path, it won't be later.
Posted by Renegade Knight (13748 comments )
Link Flag
This quote might be true, and it should scare the crap out of windows users
""Vista is the most secure, reliable and flexible OS available from Microsoft"

It is far less secure then OSX, Linux, BSD, etc.

It is far less reliable then OSX, Linux, BSD, etc.

It is far less flexible then OSX, Linux, BSD, etc.

But this is a flow out lie:

"and is easy and cost-effective to deploy and maintain,"
Posted by qwerty75 (1164 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I'm scared
I'm a Windows user, and your comments scare me.
Posted by mojeska (2 comments )
Link Flag
I Have Found it to be Very Unstable.
I believe the word is Robust. Just trying to get my compute working I had to use System Restore points after each driver install. Alas while I kept most glitches from killing my system one did creep in and I can't use Media Center as it's supposed to be. Plus a few other bugs.

Vista is a great idea, that just is not ready for prime time. That's ignoring other issues like the Draconian Lisencing, The Driver Fiasco etc.
Posted by Renegade Knight (13748 comments )
Link Flag
Please contribute to the discussion, not detract from it
If you don't have anything useful to say other than repeating the same thing over and over without evidence or proof, then please stand aside while other people who have worthwhile things to say step up.
Posted by Vegaman_Dan (6683 comments )
Link Flag
Vista less secure?
Please point to scientific evaluations that prove Vista is less secure than Mac OS X and/or Linux.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/visualbasic/dotnet/archives/darwin-would-use-windows-16872" target="_newWindow">http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/visualbasic/dotnet/archives/darwin-would-use-windows-16872</a>
Posted by plbyrd (141 comments )
Link Flag
No just no
and im tired of all the people who hate MSFT, Steve jobs has brainwashed everyone into thinking that MSFT is pure evil or something, im a busness owner and everything they do I can understand and agree with.
Posted by Busboy2 (36 comments )
Link Flag
A very nice idea indeed!
"Vista is the most secure, reliable and flexible OS available from
Microsoft, and is easy and cost-effective to deploy and
maintain," she said. "The reduced complexity facilitates
maintenance and support, which allows IT management time to
be deployed more effectively elsewhere, and the in-depth
security ensures protection of sensitive data at all times."

I really don't see any complexity being reduced. The licensing
scheme is becoming a mess for huge corporations and the
constant system updates are also a mess to implement. There
always seems to be a constant patching of bugs and security
threats with MS OSes.

Lets also mention how RAM hungy Vista really is - minimum
1gig to function properly!

In depth security of which version? The Vista licensing scheme is
a total mess and honestly only the most expensive version adds
a bit of increased security. On the other hand a Linux or FreeBSD
system has that security already built-in. I see Linux as being
problematic in this implementation is that it has limited
hardware drivers compared to Windows. On the other hand
Apple has shown that this is not a problem. The other problem
is using MS products on the server end - that hasn't always
shown to be OS independent.

As an IT administrator I am actually just now forcing upgrade to
Windows XP due to the fact that the new .net internet apps our
firm is forced to use are not Windows 2k compatible. Just the OS
is costing us $150 per user with no apparent benefit for the
firm. Then on top of that we have to get new Office licenses at
$250 a pop and it quickly becomes a financial nightmare. At the
same time there is Openoffice.org that is quite a viable solution.
Posted by jjbraunius (20 comments )
Reply Link Flag
uhhh...your comments scare me
XP was much more stable and somewhat more secure that 2000, the fact you are still using it is scary....

$150 per license? You aren't doing something right, you can get OEM copies for less than that...we paid $98 for 1200 licenses in 2003.

You don't need new Office licenses, and definitely not at $250 a pop...Where are you buying from? Go somewhere else...Office 95 and above run perfectly on XP. Though if you are using either 95 or 97, you are upgrading because you should have 5 years ago, not because you need to.

My Ubuntu and Red Hat are constantly wanting to update, though of a much lesser severity than the updates for my XP boxes.

Lastly no business should be using Vista Ultimate, they should be using Business addition which only adds Bit-Locker which business should be using a much better system anyway.
Posted by schubb (202 comments )
Link Flag
you mean Flat out lie?
I agree...

The only thing is the ease of changing drivers post installation
which is usually a logistics nightmare on Linux/Unix clones.
Posted by jjbraunius (20 comments )
Reply Link Flag
"[i]A Microsoft representative said the company offers a range of licensing agreements for different business needs and cited security and energy efficiency as benefits of moving to Vista.[/i]"

How energy efficient is it to be forced to buy a bigger, newer computer with a larger power supply just to run Vista?

Posted by Penguinisto (5042 comments )
Reply Link Flag
like those M$ quotes, make me laugh every time.
they mean the energy efficiency when your not using the computer :lol:

There is a lot of development on the Linux side to make linux better suited for standby mode.

Micro$oft is scared of GNU/Linux (BSD as well), no one else should be.
Posted by ColdMast (186 comments )
Link Flag
Initial reports indicate that the battery life on laptops is drastically reduced when running Vista with the Aero interface when compared to running XP. Microsoft did not listen to what people wanted, they just built an OS that was 5 times bigger on the hard drive, consumed massive resources just to run, and costs 3 times as much. I've noticed that OEM makers are reissuing computers with XP by popular demand. Do you think Microsoft might notice this time?
Posted by Seaspray0 (9714 comments )
Link Flag
Quite efficient, actually
Newer systems come with better power management, better power supplies, and lower overall power usage than systems built three years ago.

It's just the nature of the beast to improve technology.

If you offer someone a replacement machine that is three years old or machine that has twice the memory, faster CPU, larger HDD, better graphics, etc, which do you think they will want?
Posted by Vegaman_Dan (6683 comments )
Link Flag
I don't get it...
Apple can combine all of their OS features into one varation.
Microsoft has to have several, the cheapeest of which is even more
than the single version of OS X! As always, it's a greed thing...
Posted by gsmiller88 (624 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Re:I don't get it...
Actually OSX pricing is a little misleading in direct comparison to Windows. It's really most comparable to Windows upgrade/oem pricing since the only way you can use the purchased copy of OSX is if you already own the Mac you're putting it on. Besides that I do agree with the fact that MS messed up on releasing so many versions. Whether it's a money thing or possibly a way to make the antitrust people happy, it's not good for the consumer.
Posted by Charleston Charge (362 comments )
Link Flag
Re: I don't get it...
I also don't understand how they insinuate that Vista will produce such great energy savings that it's a compelling reason to buy it.

Where do they come up with this stuff?

Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com
Posted by chuck_whealton (521 comments )
Link Flag
Finally, the Lights are On!
My subject line says it all.
Posted by Thomas, David (1947 comments )
Reply Link Flag
RE: Finally, the Lights are On!
"My subject line says it all."

Actually, it doesn't. What do you mean?
Posted by nyc10001 (1 comment )
Link Flag
Mac supporter says: bad story
I happily admit to being a Mac partisan and yet I have to say from an objective point of view that this is a crappy news story. In what sense does this constitute news? It isn't a major corporation. It doesn't offer new information. It's just the unsupported opinion of a random CIO. At a minimum, it should ask the CIO to provide the concrete numbers that led to this conclusion. How much money does he estimate a Vista PC would cost versus Mac or Linux? Better yet, get some opinions from other companies too. This article is a waste of time for the reader. Come on cnet, you can do better than this!
Posted by jdien07 (6 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I don't think this article is crappy in the slightest...
...as it has started people thinking, examining, and discussing their options of computing.

For me the article does this very effectively. I question why all such articles require such exacting numbers as you request when are are talking of one person's private opinion for his company. In reality their are far too many variables (some could be private) to include in a small article.

The article is about a man that is making a personal decision that he feels best suits his company.

The article is very interesting and quite newsworthy.

Thanks CNET
Posted by onlyauser (220 comments )
Link Flag
Touched a nerve with you did they?
My, you're awfully sensitive about the possibility of trading
Windows for Macs in a Business environment. And when you don;t
like this CEO's opinion, you diss it. Your opinion is better?

This isn't news? Then why didi you read it? Curious? Gotcha.
Posted by technewsjunkie (1265 comments )
Link Flag
Great comment
Thanks for the dose of reality into what was posted as pure flame-bait to begin with.
Posted by plbyrd (141 comments )
Link Flag
Good points --- However, I will remain with Windows
I can see this man's point and find it extremely aware and smartly charting a course for his company. If he sees certain aspects that are not beneficial to his company using Microsoft it is his fudiciary responsibility to look elsewhere. If my company only required a few 'common' type of applications to funtion I would have switched yesterday.

The main reason I run Microsoft's OS is because I run so many different apps and have a large variety of needs that Windows does better than the rest.
Posted by onlyauser (220 comments )
Reply Link Flag
What apps and "needs"?
You might be surprised what Windows apps can be run flawlessly on other OS's. Yes, some software won't run, but would might find something that does the same job.

Other then the "need" to defrag, load your PC with AV and AS software and spend a good chunk of your time running those programs, what "need" does OSX or Linux not fulfill?

You can't mean applications, because you already mentioned that, so what need?
Posted by qwerty75 (1164 comments )
Link Flag
Nothing Wrong with Windows
As he points out, it's being railroaded into Vista that's changing the value equation.

What he's saying is that a cheap PC with Business Vista does not look very cost effective compared with Linux and the Mac.

Windows is no longer the default. I've seen many POS devices that used to run older Windows versions being migrated to a Linux OS.

While Windows used to be cheap enough to be the default OS for just about everything, many companies have shifted to a policy of using Windows only where they really have to.
Posted by Maccess (610 comments )
Link Flag
This is downright wrong

I have been in IT support for 12 years and this is flat out wrong. I think Macs and Windows are both great platforms and that is why I use both. They do different things well and better than the other, such as there is no video editing program that comes close to final cut on windows unless you shell out huge amounts for avid. Windows is a easy and basic operating system to support IT wise. Linux is a nightmare with drivers and etc. Mac they will find will have major incompatibilites in the real world. I think CIO's need to spend less time doing paper work and get out there under the desk in the real world to see what support really means, your overhead will increase becuase of the larger support department you build becuase of this switch to either mac or linux and they will be spending more money that they are with windows now, not to mention the price of a mac box compare to a core 2 duo windows box.
Posted by dyler (7 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Depends on specific company needs
You make some valid points for being in IT for 12 years but miss the mark when considering the many possibilities and variables of a specific company needs. Business needs can be very, very different.

Depending on the specific needs of the end users a OS other than a Microsoft OS may be much better for said company. I know of a few company using Linux and have never been more satisfied. Why? Because that is all they needed.

This CIO is downright RIGHT and observant. This CIO is doing his job for his companies specific needs and problems. It is ITs job to make it work. And please do not complain about the work. That is your companies choice of how much IT works on ap project. People are free to look for a new job if they disagree with their current emploment decisions.

IMHO IT should communicate the options, costs, benefits and problems with each OS being considered then be good soldiers and do what the company orders.
Posted by onlyauser (220 comments )
Link Flag
I disagree
I too am a I.T. Manager, and have used/supported several OS over the past 20 years or so (Windows, Mac, Linux, Solaris, OS400, VMS, OS/2, etc.)

Linux isn't ready for the average home user for some of the reasons you mention, but it is definitely ready for many business users. I've actually found it easier to install RedHat or Novell/SuSe than Windows on new equipment. Some users don't even know they aren't running MS Windows.

But if you really want a drop in replacement for Windows buy a Mac. We run both and they consistently need less than 10% of the support hours of the average Windows desktop.

A few years ago, we only used Macs in our graphics arts department. Now our managers and executives are requesting them. The cost of the hardware is the same or less than a comparable Dell and my job is getting easier and easier.

What more could you ask for?
Posted by rcrusoe (1305 comments )
Link Flag
Will Apple be there for you?
With Apple's recent shift in focus from computers and operating systems to end user consumer electronics, I'm concerned about where their intentions lay.

They delayed their OS to produce a cell phone. Do I want my company servers to have to wait for a security patch because the company is playing with a phone instead?

That hasn't happened yet, but it is something to keep in mind. They turned their back on their computer customers once already for a cell phone. Will they do it again?
Posted by Vegaman_Dan (6683 comments )
Link Flag
Posted by Busboy2 (36 comments )
Link Flag
"Vista is the most secure, reliable and flexible OS available from Microsoft, and is easy and cost-effective to deploy and maintain,"

Windows 2000 was way more secure and reliable. Vista's Windows Explorer crashes at least twice per day on me, and I'm running a clean OEM machine. Vista is right up there with Me for being the -least- flexible. It is expensive and not worth deploying, and very difficult to maintain ... Windows 2000 was much better if we compare MicroSoft OS products. The -only- reason his statement has any validity is Windows 2000 isn't much available anymore.
Posted by KlondikeWolf (6 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Call your helpdesk
maybe someone in IT can help you. Vista works great IMHO.
Posted by Lindy01 (443 comments )
Link Flag
I just found the full news article at the following site: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.silicon.com/ciojury/0,3800003161,39167758,00.htm" target="_newWindow">http://www.silicon.com/ciojury/0,3800003161,39167758,00.htm</a>

I find it interesting that this "cnet article" didn't provide a link to the original story and that it claims to be "special to cnet." Something is very off-key here. It does correctly give the name of the author but unless silicon.com is owned by the same company as cnet.com, somebody just violated copyright law. Even if the same writer posted both articles, only one of the companies actually owns the copyright to the text.
Posted by jdien07 (6 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Too concerned about the insignificant.
Boy, you worry about everything insignificant.

I would think a seasoned organization as CNET is above plagerism.

Have you been up ove 24 hours? Have you been watching Mel Gibson Consiracy Theroy movies?

I say put the remote down and get some rest.
Posted by onlyauser (220 comments )
Link Flag
You might want to re-read the article
At the bottom it clearly states:
"Andy McCue of Silicon.com reported from London."

So it was Andy McCue who submitted the story to both sites.
Posted by K.P.C. (227 comments )
Link Flag
same company
Ah, silicon.com IS owned by the same company so not plagiarism. Still very misleading to readers, not to mention incomplete. Be sure to see the original article for the full info.
Posted by jdien07 (6 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Still awake
...don't you here you bed calling.


A little rest nad you will be fine! LOL
Posted by onlyauser (220 comments )
Link Flag
Intel Based Machines are just as Flexible
What people are failing to realize is the fact that you can run multiple OS's on Intel based hardware almost as easily as you can on a Mac with the exception of OSX of course).

If Windows Vista is not a necessary upgrade solution but stability and improved network security is, then it is wise to install Suse or Redhat Linux as the host OS and add VMWare or Parallels for Windows to keep your existing copy of Windows XP or 2000 running virtually as a client OS on the desktop.

This solution will add stability and security to your network and allow the flexibility most companies need while getting off the Microsoft Windows upgrade gravy train...
Posted by pilaa (253 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Psst! Don't look now, but...
Macs run on Intel Dual and Quad Core x86 CPU's nowadays.

Thought you might like to know ;)

Posted by Penguinisto (5042 comments )
Link Flag
All talk, no action...
If Linux *were* appropriate for their needs, Capital &#38; Regional would have switched already, instead of having their CIO just yappin' about it.

I mean, come on, 700 users is insignifant these days from an IT perspective. Put up or shut up.
Posted by mbenedict (1001 comments )
Reply Link Flag
ummmm... huh?
K... so they're as easy to run mulitple systems as a Mac, but they
don't run the Mac OS, right? But a Mac can do it all, just as easily,
AND run the Mac OS?
So... what was your point?
Posted by ResinNation (22 comments )
Reply Link Flag
What an idiot
If Macs &#38; Linux was good alternatives, then a majority of people would be using them rather than using Windows as most of the planet does now. Sure other people use these "operating systems" but they just don't offer the ease of use that Windows offers.
Posted by bigjim01 (75 comments )
Reply Link Flag
If that is your reasoning. You are the idiot
Posted by Thomas, David (1947 comments )
Link Flag
... baaaaaaa ... baaaaaaa
Posted by Thomas, David (1947 comments )
Link Flag
Ease of use?
An OS that needs third party software to function sort of securely is easy to use?

An OS that is unsecure by default and no easy access to information is easy to use?

Windows is by far the most difficult OS to get running correctly. Other OS's run great and securely out of the box.
Posted by qwerty75 (1164 comments )
Link Flag
Let's try an experiment... c. 1906
If Cars and Trucks was good alternatives, then a majority of people would be using them rather than using Horses as most of the planet does now. Sure other people use these "transportation devices" but they just don't offer the ease of use that a horse offers.

...get the idea? ;)

Posted by Penguinisto (5042 comments )
Link Flag
Actually, people use Windows, only because of IBM
your comment struck me as very funny!

Surely you realize, Windows is not being used because of "ease of use" or "popularity", it is ONLY because it is linked to IBM's brand name of the early 80's.

Microsoft simple rode that "brand name" to become the ugly standard much of the planet is locked into today.

In a "perfect world", MOST people would be running Macs, with about 10% running Linux, 1% windows.

Macs are BY FAR the MOST POPULAR machines, it's just that the "ugly IBM standards" for the 45 and older crowd still thinks IBM means quality, when it means exactly the opposite.

Apple will be larger than IBM within months, larger than Microsoft within 2 years, all because Apple truly CARES about a customer's ease of use, whereas Microsoft just collects money from the "ignorant" and runs.

Posted by OS11 (844 comments )
Link Flag
YOU're an idiot...
How can you combine Windows and ease of use together?
I mean look at Mac OS X? Have you ever been using a Mac
Haven't you felt the beauty, the comfort and the LOGIC that this
operating system was built of?
It's an operating system that DOES make sense...
Microsoft Windows is HORRIBLE and will ALWAYS BE if they don't
Always giving you errors, cryptic messages, slow performances
as your computer gets stuffed with spyware and bull***t
software and NOT TO MENTION .. VIRUSES.

Microsoft is a SAD PAGE in the history of computers... and will
always be. The only thing I liked with them is MSN Messenger.

Microsoft say THEY make the huge innovations... while THEY are
the BIGGEST THIEVES of innovators such as those coming from
both Apple AND other cool Linux/UNIX operating systems.

Apple ALWAYS stood for ease of use and always will... always..!
Posted by Hammid_86 (1 comment )
Link Flag
Your ignorance assumption is no excuse
There is no warranted excuse in referring to anyone as an idiot and doing so only shows the ignorance of the poster. If Mac and Linux were, ( not was ), good alternatives which they are, doesn't mean the majority would have to use them. Everyone knows how MS has maintained their majority as it comes from the way they have applied their marketing schemes.
Go to any store and try and buy a computer without Windows preloaded on it. Anyone knows you should be able to buy what you want, not what somebody else wants to sell you. Microsoft licensing terms and conditions have reached the point that I, for one, can no longer agree to them. I've been one of the majority of which you speak and I'm not alone in making an alternative move. More than a few business's are doing the same and even though this might not meet with your approval, oh mighty one, I'm afraid I'll just have to disappoint you.
Meanwhile, take note, I made no comment on your intellectual abilities, questionable as they might be.
Posted by intrepi (67 comments )
Link Flag
He is right! I am sure others are upset about his viewpoint. But try to look at it from his perspective. Microsoft has been agressive in beating the cash out of people all over the world and abusing people with very shabby products. I am not a linux user or a Mac user. I am a Microsoft User and IT person for many years and I am telling you that as of this date and where Microsoft plans to go in the future, that it is a big mistake for any one to walk that path Microsoft has laid out for us. People wake up. Microsoft is human and therefor imperfect just like any one else. It is time to look else where.
Posted by Ted Miller (305 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Junk food by any other name
If you've always eaten off paper and plastic, it's hard to imagine eating of silver an china.
Posted by Xenu7-214951314497503184010868 (153 comments )
Reply Link Flag
We started migrating to Mac's 3 months ago and haven't looked back
Since practically all of our existing software doesn't work in Vista, switching to Macs wasn't as scary as it had been before. We started with a single Macbook and have been migrating every laptop and desktop ever since. For the occasional legacy needs, we easily migrated our old Windows systems into virtual systems in our new Macs using VM Fusion. Even without existing Windows OS's, we could easily use ReactOS or Crossover. My farewell letter to Windows is here: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://darkbrownhole.blogspot.com/2007/07/breaking-up-is-hard-to-do.html" target="_newWindow">http://darkbrownhole.blogspot.com/2007/07/breaking-up-is-hard-to-do.html</a>
Posted by jmvapa (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
For smaller companies like this, it makes sense
With 700 employees, smaller companies can afford to experiment with alternative solutions. An IT staff of one or two people is more than sufficient (I handle 1200 end users by myself so I know 1-2 techs for 700 is easily doable). That makes it a small enclosed environment where the IT department is very close and easy to implement changes like this.

This is a good candidate for Linux or Macintosh systems. Cost effective? That I would doubt highly for the workstation cost between a PC running Linux and a Macintosh is a good $500-$1000 more on a Mac for the same benefits over a Linux PC. That's $350,000 more for the Mac platform over a Linux one for the same benefits. Hard to justify that sort of economic decision, but we aren't the ones doing it.

In the end, that company has to make its own choices where to spend the money most effectively.
Posted by Vegaman_Dan (6683 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Stop comparing feature lists and look at implementation
Yes Linux does everything the Mac does (and Windows does
everything both of them do). They're all operating systems and they
all do the same things. Linux is a very good OS, when there doesn't
need to be much user interaction. The Mac is a far better desktop
OS, as is Windows. Linux is better suited to embedded devices and
servers, which is where this company is looking at putting it.
Posted by Martin Pilkington (13 comments )
Link Flag
This just shows your ignorance of new computers.

An Intel Core 2 Duo, or AMD Athlon X2 EE will both use less power than anything since a Pentium II and also require DDR2 memory, which uses far less power than DDR and SD-Ram memory because they operate at a much lower voltage. Hard drives are also using less power and running cooler these days. All of these things together make modern systems use much less power than systems available even 5 years ago. Upgrading to a new Vista enabled computer will save you money on your energy bill.
Posted by plbyrd (141 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Deeeeeaaaaammm That was Funny!
Really! .... Everybody start your engines, open those wallets, run
out the door, get those new computers, sign your license
agreements ... it's going to be a long trip .... where you headed ...
that Vista over there ... looks great from a distance!<p>LMAO
Posted by Thomas, David (1947 comments )
Link Flag
Ignorance indeed!
* video cards now come with their own power supply plug port, and no longer feed exclusively off of the PCI/AGP/PCIe bus. If you want more than crude defaults, let alone video acceleration, you had best plug that puppy in.

* There are more fans in a typical computer sold today, esp. those capable of running Vista.

* Power Supply wattage on average has risen to the 500-600W range (Wattage is an expression of power and/or power capacity), up from previous machinery in which 500W was a rare sight.

So... you were saying something about ignorance?

Posted by Penguinisto (5042 comments )
Link Flag
I doubt it...
sounds too closed minded to know cars didn't always exist.
-Windows user:(
Posted by jty12388 (14 comments )
Reply Link Flag
It seems that Capital &#38; Regional has taken a long time to find out
that for most users, Macs are quite a bit superior in usability,
practicality and for getting new employees up and working quickly,
than on other platforms. This should have been obvious to any
company keeping up with technology.
Posted by artmayer (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
Use OS/2 it is better!
The Mach kernel is based on the OS/2 kernel, and OSX and Mac OS are based on the OS/2 codebase.

OS/2 is a better Mac OSX than Mac OSX.
Posted by Labor Rations (7 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Don't Lie
Come again?! Would you like to tell us when you were working at
Next, and Apple?!<p>
Posted by Thomas, David (1947 comments )
Link Flag
What kind of drugs are you on?
OS X has nothing to do with OS/2 - thank goodness! No one needs half of an OS - OS/2!
Posted by naddy69 (8 comments )
Link Flag
Wrong - OSX is based on IBM's MVS
Mac's HFS file system is based on VSAM, and OSX's Automator is based on JCL. And don't get me started on how Apple stole IBM's TSO/ISPF and SPUFI for their XCode. Thiefs!
Posted by shoffmueller (236 comments )
Link Flag

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot



RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.