Outdated Computers…or Software Bloat?
I was reading an interesting article on ecogeek.org about how Linux could potentially reduce e-waste by millions of tons every year because the average lifespan of a Linux-based PC is about 6-8 years. On the other hand, the typical lifespan of a Windows PC is only about 3-4 years. This was a very informative and interesting article (eye-opening, even), but what really caught my attention was a comment that somebody posted. He (or she) wrote:
Remember kids, that these [P3 and older] systems were blazingly fast when they came out...! It's not physics or your perception of time that has changed... it's the bloat in your fat operating systems and applications.
Hmm...very thought-provoking indeed. Just having invested in a new rig (granted, a gaming rig), I thought to myself: was my old computer really slow, or is my new OS (Windows Vista on that particular machine) just more inefficient and bloated? His/her point that those "...systems were blazingly fast when they came out" really hit home for me. What caused my old computer to become what I perceived as "slow"? Was it that the hard drive was spinning at half speed and the CPU underclocked itself by 65%? No, it's because my shiny new OS (once again) raised the bar for hardware requirements. Hmmm...yet another point for Linux. As a gaming enthusiast, I'm still not ready to give up Windows. However, for day-to-day computing, I'm thinking of making the switch to full-time Ubuntu.
After all, anything named "Feisty Fawn" has to be easy on the environment.
P.S. I installed Ubuntu Linux on my old machine 
Related posts:
September 21st, 2007 - 12:11
Good info…I didn’t really stop to consider the environmental ramifications of an OS that forces us to buy new hardware every 3-4 years. Thanks for posting this.
September 22nd, 2007 - 23:07
Linux sucks, and it will never be a viable option to Windows.
September 23rd, 2007 - 22:56
Um, MSFanboy, Linux already IS a viable alternative to Windows. The only reason that Windows enjoys its massive user base is because that’s basically all you can buy preinstalled on a new PC.
But really, I think you’re missing the point of my post, which is this: by using Linux, people can double the life of an older PC, therefore drastically reducing the amount (and frequency) at which PCs end up in the dump.
Can you imagine if the number of PCs tossed into landfills each year was reduced by 50%? That makes Linux an incredibly “green” computing solution when compared to its more bloated Windows counterpart.
September 28th, 2007 - 07:31
Check out transgaming.com for some pretty easily-enabled Linux gaming.
And yes… Linux is absolutely an option for the desktop. Right now, the only notable exceptions I think of are hardcore gamers (who would not want to jump through the hoops of wine or cedega to play games, and be restricted on which games they could play), and some corporate environments. I’ve noted that a lot of enterprise web applications are built with the *assumption* that IE will be used… and they will only work with IE.
The other problem group, as far as switching, is that group that has learned “just a little” about computers, and really likes installing stuff from the internet. Switch one of these folks to Linux, and you may get a call at 1am asking you why they can’t install Bonzi Buddy on the new system you gave them….
September 28th, 2007 - 07:35
Also interesting.
September 28th, 2007 - 08:17
Lol, Bonzi Buddy. I remember trying to remove that thing from my parents’ computer. ROFL.
December 3rd, 2007 - 10:07
Hi Phil,
“That group that has learned “just a little” about computers” happends to be 80% of the users – believe, it takes a lot of time to get the casual user to move away from Windwos and get used to Linuxes. Fair play to Ubuntu, they are doing a great job, but still have a long way ahead. Move the casual user to Linux and the next day you’ll get a fresh batch of spyware, viruses and trojans for Linux as well, and not necessarily because Linux does a bad job in security, but the casual user doesn’t want the hassle of security popus and checks and such, they want to be able to install everything they lay the mouse pointer on – Linux doesn’t have that problem yet because it has an “educated” user, but all will change when the “casual” user comes in.
December 10th, 2007 - 15:47
I tend to agree with you, Dar Dar3. I think the size of the user base and their ability determines the # of viruses/spyware, not necessarily the OS itself. Although I bet my buddy Phil may argue otherwise.
I feel that if the same audience (both size-wise and skill-wise) used Linux, it would suffer from the same issues that Windows currently does. however, I could be totally wrong on that.
March 11th, 2010 - 18:32
Sorry, but there is a major flaw in the article. Linux is only useful if you upgrade the OS every year. Distros go out of date VERY quickly. More than two years old and you can forget security updates or even running the latest web browser, e-mail client or even basic new release software. New release software will begin to fail to install on a Linux distro thats a couple of years old. Upgrading distros breaks everything which means a clean install. Linux is still growing bloat-wise as well, though not quite as much as Windows. You at LEAST have the option of using the same hardware for a while longer. Though it must be said, Linux is bloating unncecessarily.
On the other hand, you can still run most if not all Windows software on XP, released in 2001. Find a Linux distro from 2001 that can run basic modern software. You cant. You’ll need to upgrade most of the OS to get even some basic command line utilities running.
So, no, I dont think ultimately they are much different. Windows does increase hardware requirements drastically, but releases are further apart. You can use any particular version for quite a few years with no trouble. You can use Windows XP despite the fact that there have been two releases since, and miss out on little, if anything. The increase in hardware requirements between Linux versions is much smaller, but you must update more frequently.
March 11th, 2010 - 20:47
@AssemblyLineHuman,
I don’t know if I agree…the Ubuntu folks have made updating as simple as clicking a button. To upgrade to Ubuntu 9.10, all a user has to do is go to the Update Manager and click “Update” when it shows a new release is available. I used the Upgrade option and didn’t find anything to be broken.
Plus, differences in “versions” of Linux — even though the version # may change — are much more incremental than Windows. For example, going from Ubuntu 8.04 to 9.10 is not a huge change. Going from XP to Vista is a MAJOR change.
So your point that Windows is on a longer development cycle is valid, but Linux is easy to upgrade (or rather, Ubuntu is easy to upgrade. This all depends on the distro, of course). And I just don’t see how everything gets “broken” from an upgrade.
That said, I’m a pretty big fan of Windows 7, and I’m actually not even running any flavor of Linux at the moment.
I’m sure I will again soon, though.