Slashdot Mirror
Control-Alt-Recycle
klevin writes "Grist magazine's running an article on what to look for when the old PC's running out of gas and you want to avoid trashing the environment even further. Their suggestions include: upgrade instead of replacing, go for LCD monitors instead of CRTs and, if replacing, reuse the old one as an MP3 server on your home network."
Donate them to a charity. An MP3 server is really a waste of energy. I mean, come on... why not simply donate the pc to some charity that can give them to those less fortunate folks who could use them, and who don't need a P4 3.4ghz system to use email, do homework, and balance their checkbook...
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
I have one, its called a stereo. Really, for the 99.99% of the population that doesn't read Slashdot, who is going to actually do this? Nobody in the iPod generation for sure.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I'd also like to know how upgrading an old machine is more environmentally friendly. For one, it's not practical as core components can only be upgraded so far before you reach the point of diminishing returns. Also, most of the problem is in the materials used in CRTs, so "upgrading" them means replacment anyway.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Eh, considering every generation of PC's uses up more and more power (and converting more and more of it into heat), their statement probably stands. Maybe older gear isn't as efficient, but it draws considerably less power to begin with so it balances.
One issue I see with choosing LCD panels over CRT displays is that of lifespan. It's not uncommon for a CRT to outlive it's "useful" lifespan. I've acquired several older CRTs this way from my previous employer.
15" CRTs that were deemed too small for desktop use, old-skool 21" CRTs that had too much screen curvature and were simply too big compared to newer 19" and 21" CRTs (that were also a fraction of the cost). All of these CRTs are four to eight years old and still functioning.
Comparing this with what my experience has been with LCD panels is that they have failure rates higher than that of CRTs. I've seen this mostly with notebook screens. This comparision isn't entirely fair, as notebooks receive considerablly more abuse than a desktop+CRT. However, LCD panels have backlights (usually a miniature florescent bulb) that will burn out eventually. On notebooks, these backlights are integrated into the panel itself and are not replaceable parts by themselves. I don't know if this is the case with desktop LCD panels, but I suspect it is.
So the question is, how does using LCD panels vs. CRTs really impact the environment considering failure rates and manufacturing defects?
And these LCDs aren't exactly Llyama or Sony displays either - try cheap Acer/BenQ/LGe.
Then again, I'm not on the sales/warranty returns and LCD sales have only picked up in the last 18 months in my area so I may have yet to see all the caveats.
As far as developing faults are concerned, LCDs seem to either work fine or not work at all.
Cheap CRTs, on the other hand, especially large ones, love to get cracked PCBs or imploded tubes when moving house. Also, they run hotter with higher voltages, and the repairs seem to be more involved; HV circuitry collapses, power supplies die, OSDs go crazy, HO transistor dies, caps dry up, diodes go open circuit, dry joints cause intermittent faults, temperature related problems, picture becomes distorted/washed out/unfocused...
Cheap LCDs are a lot nicer to pack up and send back for repair. Packing up a cheap 19" CRT is quite costly compared to sending back a LCD, or motherboard or HDD...
As far as useability is concerned, it seems most offices we're fitting out would disagree with you. A cheap LCD is much better on the eyes IMHO than a cheap CRT. Cheap, nasty, half-working CRTs that some employess put up with are particulary worse than any LCD.
- Paul
much of the "upgrade" cycle is driven by silly reasons...
80% of home users can do just fine with that horribly old pentium III-800 (hell a 500 is just fine) running windows 98 or another efficient OS (no W2K and XP are NOT efficient in any way) running Office 97 (when OO.o is as fast as office 97 I'll reccomend it) and basic internet.
they are not using 60% of their computer.. Gamers? they think they need more.. where I found they need the video card (Ut2004 runs absolutely great with a new modern video card on a P-III-866 with all the goodies turned on) and rarely need the 4.6Ghz P4Extreme and the 2000Mhz FSB and quad DDR with load balancing and go fast fins as well a SATA 20,000rpm drives with 64meg cache and Ultra 900 bus....
most upgrades at home are in vain or for vanity reasons. you dont need a 2ghz machine to surf the web, write and read email and do taxes + the little bit of wordprocessing...
that said, I do enjoy all the 500mhz -> 1ghz machines I have been given as they were "throwing them out" after they got their new computer.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.