On Sun, May 11, 2025 at 03:55:30PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: [...]
> > The embedded cost in older machines has amortised over a longer > > period. > > What are you even talking about? Longer life: you divvy up the manufacturing (and shipping, and...) over a longer time. > > I don't follow your logic, sorry. > > This is simple: if you have a 7 year old machine, find someone throwing out > a 4 year old machine, take it, and throw out the 7 year old machine instead. > Refusing to take the newer machine does not affect demand for new machines > *at all*. Of course it does. The used/refurbished market also dries up (I'm in a waiting list for an X series Thinkpad at my refurb dealer right now). > You don't get a carbon credit by obstinately holding on to an old > machine, especially since the new machine is likely more efficient. We went around full circle: I think I'm out now. You keep your opinion, I keep mine. > The issue isn't finding the availability of potentially useful machines that > get > trashed, the issue is that there isn't an efficient market for getting those > machines to people who can use them. Around here, there is a market. Whether it is "efficient" according to your criteria I don't know (and to be honest, I don't really want to). Cheers -- t
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
