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