Nobody, least of all me, is suggesting that Vista is the only culprit. Merely that Vista, or rather the Aero UI, is causing laptops to consume more power than they need to be with no real benefit to the user. As a result, Vista is therefore contributing more to problems with the environment through excess power consumption when compared to XP.

I could have written 'laptop power consumption contributing to global warming problem' or indeed 'old fridges continue to damage the environment' but chose not to as neither are relevant to this blog posting which is about Vista.

The quality of my journalism is, obviously, very poor indeed. I suspect I will have to find another job as I doubt I will last long in this career. Unless you count 16 years as a successful, award winning, freelance technology journalist as any indicator of longevity. Nope, I must just have been very lucky not to get found out until now. I am off to submit my resignation to the National Union of Journalists and Society of Authors forthwith, and to tell the Science Museum here in the UK to cancel the contract for that new book they have just asked me to write for them...

Grats on the article. Like with Rosie O'Donnell and her recent episodes..."one man's trash is another's treasure", your performance is no exception to this rule.

Final argument which you refuse to accept and debate - You can blame Microsoft for destroying our environment just as much as you can blame Ford or other auto manufacturers because their customers go for a Sunday drive. Microsoft or Linux or OS/400 are all just as much contributors, your headline and content indicated Microsoft was more at fault however had no evidence to support it, not to mention the "global warming" references (which is neither confirmed or denied officially).

Since according to the zealots "Linux has the majority of the market in server platforms", wouldn't linux therefore be even more at fault for those servers that run 24x7 than a few Vista laptops? That is why your article is hypocritical, unfair, and biased.

Now I am officially done with the urination contest you have turned this into. I can live with the fact we cannot see eye to eye with this matter, at least though I have given the readers a little more insight to the world ouside the parents' attic and linux fanboy land.

Look, I don't know where you get the idea from that I am a Linux fanboy. I have some Linux distributions running here to keep up to speed with things, but I am a Windows fanboy if truth be told.

As for the this turning into a urination contest, if that is the way you want to view it, then fine. However, when someone who disagrees with my opinion states straight off the bat that my posting is propaganda, questions my professional ability as a journalist and assumes that I am a Linux apologist, then I am going to argue my corner.

There is no point in continuing with this, though, seeing as you have painted yourself into a corner and are not prepared to actually enter into an adult debate. "Your headline and content indicated Microsoft was more at fault" being a prime example. My headline did nothing of the sort, it suggested Microsoft was at fault, not more, not less, just at fault, and my posting went on to explain why I believed this.

Readers might like to note that I am not the one who is making the personal remarks. To come in where you started, my grandmother used to say to me that someone with no substance in an argument will turn to personal abuse and is best ignored...

I have not personally abused you, and yes when you publically release your opinions just might offend others.

You offended me in an attempt to defend yourself. This article is in my opinion propaganda and I'll stay behind that 100% and there is nothing you have said at this point to make me think otherwise. Yes, the content (or lack thereof), bias, and unsubstantiated implications of your article do indeed make me question your journalism skills.

I'm not flaming you, I'm just calling a dog a dog. The grandmother reference is true, and her saying is what I normally live by. I treat others the way I'd like to be treated, so if I produced this kind of quality-lacking article I would want someone to make me aware of it.

I just don't understand how you can single out Windows Vista which must have what, like 10000 copies in circulation right now, and saying it contributes to global warming...something that some argue doesn't exist!?!

Before I stated I was done with the urination contest, but I do welcome intelligent debate. So when are you actually going to sit down and write answers to all the questions I have answered thus far without using evasive techniques and getting straight to the point?

Vista leads to global warming, everything else gives you cancer. I cant really see the point.