<div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Ugh. Editing reaches a new low. Apparently (according to someone's measurements with a watt meter), the Mac mini draws a paltry 18 W idling (not sleeping) and 32 W with the optical drive running. If you run the Mac mini as a server (headless) 24/7 for two or three years, the Mac mini can save you big bucks on your electricity bill compared to an 'el cheapo' no-name desktop (assuming 100 W load). A 100 W server load will consume 8766 kWh/year and at $0.10/kWh (average for NA) it'll cost you $87.66/a to run. Assuming an average of 25 W for the Mac mini, it would cost you $21.92/a (not only that, but each kWh generated through fossil fuels produces 1 kg (2.2 lbs) of CO2, and fossil fuels produce 2/3 of US electricity... guess why they won't sign Kyoto ;-) Over one year, 100 W (in the US at 66% CO2 generating 33% other (hydroelectric, wind, nuclear (with its own problems)) will generate 5800 kg (12760 lbs) CO2 vs 1450 kg CO2 for the Mac mini (even that is a staggeringly large number given the relatively low energy usage). The relevant fossil fuel vs nuclear vs renewable ratios in Europe will be different but energy prices will be even higher. (I would still like to know how much a rack-mount XServe uses... it's running pretty heavy-duty G5s so I don't think XServes going to be environmentally friendly (plus, the XServe is many times more expensive than a Mac mini)). Eric. -- ubuntu-users mailing list <a href="mailto:ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com">ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com</a> <a href="http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users"> http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users</a> </blockquote></div> Maybe we ought to alert greenpeace of this fact =) Charles -- "It is unwise to pay to much, but it is worse to pay too little; you sometimes lose everything becuase the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do"