> What's important is idle CPU power consumption, and that's significantly better these days. It isn't. You can find both ancient and modern PCs that idle anyw

> What's important is idle CPU power consumption, and that's significantly better these days. It isn't. You can find both ancient and modern PCs that idle anywhere in the range from 10 to 30 watts, and pathological cases for both where the idle is >100W. Some of the newer ones can even get pretty close to zero, but the difference between zero and 30 watts for something you're leaving on eight hours a day at $0.25/kWh is ~$22/year. Which is less than the interest you'd get from sticking the $600 cost of a new PC in a 5% CD. And many of the new ones are still 30 watts or more at idle. > That's an entirely different situation because of the closed and vendor-controlled nature of those systems. It's a worse situation, but if the complaint is that they abandon their customers long before the customer wants to stop using the device, they certainly match the criteria. > But if you can't tell the difference between 1080p and an NTSC TV, you're blind. Being able to discern a difference and caring about it are two different things. If your use for a TV is to watch the news and play 90s video games then the resolution of the talking heads doesn't matter and the classic games aren't in 1080p anyway. > The low-res stuff is relegated to very small budget models where it's really pointless to have such high resolution. Which is the point. If you have an old 30" TV and no space for a 72" TV, you do not need a new 30" TV.