bwana
08-01-2007, 09:25 AM
For all you tree huggers :D
In context, Apple's notebooks are the most environmentally friendly with 17 optional points. Apple's Desktop and monitors aren't top of the heap, though. The Mac Pro scores 16 optional points. Only three computers (out of 67) from Northern Micro (which makes the Spirit brand) do better (1@17 and 2@18). Meanwhile, HP, Lenovo and Dell don't break 14 points. At 15 optional points for Apple monitors, they are solidly at the middle of the pack along with several NEC models, but blowing Lenovo, HP and Dell out of the water because many of the latter's monitors only rate 13 points. Only NEC's flat panel monitors do better with 18 optional points (they're also the best scoring equipment rated).
So in the grand scheme, according to the EPA, Apple has the most eco-friendly notebooks, the 4th most eco-friendly desktop, and monitors that aren't too shabby. But, are they far and away better than other manufacturers? No. Could they be better? For sure. (http://arstechnica.com//journals/apple.ars/2007/1/6/6507)
In context, Apple's notebooks are the most environmentally friendly with 17 optional points. Apple's Desktop and monitors aren't top of the heap, though. The Mac Pro scores 16 optional points. Only three computers (out of 67) from Northern Micro (which makes the Spirit brand) do better (1@17 and 2@18). Meanwhile, HP, Lenovo and Dell don't break 14 points. At 15 optional points for Apple monitors, they are solidly at the middle of the pack along with several NEC models, but blowing Lenovo, HP and Dell out of the water because many of the latter's monitors only rate 13 points. Only NEC's flat panel monitors do better with 18 optional points (they're also the best scoring equipment rated).
So in the grand scheme, according to the EPA, Apple has the most eco-friendly notebooks, the 4th most eco-friendly desktop, and monitors that aren't too shabby. But, are they far and away better than other manufacturers? No. Could they be better? For sure. (http://arstechnica.com//journals/apple.ars/2007/1/6/6507)