I must have missed the accusation of malice, certainly there were many pointing to greed (which every financial institution is guilty of, corporate or otherwise). Saying that the article was arguing that its possible to operate effectively on 1996 era hardware is fallacious, I doubt anyone would accept that considering the drastic difference between computing power in 1996 to just four years later in 2000, and the difference between 2008-2012. The argument doesn't hold. Multiple CPUs, hardware Virtualization, FSB speeds (ie bandwith) are virtually unchanged on computers over the past 5-6 years, when compared to the monumental changes from 1996 to 2000, and even up to 2005. I have a dual core laptop from 2006 that has 4 gigs of memory and 2.2 Ghz Dual core, and eSata, compared to 'new' PCs: 2+ Ghz dual core, 4-8 GB of ram, eSata. Computers have gotten cheaper, screens have gotten better, but the basic functionality has changed little, things like battery life, weight, and style have been the focus. The 'treadmill' (as you put it) for all practical purposes is now a clothes hanger. Faster has been sidelined for style and longevity (updating the battery, transistor scale), cheaper also has been supplanted by style and status. I think the focus should not be arguing whether or not people should be expected to do photo processing on the ENIAC or a Windows 98 machine, but can using a computer for 4 or 5 years, instead of 2 to 3 years make an impact, and can recycling or donating your old PC make a significant dent in the environmental and geopolitical risk we now face.