Today, cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) made these interesting
comments ...

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:12:41 -0500, Adam Albright
wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:16:25 -0700, "Justin"
wrote:
"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message

Me, too! Can you offer me some psycho-babble that will
convince me to pop for that SRT8? I need some sort of
excuse to salve my conscience that I really need that much
power. Man, it sure would be fun!

Less time on road = less fuel spent.

Justin, you're really a funny character. EVERYONE (but you)
knows the faster you drive the MORE fuel you'll use. It
therefore will cost you more in fuel burned driving at 95 MPH
then it would at 60 MPH.

System efficiency plays a role, too. It wouldn't surprise me
if driving from LA to NY in 1st gear at 5 mph costs more than
in top gear cruise at 55 mph.

In terms of computing, there's a "capacity" or "speed" below
which it is more expensive to deliberately develop "smaller"
systems, and a higher level above which it's cheaper and more
effective to harness multiple smaller systems than to try and
make one big one.

There's efficiency, too. It's not "cheaper" to use 22-bit
data than 32-bit, or 5-bit ASCII than 8-bit, because of this.

All that is true. I'd add that the OP you're replying to missed a
joke from who HE was replying to, and Windows has never been a
paragon of efficiency and has generally depended highly on the HW
folks to build a better machine to "hide" their "inefficiency".

--
HP, aka Jerry