No company is gong to go green unless coerced? 

We've created that sort of market place and very clearly it's an utter joy to some, like fish finding water. But it's not entirely true and if we the people started focusing on eliminating black market profits so our markets weren't flooded with dirty money, then honest business people would thrive and the caca roaches would go hungry. Our free market depends on the people actively working to keep the markets clean. That involves some small risk, like the risk of children being addicted to drugs, but how do you compare that against the war in Iraq or the sad state of affairs we face today? Teaching children to take responsibility(gives you shivers doesn't it Brown) is the way to fight addiction- and they are allowed to make their own mistakes. which we humans will do form time to time, though let's not pretend that any of us knows it all. We tend to react to crime rather then addressing the root of crime, which is the black market money. We have to be smarter then that.

Unfortunately that would require some thought and our Western Culture seems to prefer drinking over thinking, which brings us back to coercion, corruption and hypervole. 

Thanks all!

Maybe its the profit motive at work: AMD probably makes more profit from selling cpus for 7 high end servers (7 x 2 Quad Cores) than it makes from selling 135 low end chips.

I see this trend myself: There is always the demand for another application server just around the corner. While the applications which they host are considered to complex to be installed side-by-side with others, their actual workload is so low that they do not justify another hardware box. 

The same holds true for backup-infrastructure services like Domain controllers or DNS: In case one of the big machines fails, backup-devices will be sufficient to keep the operation going until the main machine has been serviced.

Sharing these low-usage application servers and backup-systems on less hardware is a very good way to save energy and save rackspace.

Sure, you ?could replace 135 servers with 7? Is that Magic Number? 7. Yet its more possible on small data machines.

Take Microsofts Virtual Earth, Available FREE. every few months it has updates & update alone comes in close to 100 terraflops of data. Now how many virtualized servers would that need?

Its 50 2 Tb HDD just to start or near Fifie thou. Just saving $1/Hr in power could save that much in 8 years. however, if you had such capacity, you'd have your onan generator, too. What if nobody cared about maps? Let alone other 135 servers glut?

Paul to Paul Messaging:www.geocities.com/tsvondrashekmd/Suspect.html. So how much would world save without such messages, about $15 pop. thinks problem is: theINQ is similar to, Slaver: Mary Celeste.
TS drashek paulHd

has worked in the field for any length of time knows there's a digital analogue, so to speak, to Parkinson's Law something to the effect that demand for service(s) expands to fill the available capacity. Those "idle" servers won't stay that way for long.