Well, I watched the BBC Money Programme about the launch of Vista and a couple of things struck me. They tried to make out that they (the BBC) were being impartial, but in reality it was all rather sickly. The first thing that struck me is that all along they kept talking about competitors in the form of Google and 'other' internet companies but not once did they mention the source of most of their 'innovations', Apple. It was intriguing that the whole programme didn't mention Apple once in fact. Secondly, the whole 'WOW' thing with Vista got really old really quickly. The BBC tried to be cute by talking to potential customers at the end of the programme and asking if they would buy it and they all said that they wouldn't buy it because they didn't see what was wrong with XP. The general feeling was that they would get it with a new PC and not before. Fair enough. But when they told this couple of women that it cost MS $10 billion (that's $10 thousand million to us Brits) they did say "wow" to that. Personally, I am surprised that the number of lines of code only increased by 10 million over XP. Clearly they ripped a lot out and rewrote it, or didn't. Fact is, there isn't much new from the look of things. I have used Vista and found it confusing in many respects but maybe that is just me.

Anyway, wow? Not really. Yuck more like. And no mention of Apple, come on BBC. Something clearly went on behind the scenes to exclude such a prominent competitor. MS is obviously trying to ignore Apple and hope that none of their customers make the obvious comparison, that Vista is an old Toyota MR2 with a body kit trying to look like a Ferrari (don't laugh, there is one of those driving around where I live and it looks OK from a distance but up close..... no.)

All this talk of fuel efficiency and how difficult it is to be green prompts me to write about my daily use of a zero emissions vehicle. It requires no charging, now fueling, it simply works via man power and is capable of covering an easy 20 miles in an hour when the average speed of traffic in large cities is barely 10 MPH. The bicycle has been around for well over 100 years and I use mine daily to commute to work. I have got sufficiently fit now that I don't even break sweat and it only takes me 20 mins to cover the 5 miles or so even with traffic. I just don't know why so few people consider this as a viable way to travel. It costs virtually nothing to use. No insurance, no road tax, no fuel costs, very little repair costs (I had to buy a new chain recently) and it is amazing just watching people sit in traffic wasting money and getting fat.

Since I started cycling to work my car use has nearly halved, I cover roughly 2000 miles a year now and those are the 2000 miles which would be the most poluting and expensive since they are the town journeys.

Of course, the car drivers don't like cyclists which is odd. Would they prefer me to be in my car too? If all the cyclists used cars too the traffic would be much worse so they really should appreciate us and not try and run us off the road. Oh, and while I'm complaining about car drivers, you know it really isn't that impressive when you gun your engine and burn me off at the traffic lights. I'm on a bike, you're in a car, it really doesn't make you look tough or strong or anything, just wasteful.

Finally, the school run. It is amazing how clear the roads are when the schools are shut. These hulking great 4x4 things clogging the roads up for no good reason. Kids should walk to school, or take a bus. No-one got driven to school when I was a kid so what is different today? Well, I guess it is more dangerous to walk to school what with all the careless mums driving very large SUVs to carry one small child to school and parking wherever the heck they please. There really isn't any need for it.