Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] More Memory (OT)

Subject: Re: [OM] More Memory (OT)
From: Jan Steinman <Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:29:57 -0700
> From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> On 9/29/2010 3:51 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
> 
>> I reckon a good reason for me to continue using my Mac is its
>> continued resistance to malware . . .
> 
> I accept that but its resistance to malware is mostly a function of not 
> being attacked very much due to low market share.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Having UNIX underneath is a huge advantage over having 
something that basically evolved from MeSs-DOS.

I'd vote that systems that were originally designed to be multi-user are 
inherently more secure than systems that sorta glued security onto the side of 
a product line with a "long tail" of single-user, "anything goes" backward 
compatibility to maintain.

Today's Windows situation would be similar to Apple maintaining and evolving 
Mac OS 9. Instead, they made a clean break, continuing to run older software 
through a "jailed" compatibility application (essentially, a virtual machine), 
while Microsoft has continued to support old cruft all the way back to Windows 
3.0. You can't break into a Mac with old OS 9 hacks, but who knows how much 
ancient Windows code is around to exploit.

Another factor is open versus closed software architecture. The Darwin core of 
Mac OS X is open-source. This is a bit of a two-edged sword, in that hackers 
can go look at possible exploits, but it also means that many, many more "white 
hat" eyeballs are also looking at the source code, spotting, fixing, and 
reporting possible exploits before they get exploited.

(Note that both these arguments hold true for Linux as well, for those who 
don't like to buy hardware from Apple.)

>> . . . oh, and the fact that the average Apple machine will last a
>> couple of years longer than a Winders equivalent (but does that mean
>> that I have to keep it longer to prove that? ;-))
> 
> Got any proof of that?  I thought not.  :-)

The proof exists. I'm not going to do your homework for you. Google for "IDC" 
and stuff like "mac windows lifetime".

IDC did a study than showed that the average working lifetime of a Windows 
machine was just 27 months, but the average working lifetime of a Mac was 39 
months.

This is not to say that older machines of any breed cannot continue to be 
useful, but IDC actually surveyed users about how long they actually used their 
machines before sh*t-canning them.

I know this is anecdotally true in my circles. Until a few weeks ago, my "daily 
driver" Mac was a dual G5 that I bought new in 2004. My "new" Mac Pro was 
designed in 2006. :-) My father-in-law seems to buy a new Windows box every 
other year, mostly because the old one "gets slower" for some reason.

Those who bitch that Macs cost more generally don't consider total cost of 
ownership over the entire life-cycle. If you prorate appropriately (Macs 
lifetime cost is just 27/39ths of Windows, according to IDC), they're actually 
nearly 40% cheaper than something you have to replace more often. And this 
doesn't even consider the "externalities" of landfills, CO2, etc.

----------------
It's clear I was raised both a Star Wars fan and a Catholic because whenever I 
hear, "May the force be with you," I always respond in my head with, "And also 
with you." -- Aaron Karo
:::: Jan Steinman, EcoReality Co-op ::::

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz