I don't disagree at all on the security aspects. Windows has some major
holes which, as you say, are maintained due to compatibility. But my
comments about longevity had to do with hardware failure. I don't care
if the typical user replaces his hardware after 27 months because, if he
does, it's not because the hardware failed.
Chuck Norcutt
On 9/30/2010 2:29 PM, Jan Steinman wrote:
>> 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/
|