Quote:
Originally Posted by NrGx

Overpriced - Not really considering the hardware you get. I got my Macbook for $999 and I think it stands up reasonably well to the other laptops out there at that price point (at least in Australia).
Underpowered - No. They have Intel and Nvidia technology in them.
Insecure - Why? They are fine when it comes to security. They use a BSD based Unix subsystem and there aren't many viruses coded for OS X. How are they insecure?
Nice Apple bashing but I thought I might pick about some of the absurdness in your post.
|
Overpriced: In the UK (and I guess the rest of Europe), they're massively overpriced. It's the equivalent of $1337 AUD (how ironic) if you were to buy a Mac in Europe. For about 600 AUD less, you could get a 15 inch screen and a Core i5 processor in the UK.
Underpowered - Yes, they are. The processors used in most Macbooks/Macbook pros use technology that is over 2 years old. You will not get significantly more power from a 2010 Macbook than you will in a 2006 Macbook.
Insecure - You clearly didn't read the article. This whole news thread is about the point that Macs are insecure enough that 20 0day exploits have been found by a single researcher. There's a BSD based Unix subsystem but there's so much code (open source, closed source, etc) that keeping it all in check is very hard to do. What's more, Apple are worse at patching bugs. These two charts show the level to which Apple and Microsoft have not patched exploits to their respective operating systems. The study is a few years old, but newer studies seem to echo the same results (I just can't find them atm).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Choggs396

Nah, Linux is like a creepy geek's apartment, where the only thing an intruder would think to find there are stacks of anime, porn, and empty bags of cheetos.
|
You might think that, but considering Facebook, Google, most other large sites run *nix servers, I'd imagine that quite a lot of sensitive information is on them. A far cry from 'empty bags of cheetos'.