danvm

MacQuadra840av said:

Finally an article that clearly points out the unfortunate limitations of the M1.  Everyone is so blinded in tunnel vision of 3x performance that they are completely missing out on the fact that the M1 is a low-end base model CPU with less features than the models it replaced.  

It was not long ago that all the commenters were complaining of soldered memory, soldered storage, no upgrades, etc.  All Apple has to do is slap an Apple logo on a pig and the fanatics think it is the best thing in the world.  It wasn't long ago that people were complaining about 16GB RAM in the MacBooks and then they cheered when Apple bumped it up to 32GB and 64GB.  Now suddenly they are all happy that the M1 is capped at 16GB?  Suddenly they are excited that integrated graphics in the M1 are faster than the integrated graphics on the intel Macs, but still much slower than discrete graphics?  WTF?  

Could you imagine if Apple introduced an iMac with only 16GB of RAM (instead of 128GB), 2TB of storage (instead of 8TB), two USB-C (instead of 4 USB/2 Thunderbolt), and integrated graphics driving a 27+" 5K display?  It would be a joke!  Or a Mac Pro with those specs?  Suddenly people think a 16GB M1 can do anything?  Not when you throw a huge graphics file at it.  Let's not forget about the excessive read/writes that is occurring in the M1 Macs, wearing out the flash storage prematurely.

Hopefully the next iMacs have specs that meet or exceed the current 2020 models.  There is a big reason why Apple is still selling the Intel models because they have more features than the M1 models.  Notice how fast M1 Macs appeared in the refurb store?  High customer returns triggered that.  Unfortunate that Apple intends to solder everything to the board.  No more replacing bad memory DIMMs or swapping out a bad drive.  Now when that goes bad outside of the warranty, the Mac will end up in the trash because replacing the motherboard is an expensive repair and people will throw it away and buy a new Mac.  I have high hopes for the iMac and MacBook Pro 16", but the M1 was too limiting in features to consider buying.

tzeshan said:

gatorguy said:

GeorgeBMac said:

gatorguy said:

GeorgeBMac said:

gatorguy said:

danvm said:

GeorgeBMac said:

danvm said:

nicholfd said:

danvm said:

planetary paul said:

I doubt this will change anything. So many organisations have bought fully into the MS dream world and they are not going to admit any mistake. Everyone will be very busy putting out this umpteenth fire, but after that it will be business as usual. 

The saying used to be: "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM", and the same goes for Microsoft too. It's the perfect lock-in. And MS IT-departments want to be locked in in order to show the need for their size and budgets. Managements love it because it makes them seem more important. 

So I think same old will remain same old.

I wish Apple had continued building their own back end infrastructure, but they left it to MS. Not good for Apple.

Most business / enterprises are fully into MS because they offer the best enterprise / business ecosystem in the market.  The same benefits you see with Apple ecosystem with consumers, is with MS with their business / enterprise software.  Even though they are not perfect, as the security issue with Exchange show, most of the time they have been proved very secure, specially with their server / business software.  

And again, you would be wrong.  Most businesses and enterprises are in to MS because it's what they know, and it's the "easy" path.  Microsoft has NEVER proven they are "very secure", especially with there server/business software.

Maybe is the easy path because MS has the best business / enterprise ecosystem.  And their integration of on-premise with Azure is excellent.  As today, no one is close to them.  And their server / cloud applications and services have been prove very secure.  Again, maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't find other major issues as the one with Exchange for their enterprise / business software and services in past years.  You could post some links clarifying that.  

Wrong

Like I said, I haven't found article or cases where MS business / enterprise software and services have been compromised in recent years as the case with have with Exchange.  But since you say that I'm wrong, maybe you could post articles about this.

Are you done holding your breath? I don't recall him EVER posting a link for any questionable claims he makes.

LOL...   That Microsoft creates private and secure systems?

If you believe that you need go find a bridge to buy.

Oh wait!  You're the one who claims Google never collected anyone's data.  Never mind.

See? No links.

None are needed for intelligent people.   For the rest, they wouldn't understand anyway because they are arguing from a preconceived notion and simply use "links" to confirm what they decided to believe.  

 Your first sentence is patently false. You must get your own news from someplace so obviously even a smart guy like you needs sources. Why would you not be willing to share any of them, especially since they surely don't just serve to buttress your preconceived notions, your existing beliefs.

You've often said that pretty much anyone disagreeing with you is looking at biased sources, inaccurate reporting and fake stories. A smart person would want us to stop doing that, right? So point us to the good and reliable ones, or at least those you trust for honesty and accuracy. 

He does not have to provide any links. There are so many. It is widely known Windows OS is not secure. Otherwise the two anti-virus companies won't become so profitable. 

GeorgeBMac said:

danvm said:

GeorgeBMac said:

danvm said:

GeorgeBMac said:

danvm said:

GeorgeBMac said:

What bothers me most about this is that Microsoft was recently chosen to build and maintain the central hub of our national defense -- the $10 Billion JEDI contract.

Why would anybody pick an organization infamous for its porous security for such a critical mission?

I haven't seen many cases of MS applications and services (Windows Server, SQL, Exchange, MS 365, Azure, etc) being compromised, at least in recent years.  Maybe that was the case 20 years ago, with Windows Server 2000 / Windows XP, but not today.  That doesn't means they are perfect, but it looks like they are doing a very good job if they are winning contracts as large as the example you gave with JEDI. 

BTW, that contract can be canceled if Amazon keeps fighting for it.  Let's see how it ends.

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/320577-pentagon-may-dump-10-billion-jedi-program-over-microsoft-amazon-fight
https://www.crn.com/news/cloud/microsoft-could-lose-jedi-contract-if-aws-case-isn-t-dismissed-report

Then you may as well go ahead and delete your anti-virus software if MS products are so safe and secure.

I don't have 3rd party AV installed in my Windows PC, neither in my Mac.  Windows Defender works very nice in Windows 10, and the same can be said of xProtect in macOS.  Interesting how both, MS and Apple integrate an AV to protect their users.  I suppose that in your POV, neither are secure or safe, right?

Privacy and security are hallmarks of Apple products.   Not Microsoft's.   You didn't know that?

Most of MS bad reputation for not being secure is for their issues with Windows 2000 / XP. In most recent years they have been proved very secure, specially in the server and cloud services. Maybe this was one of the reasons they were considered for the JEDI program. Also most business / enterprises worldwide run in the MS ecosystem for years. If they were as bad as you think, most of those business / enterprises would have move to another solutions, specially today, with so many options available.

No, the world just got used to Microsoft products and hacking to be fairly synonymous.

And, Microsoft was picked for the JEDI project most likely because the owner of the most qualified vendor was not a Trumper.

GeorgeBMac said:

danvm said:

GeorgeBMac said:

What bothers me most about this is that Microsoft was recently chosen to build and maintain the central hub of our national defense -- the $10 Billion JEDI contract.

Why would anybody pick an organization infamous for its porous security for such a critical mission?

I haven't seen many cases of MS applications and services (Windows Server, SQL, Exchange, MS 365, Azure, etc) being compromised, at least in recent years.  Maybe that was the case 20 years ago, with Windows Server 2000 / Windows XP, but not today.  That doesn't means they are perfect, but it looks like they are doing a very good job if they are winning contracts as large as the example you gave with JEDI. 

BTW, that contract can be canceled if Amazon keeps fighting for it.  Let's see how it ends.

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/320577-pentagon-may-dump-10-billion-jedi-program-over-microsoft-amazon-fight
https://www.crn.com/news/cloud/microsoft-could-lose-jedi-contract-if-aws-case-isn-t-dismissed-report

Then you may as well go ahead and delete your anti-virus software if MS products are so safe and secure.

Rayz2016 said:

Odd that games consoles care excluded. What’s the reasoning behind that?