Thurrott seems to have been mellowing lately - several of his recent articles have been actually pretty balanced - save for comparing Tiger to SP2?!?!
Anyhow, today his article on Spyware on Windows IT Pro actually points people towards getting a Mac even in an corporate environment if they don't need specialised Windows apps. The rest of the article is OK too but this is the most interesting part...
Anyhow, today his article on Spyware on Windows IT Pro actually points people towards getting a Mac even in an corporate environment if they don't need specialised Windows apps. The rest of the article is OK too but this is the most interesting part...
Today, Mac laptops--called PowerBooks--are beginning to appear more and more often in the planes, Internet cafes, and press rooms I frequent around the country. Tech enthusiasts--what we might call tech influencers--are turning, increasingly, to the Mac.
For Microsoft and its Windows-using customers, this change could be a problem. Or, if you're interested in a safer computing experience, it could be a solution. Although many business users require Windows-specific applications that won't run on the Mac, a good percentage of Windows users today require only very basic services, including word processing, email, and Web browsing. These needs are well served by a Mac or even by a Linux-based PC, both of which are arguably safer today than Windows machines.
Questions emerge, of course. Is a more heterogeneous environment really safer, or is that just an added layer of complexity? And are Windows alternatives more secure because they're better designed or because so few hackers attempt to infiltrate those machines? These are questions for the ages, I suppose. But in a world where spyware is only the most recent attempt at tearing down the House of Windows, I'm beginning to wonder whether the alternatives don't make some sense.