Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Hardware
Hardware Troubleshooting
Shoud I Invest on new Cpu or Laptop??
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ForgottenSeer 58943" data-source="post: 703753"><p>First, in the enterprise/corporate world a server is a server, whether it is a VM or a Physical server, it's server. The vast majority of the enterprise/corporate world runs on VM's (Servers) so we really do not differentiate between physical hardware servers and virtual ones, we simply refer to them as 'servers'. Those VM's for all intents and purposes - are servers - they're running 2008R2, 2012, whatever and are licensed like servers and performing roles. It is very rare for a company to buy a physical server and just run a few roles on that physical server itself, it is very common to run multiple VM's with isolated roles - that's best practice. So yes, it is as widespread as people are making it out to be because in the enterprise/corporate world most things function on servers (VMs if you like to call them that). It's not uncommon to have a 150-250 worker company operating on 15+ VM's (servers) on say 4 physical servers. (but we call them servers...)</p><p></p><p>If you know how these resources are allocated then you know roles are measured out based on specific parameters. You also know that resources are finite and often tightly constrained. (more often than not) So you know even a 5% impact can have significant repercussions when you are running a physical server with 4 VMs (servers) on it. All 5 of those have to be patched, then you amortize that slowdown over 5 layered systems and the impact becomes rather pronounced. In terms of security since 'servers are servers', containment is lost between servers. That's a HUGE problem.</p><p></p><p>As for Chromebooks I think the inference wasn't that a Chromebook would fix Intel issues. Many Chromebooks come with Intel chips, many do not and many argue they are better without Intel.. But the reality is the nature of ChromeOS is vastly more secure and less chatty than Windows can ever be and Google is spot-on for finding and patching before things become a problem. In fact it is BETTER to not have an Intel Chromebook IMO.. I just purchased a case of them for the home on the refresh that was pushed up a few months because of this intel fiasco and I elected to not buy Intel Chromebooks. Primarily because other chipsets have clear advantages running Googleplay Apps which are now native to ChromeOS, Intel has lackluster Android App functionality. Also the N series is less than thrilling for Intel. So you have many choices, a variety of ARM Heterogeneous chips, Rockchip, etc.. Chromebook fixes a lot of things, not just the security of your device. After all, if you have any doubt just Powerwash your CB. In fact, why not Powerwash your CB every weekend just to be safe? It's just a couple of hotkeys and you are back to baseline and ready to go. Windows pretty much sucks unless you game or have special programs that require it.</p><p></p><p>No, Windows is not safe. I guess it 'could' in theory be made safe if you totally break it. Maybe. I doubt it and in some cases have proved the difficulty of securing Windows, even behind thousands of dollars in advanced security and APT appliances.. Sorry.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ForgottenSeer 58943, post: 703753"] First, in the enterprise/corporate world a server is a server, whether it is a VM or a Physical server, it's server. The vast majority of the enterprise/corporate world runs on VM's (Servers) so we really do not differentiate between physical hardware servers and virtual ones, we simply refer to them as 'servers'. Those VM's for all intents and purposes - are servers - they're running 2008R2, 2012, whatever and are licensed like servers and performing roles. It is very rare for a company to buy a physical server and just run a few roles on that physical server itself, it is very common to run multiple VM's with isolated roles - that's best practice. So yes, it is as widespread as people are making it out to be because in the enterprise/corporate world most things function on servers (VMs if you like to call them that). It's not uncommon to have a 150-250 worker company operating on 15+ VM's (servers) on say 4 physical servers. (but we call them servers...) If you know how these resources are allocated then you know roles are measured out based on specific parameters. You also know that resources are finite and often tightly constrained. (more often than not) So you know even a 5% impact can have significant repercussions when you are running a physical server with 4 VMs (servers) on it. All 5 of those have to be patched, then you amortize that slowdown over 5 layered systems and the impact becomes rather pronounced. In terms of security since 'servers are servers', containment is lost between servers. That's a HUGE problem. As for Chromebooks I think the inference wasn't that a Chromebook would fix Intel issues. Many Chromebooks come with Intel chips, many do not and many argue they are better without Intel.. But the reality is the nature of ChromeOS is vastly more secure and less chatty than Windows can ever be and Google is spot-on for finding and patching before things become a problem. In fact it is BETTER to not have an Intel Chromebook IMO.. I just purchased a case of them for the home on the refresh that was pushed up a few months because of this intel fiasco and I elected to not buy Intel Chromebooks. Primarily because other chipsets have clear advantages running Googleplay Apps which are now native to ChromeOS, Intel has lackluster Android App functionality. Also the N series is less than thrilling for Intel. So you have many choices, a variety of ARM Heterogeneous chips, Rockchip, etc.. Chromebook fixes a lot of things, not just the security of your device. After all, if you have any doubt just Powerwash your CB. In fact, why not Powerwash your CB every weekend just to be safe? It's just a couple of hotkeys and you are back to baseline and ready to go. Windows pretty much sucks unless you game or have special programs that require it. No, Windows is not safe. I guess it 'could' in theory be made safe if you totally break it. Maybe. I doubt it and in some cases have proved the difficulty of securing Windows, even behind thousands of dollars in advanced security and APT appliances.. Sorry. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
