I know a SCCM Microsoft PFE who has told me horror stories about customers doing this and paving their exchange server with Windows 7. I think it happens, but you don't read about it on a publicly readable website.

Its happen in my IT shop - although not nearly as bad as this story implies.

In our current CM 2012 environment we split Servers and Desktops and limited by security scope who can run queries and add servers to collections.

We had a similar incident at the place I work - the tech did a select * from r_system on a live required deployment - they shut off the DP (distribution point) after about 450 machines got imaged. I was actually impressed how efficient it was :).

For those who don't know - that query basically tells the site server to build a collection of every computer (including servers) with a forced deployment of a new OS. CM 2012 will actually warn you if you type that kind of query in - so you'd have to click through that warning and keep going.

SCCM only suports PXE booting to run a task sequence - Mac's can't really boot off PXE.

I should clarify - there's two ways to image a PC with CM 2012 (formerly SCCM) - if the deployment is setup this way: via PXE or via the agent. Linux and Mac clients don't support task sequence deployments.

OSD is only supported on Windows. (source: I'm a CM 2012 admin).

Its FAA certified parts - essentially take a normal part, multiply the price times 10 or 20 = FAA certified part.

Don't believe me? Look up how much a rubber tire for landing costs.

What if you had an accident in that guys jamming zone and needed to call an ambulance while parked on the shoulder?

XP users will still get patches for individual products like Office and IE.

I really don't care about dual booting - in my experience the machine spends most of its time in one environment, and the one time you do switch its got a months worth of patches to install.

I don't use the metro ui for anything on my desktop - that said - while I think Windows 8.1 is more responsive than 7 or XP, it does have a lot of usability issues, but its not debilitating.

I honestly think OSX (yes I have an airbook running mavericks :)) and the plethora of Linux desktops have about as many problems with usability - the shame with Windows is that Windows 7's UI was pretty much perfect.

You can't even use server core for some MS services (CM 2012 comes to mind).

Define major christian church? I find publicly the mormons or catholics may not say anything, but in their cannon its quite clear the earth is only a couple thousand years old.

It comes and goes - back when iPhones could be jail-broken by visiting a website (something as far as I know - no Android phone has suffered from) I banned loads of iphones off our university network for contacting known malware sites.

And you kids! Get off my lawn!

The architecture is different though - Android runs everything under a VM. I suspect if the iPhone ran everything under a VM with the processor it currently sports it would be a different picture.

There are advantages and disadvantages with this approach - the advantages you went over - the iPhone is faster with less CPU. Android however can take advantage of newer processors and new features quicker however. A VM for instance lends itself more useful at distributing load much better at non SMP aware apps.

The iPhone really can't make any /major/ architecture changes without breaking userspace. Where as Android has proved that the cpu doesn't matter really - I've seen Android apps run on x86, mips and many different ARM systems for example.