As noted in my sig, heat is the bane of all electronics, so I agree, it does indeed often come down to heat. But since the CPU makers apply the TIM (thermal interface materials) - typically a pad to the accompanying HSF assembly, I don't see that as the problem (assuming the assembler was careful while mounting the CPU and HSF assembly). While those pads are not the best TIM, they are pretty darn good and more than adequate for the vast majority of users. And most computers come with OEM HSFs - and in spite of long standing unfounded beliefs, those OEM coolers are quite good - again, more than adequate for the vast majority of users - even with mild to moderate overclocking (assuming the case is doing its job).
And to that, it is important to note it is the case's responsibility to provide an adequate "flow" of cool air through the case (via case design and fan support). All the CPU's HSF assembly needs to do is toss the CPU's heat up into that flow. So the choice of case is certainly a factor (including "cable management" within the case). Of course with notebook maker's (or their marketing departments) desire to make the thinnest, lightest notebooks while still packing a high-horsepower (read: high heat generating) computer inside, heat removal in notebooks is compromised from the start (and the main reason, IMHO, notebooks NEVER make good gaming machines - again, in spite of all the "fluff" and propaganda spewed by marketing weenies).
Choice of PSUs also play a critical role. For example, a budget computer from eMachines is likely to have a budget PSU with barely enough oomph to support the current load and with power may not be the "cleanest" (no ripple or other anomalies that affect computer stability).
As for your "disclaimer", I think the lack of care with TIM is more a problem with newbie users failing to do their homework, and not the computer makers - or rather, assemblers. As for Norton/Symantec - while their products tend to be the kings of bloat - typically packing tons of stuff you will never need while embedding themselves so deep in the kernels of our systems they are nearly impossible to uninstall - they do provide good security protection.
My problem is it makes no sense to me to pay small fortune for a product, then have to continue to pay small fortunes every year or so to renew it when there are perfectly capable free alternatives that are not full of bloat.
Also - frankly - I don't trust Norton/Symantec. It was them, along with McAfee, CA, Trend Micro and few others who whined and cried to Congress and the EU before XP came out, claiming Microsoft was trying to monopolize the software industry and rule the world. They were, but that was not the point. Norton et al claimed it was their job to rid the world of malware, not Microsoft's. And Congress and the EU - hearing the trigger word "monopolize" agreed and ordered MS to NOT put AV code into XP - or risk a forced breakup of Microsoft.
The problem is, Norton has absolutely zero, zip, zilch incentive to rid the world of malware for that will put them out of business - while MS has every incentive to rid the world of malware because they keep getting blamed for the security state we are in - when it was bad guys who put us here, not Microsoft or XP - along with Norton's failure to stop them! :mad7:
I am glad Windows 8 has anti-malware code built in and especially glad Congress and the EU see they listened to the wrong voices.
