Got a link?
I can't see why any of that stuff would be more survivable than desktop standard components, frankly.

The one thing I can think of that'd cause problems is the amount of radiation a powerful CPU puts out and the shielding required to protect the rest of a computer. However, compared to the size of the rover, I again fail to see how that'd be such a huge problem.
( Kroney, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 10:26, 2 replies, latest was 13 years ago)

Kroney you're wasted in Slough

( Light In Chains maker of the ikea sofa, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 10:29, Reply)

this is probably why you work in Slough and not Cape Canaveral

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 10:29, Reply)

My highly attuned sense are detecting sarcasm, here.
Though I would like somebody to explain to me why a 1995 era Powerbook is the level of technology we're using to run a rover of that sophistication. There's no practical reason to do so aside from the amount of power that battery puts out.*

It'd make more sense to have shorter battery life and more powerful onboard components.

*that I can see. I am obviously sure that there are reasons, I just don't know what they are.
( Kroney, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 10:34, Reply)

I agree with you here, I'm not sure why they do it
apart from the tried and tested question, but still a computer from 2000 or so has had time to show up any bugs
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 10:41, Reply)

Reasons
It was designed 10 years ago, uses military grade chips to protect against high background radiation in space, and it doesn't run Windows so doesn't need to be that powerful. Simple and reliable is best.
(localboy purveyor of pisspoor puns, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 10:44, Reply)