Going Mac...maybe.

[N80]

I'm assuming you guys are just talking way over my head about stuff I don't understand but since the Mac G3 tower, all of the towers have open PCI slots. Granted, this was not always true of Macs but the G3 tower dates back a good 10 years or so.

So either I just can't grasp what you mean or either you guys aren't keeping up with the Mac world. In terms of expansion on a desktop machine, since the G3 towers I doubt there has been any desktop machine easier to expand and more elegantly designed for expansion than a Mac. See this:

Apple - Mac Pro - Design

 

[N80]

I suppose we could work up some statistics on which platform is most used to control what, but I was referring specifically to things like various kinds of spectrophotometers (infrared, UV-Vis, nmr, Mass Spec) and X-ray diffraction instrumentation, not scanners and the like.

Well, that clarifies things some. But not a lot. Again, I know for a fact that Macs are used extensively in the astrophysics field and in certain departments at NASA and I think at JPL. So this interface issue does not seem to be a major plus or minus in the Mac vs Window issue and especially since most of us don't have spectrophotometers on our desks.

And you guys do know that since OS X the Mac operating system is basically Unix right? And pretty much anything you can do on Unix you can do on a Mac, including Linux. No problem at all.

They could be made for Macs, and I have no doubt that some are, but that kind of interfacing is much more common with PCs.

And that makes sense. Macs currently have about 5% market share. Far less in business and industry. But this has far more to do with market ubiquity than capabilities.

Some of that may have to do with the international market....anyone know how well Apple has penetrated the European market?

Higher than in the US. But again, primarily among home users, graphic arts and production and niches in the sciences.

Most of the Europeans I deal with about computer issues run flavors of Linux on PC systems.

Again, OS X IS UNIX.

Of course, they are running Windows XP, because that is the platform for which the software was available, so in effect they ar PCs made by Apple.

Why on earth would anyone, anywhere buy iMacs for a science lab and run Windows on them? This isn't a poke at Windows. Its a poke at someone paying top dollar for a box that costs top dollar because it was designed and made to run OS X, not Windows. That is incomprehensible. That lab would have been far better served with new Dells.

Turns out they're having almost 10% hardware failure on those boxes, mainly power supply issues.

Chuck

I've had that many Macs of my own. Hardware failure rate is zero in 23 years. But one has to wonder what else might be going on with those machines in a department that paid Mac money to run Windows. That's simply nuts.

 

[Chuck52]

George,

The computer guys got us a deal on the iMacs. They were cheaper than Dells were going to be. I guess you could say we didn't pay "top dollar". I would imagine Apple is interested in further penetrating this market and made us a deal for that reason. The iMacs are running Windows because we already had the Windows version of the software, which runs fine. There is an OSx version of the software available, but is expensive, and with the good experience we had with the Windows version there was no incentive to switch to that. The iMacs are set up as dual boot, but in fact only run Windows.

As to the hardware problems, which are hardware and not software problems, our departmental electronics guy tells me the actual percentage is about what we had with the old computers, which were Gateways rather than Dells. If you want to test a computer, let your typical undergraduate student play with it!

I don't know why more instrument manufacturers don't sell Macs with their equipment, but our electronics guy, who is always involved in instrument purchases, says he can't remember even seeing that as an option. The more computer-intensive instrumentation, such as the various nmr spectrometers, usually have PCs (often Dells) running Linux. At this point in time, it may all be a question of price.

It may be that the Linux versions of all these software packages could be easily ported to OS X. Has it happened? I haven't seen it, but then I haven't looked. Now, if you're going to run Linux, and assuming you're going to run it on a decent computer, where is the advantage for the Mac vs the PC? I've been using PCs since about 1984. I've never had a hard disk crash, let alone a complete failure. I have probably had pretty decent machines that whole time. I think my first 80286, with the add-on math co-processor, was a genuine IBM! Since then it's been whatever the university supplied, and that's been either Gateway or Dell. A good computer is a good computer is a good computer. I don't care for some MicroSoft products all that much, but my computer does what I need it to. The Mac guys in the department seem happy with their computers, too, though the one guy who does crystallographic calculations with the software I use tends to use a PC for most of that....I'll have to ask him if he's tried it on his Mac.

Chuck

 

[SnowRidge]

And you guys do know that since OS X the Mac operating system is basically Unix right? And pretty much anything you can do on Unix you can do on a Mac, including Linux. No problem at all.


Again, OS X IS UNIX.

I've had that many Macs of my own. Hardware failure rate is zero in 23 years. But one has to wonder what else might be going on with those machines in a department that paid Mac money to run Windows. That's simply nuts.

.......Snippity doodah.

OSX is not Unix, at least not entirely. Only the Intel processor version is qualified under the Single Unix Umbrella, but only at the command line, which most Mac users neither use nor understand. The graphics are Apple proprietary.

That fact the Linux runs on Macs has nothing whatsoever to do with OSX. Linux will run on many, many different types of hardware, including some that the average person never heard of. Linux doesn't care about whatever operating system existed or exists on a system prior to installation. It will either replace it entirely or install alongside it and let you choose which one to boot. Your choice. If there isn't an existing OS on the system, Linux will happily install itself, too.

iMacs have had a well documented rash of power supply failures. The power supply in my wife's iMac died, along with the system board, and the hard drive, all separate events. The system board repair resulted in the bluetooth subsystem becoming useless due to lowered sensitivity, which is another common complaint of Mac users.

 

[MossRoad]

My experience, which is not as a pro IT guy, has been that a PC tends to act pretty sickly within 12 months or so of purchase and then needs reloading to revive it.

-J.

You have to make the distinction between the hardware and the software. PC hardware is fine. It's the the operating system that is acting sickly. And, Windows goobers itself up just fine without the help of viruses, trojans, etc...

My little 486/33 laptop is only used on weekends to remote into work to check backups and stuff anymore. It currently has Windows 95 on it. I cannot go to 98 because it does not have a math co-processor. So I am stuck with IE 5.5 and that does not surf too well anymore. And, buy today's standards, it is painfully slow. But, it still does what I need it for.... doing my job. I also does a nifty job of programming my home automation system and the one at my in-laws' house, too. I use the serial port for that. I have not seen a serial port on a Mac (or most new PC laptops) in a looong time.

 

[N80]

George,

The computer guys got us a deal on the iMacs. They were cheaper than Dells were going to be.

Interesting. Macs cheaper than Dells.

As to the hardware problems, which are hardware and not software problems, our departmental electronics guy tells me the actual percentage is about what we had with the old computers, which were Gateways rather than Dells. If you want to test a computer, let your typical undergraduate student play with it!

I would expect failure rates to be about the same with Macs and good Dells. Never been impressed with Gateways so that is a bit surprising.

I don't know why more instrument manufacturers don't sell Macs with their equipment

I see what you're saying. I don't think Apple has pursued that market at all. And I think plenty of scientific equipment is sold without free standing computers as part of the purchase. For instance, our chemistry analyzer (medical lab) can interface with Macs just fine. But I can see that it is unlikely that Macs have penetrated that market much. Still not sure what this means to a typical home user. Right now I'm just trying to figure out what you guys mean.

but our electronics guy, who is always involved in instrument purchases, says he can't remember even seeing that as an option.

That's another edge that Windows has. Very few IT people get trained on OS X. People like to use what they know. When asked to make purchases they buy what they know. Nothing wrong with that except people get caught in the Windows 'cycle' and never get out, even when there might be better tools out there.

It may be that the Linux versions of all these software packages could be easily ported to OS X. Has it happened? I haven't seen it, but then I haven't looked.

There is a pretty large (maybe 'active' is a better word) Mac-Linux community, but in terms of overall numbers and impact, not particularly significant.

Now, if you're going to run Linux, and assuming you're going to run it on a decent computer, where is the advantage for the Mac vs the PC?

Good point. The only thing I can think of is that you could still also use the Mac as a Mac if you liked Macs and, subjectively, Macs are much better looking in terms of industrial design.

I've been using PCs since about 1984.

The year the first Mac came out!

I've never had a hard disk crash, let alone a complete failure. I have probably had pretty decent machines that whole time.

None of the PCs I've used at work has ever had a major failure either. My sisters original (1984) Mac is still running like a charm though!

 

[MossRoad]

And that makes sense. Macs currently have about 5% market share. Far less in business and industry. But this has far more to do with market ubiquity than capabilities.

It has to do with one of two things....

They either cost more or cannot do the required tasks. Pretty simple, really. If they were cost effective, they would have more of a market share. If they did the required tasks for the same price, they would have more of a market share. The bean counters keep track of this kind of stuff.

 

[N80]

OSX is not Unix, at least not entirely.

Obviously. I think you've taken what I was saying a little to concretely. One look will tell you it isn't exactly the same. It is based on Unix. It is often referred to as a Unix variant.

Only the Intel processor version is qualified under the Single Unix Umbrella, but only at the command line,

I don't know what you mean. It is my understanding that with Xcode, aka Developer Tools, the Unix code can be accessed and any Unix software run on the machine. It also looks like porting Unix software to the Mac is fairly common. Again, this is way over my head. I'm just parroting what I've read and heard.

which most Mac users neither use nor understand.

Which is just as true of PC users, so I'm not sure what your point is there. I'm not claiming that any typical home user accesses the guts of his operating system. I'm simply saying that with an OS based in Unix and available for use with Unix software, the Mac has a very wide range of possible functions often overlooked by those who don't understand what OS X is.

That fact the Linux runs on Macs has nothing whatsoever to do with OSX.

I didn't suggest that it did, but looking back at what I wrote I probably was not clear. This is what I said:

And you guys do know that since OS X the Mac operating system is basically Unix right? And pretty much anything you can do on Unix you can do on a Mac, including Linux. No problem at all.

In the second sentence I was simply stating that you could run Linux on a Mac. Again, just pointing out that Macs are not nearly as constrained in what they will do as much as some people portray them to be. Just saying that on any current Mac you can run OS X, Windows, Linux and have access to the Unix guts enough to run lots of Unix software. All on one machine.

iMacs have had a well documented rash of power supply failures. The power supply in my wife's iMac died, along with the system board, and the hard drive, all separate events. The system board repair resulted in the bluetooth subsystem becoming useless due to lowered sensitivity, which is another common complaint of Mac users.

Yes, if you frequent Mac forums you will hear lots of complaints and issues. Same at Dell. Same at Sony. Same at Nikon. Same at Canon. Etc. etc. I've heard of exploding Macs. Burning Macs. Macs dead on arrival. All that. No one is saying they are perfect. The point is, that compared to all the varieties of PCs you can buy, Macs will be superior in build, design and quality. Compared to equally well designed and costly PCs, no difference at all. After all, the components such as drives, boards, batteries, power sources, and even the Intel chips will work and are used in both types of machines. You get what you pay for, Mac or PC. And when folks trot out the 'Macs cost too much' mantra, they fail to understand this common principle. Equally equipped (both specs and quality) PCs and Macs are pretty close in cost. Some Macs will cost more due to tight OS/hardware integration and always better industrial design (the endless awards attest to this) and for some of us that edge is worth the slightly extra price.

 

[N80]

It has to do with one of two things....

They either cost more or cannot do the required tasks.

I disagree. First, as mentioned above, people have a tendency to stick with what they know and what they are comfortable with. This is incredibly true in IT departments which are often monolithically closed minded. Neither price nor capability is part of that equation. And this is just one thing that makes such matters not quite as simple as they seem.

Second, in very nearly any application in which desktop and laptop PCs running Windows are used, there are people and institutions using Macs. Completing tasks and operating in the black.

The bean counters keep track of this kind of stuff.

Yep. And bean counters are famous for being correct about paradigms and progress. Billy Mitchell was court marshalled for trying to prove that air power was important to military operations.

 

[MossRoad]

What part of "we have over three hundred pcs and 40-50 macs and the hardware failure rate among both is proportionately equal" do you not understand?

 

[N80]

What part of "we have over three hundred pcs and 40-50 macs and the hardware failure rate among both is proportionately equal" do you not understand?

I never questioned your experience.

 

[smfcpacfp]

No, you're not. It makes perfect sense to me.



It is a tool, and a commodity, you're right. My tool works roughly 99% of the time, and rarely wastes my time.

There's your rise........

What side are you on here??? Are you one of those Microsoft hired double agents I've been hearing about??

-Jer.

Ha Ha Ha. Yes I am and we look for any opportunity to stick it to those old Mac zealots.

I am sort of a double agent. My portable is a new MacBook Pro on which I can dual boot (Leopard and Windows Vista). My desktop, which I built is a dual boot (Vista and XP).

I thought that the Mac users had given up on their conversion zealotry years ago, but I guess not.

Lets see, should a get a Zune or a iPod?

 

[NuBota]

This discussion - I never get it - apples and oranges. Not unlike the server wars that go on between Windows and UNIX/Linux.

The hardware is irrelevant because the same vendors make memory, hard drives, video cards, etc for both. Just like they do for big iron systems. Versatility with the OS is the key. A Intel based PC can run OSes other then Windows - Linux and now Solaris - but the software selection is sparse The MAC OS - regardless of version -has always been intended as an appliance - perfect for the average home user. But is has the same limitations in terms of available software. Yes, you can run Windows software with emulators and virtual machines - but at that point you have just introduced the problems you meant to avoid.

And you could build a Windows PC that ran as stable as a MAC. You simply have to restrict it so that a user cannot affect any changes to the system. This is inherent in the MAC OS as it is in UNIX based systems. Software made for these latter systems is designed for the specific version on the OS kernel being run and is restricted from making significant changes to the system area. A Windows app can be written to span all versions of Windows since all of the software libraries from previous versions still exist (for the most part) in the latest. And the software installation can add/extend software modules at the system level as long as the user allows it to run. This offers great value in terms or versatility and extensibility, but also exposes the system to greater risk of virus and malware attacks

Windows bloat is primarily due to its ability to maintain backward compatibility. Software that ran in DOS and early Windows can still, in many cases, be run on current platforms. That is not true with the MAC or most other platforms. This is why it is popular in most workplaces - you can run proprietary software that is 10 years old on an XP machine. Not true if it was coded for an Apple IIc.

It all depends of use case, availability of software, and supportability.
Let's face it - M$ marketing created an entire workforce based on it's product - many Windows Certified folks out there that are barely capable users. If you do have an issue with a MAC - say poorly written software (it does exist) - who do you call? Your UNIX guy who cost a fortune or the Windows guy who can't spell MAC?


I am truly agnostic - as an IT guy dealing with big iron systems - I can point out strengths and weaknesses in all platforms. As an old DEC guy, I still tout DEC VMS as the only, truly, bullet proof platform....

 

[Chuck52]

I am truly agnostic - as an IT guy dealing with big iron systems - I can point out strengths and weaknesses in all platforms. As an old DEC guy, I still tout DEC VMS as the only, truly, bullet proof platform....

I still have a number of 5.25 floppies from my gone-but-not-forgotten DEC. I can't even remember what that last box was, but I had a reel-to-reel tape deck on it, too. I do believe I managed to make DOS 5.25 floppies of all that data before I sent the DEC to surplus, and then I made 3.5 floppies, and then I made CDs and then I made DVDs and now I've got stuff on multiple hard drives, here and there, and on flash drives....the only "latest" archive format I skipped was the zip drive. I really did like VMS. It kept me from losing stuff by keeping the various versions of files automatically. I started out on a PDP 5 controlling the instrument, and when the mainframes ruled I had "conversant with JCL" on my resume.

It's not just that our IT guys want to only buy instruments interfaced to PCs, BTW. What I said was we just don't see Macs offered as options. Since you can now run Windows software on Macs, one could clearly use Macs for all those applications where the interface is in the instrument and all that's needed is a usb port, but the equipment manufacturers don't often seem to port their software to OS X, so you lose any possible advantage anyway.

George,

What do the medical instruments use? What kind of box is on a those big whole-body nmr machines you guys like to charge us so much to climb into? The high-powered specialized graphics systems we used to see, like Sun and Silicon Graphics and others whose names I have forgotten, mostly seem to have been absorbed, like DEC, or simply gone away. I wonder if they have proprietary computers on those Gawd awfully expensive toys, or use one of the two remaining "standards".

Chuck

 

[jgrreed]

George,

What do the medical instruments use? What kind of box is on a those big whole-body nmr machines you guys like to charge us so much to climb into? The high-powered specialized graphics systems we used to see, like Sun and Silicon Graphics and others whose names I have forgotten, mostly seem to have been absorbed, like DEC, or simply gone away. I wonder if they have proprietary computers on those Gawd awfully expensive toys, or use one of the two remaining "standards".

Chuck

I'm not George, but I can tell you that most of the software for viewing the MRI's (PACS/Impax) is Windows based (makes me cringe, but it's true). There is just recently a OS X based PACS system that I have no experience with. I don't know about the actual inner workings, but I just text messaged my buddy who's an MR maintenance tech, so I'll know soon.

I am sort of a double agent. My portable is a new MacBook Pro on which I can dual boot (Leopard and Windows Vista). My desktop, which I built is a dual boot (Vista and XP).

I suppose I am now too.... I just loaded XP on my Macbook under VMWare's Fusion emulator. It's not a dual boot, which is nice because it's just another window on the desktop. I need it to view images on PACS. It really creeps me out to see that awful blue screen and "loading your personal settings" on that startup screen. Uuuuggghhhh......

Vista AND XP on one machine??? Gross!!!! That thing must even smell bad!!

-Jer.

 

[jgrreed]

Lets see, should a get a Zune or a iPod?

You're me kidding right??? Lemme guess, next you're gonna ask Kubota or Joh.......

Oh nevermind.

-Jer.

ps - I'm kidding by the way.... It's all in good fun....

 

[N80]

The hardware is irrelevant because the same vendors make memory, hard drives, video cards, etc for both.

I don't think hardware is irrelevant or identical. I would agree that any high end Dell might have the same components as a Mac. But that doesn't mean that every PC has the same or even similar components as a Mac. For the most part, Macs represent the higher end of the personal computer market in terms of components, design and quality control. My point is, that some $350 desktop from Acer is not comparable in quality or components to even the lowest end iMac. The majority of Macs are better built than the majority of PCs when you take into account the junk PCs sold on the low end and put on desks in offices like mine.

But is has the same limitations in terms of available software.

I think this gets misleading for two reasons, at least for the home user. You are absolutely right about there being more software for Windows. Way more. But two things need to be mentioned. First, a lot of the software you mention is narrowly focused proprietary business and industry type software and this has little or no impact on home users.....and that is the context of this discussion after all. The OP, nor virtually anyone else, could care less if he can hook his new MacBook or Dell laptop to newspaper layout software designed in Holland for Knight-Ridder. (BTDT ) The second issue is that there is indeed more software for Windows for individual and small business users too. However, a huge percentage of that is low end me-too software. How many low end photo album programs do you need? There must be 8 of them on my Mom's PC alone. All of them stink, even the one from Adobe. Every time she installs a printer driver or gets a new digital camera another one gets installed when she hits the 'default' install option. When you talk about numbers, that sort of thing is a huge portion of the software unavailable for Macs. For the majority of home and small business users there is virtually no specific area for which there is not equivalent or superior software choices for the Mac.

And you could build a Windows PC that ran as stable as a MAC.

Millions upon millions of home users are perplexed and probably angry over this statement.

But it does get to the heart of the problem. Microsoft tries to make Windows too many things to too many people. And something has to give, including simplicity, elegance and stability.

Windows bloat is primarily due to its ability to maintain backward compatibility. Software that ran in DOS and early Windows can still, in many cases, be run on current platforms. That is not true with the MAC or most other platforms. This is why it is popular in most workplaces - you can run proprietary software that is 10 years old on an XP machine. Not true if it was coded for an Apple IIc.

I don't see that at the application level at all. I can open documents made on a 1984 Mac on my 2007 iMac. You might be right about proprietary software, but try to convince a MS Word user of this. I can open more Word documents on my new Mac than I can at work on my PC running Word!!

It all depends of use case, availability of software, and supportability. Let's face it - M$ marketing created an entire workforce based on it's product - many Windows Certified folks out there that are barely capable users.

Good point. The IT guy that comes to our office from the 'big' office is barely competent.

If you do have an issue with a MAC - say poorly written software (it does exist) - who do you call? Your UNIX guy who cost a fortune or the Windows guy who can't spell MAC?

Another good point. Two thoughts come to mind. MS did a much better job at making its software the de facto standard at home and at work by making it the standard at work. So many PC users stay chained to MS because that is what they have at work. They have it at work because that's all there is and Apple has made absolutely no effort to penetrate that market. As it turns out, that was very smart and allows Apple to not be forced into making bloated systems that try to do everything for everyone. However, the second thing that comes to mind is that for home and small business users, the a lot of problems can be solved by any competent Mac user. Not my mom. Not my wife. But me. And my son. Do you know how hard it was to wireless network 4 Macs using three different OS's and three printers for 4 people? Simple. Scary simple. And as you can tell, I'm clearly not a computer guy. When I compare that to my IT/web-guy B-I-L pulling his hair out trying to get one new printer to work on my Mom's Dell, it just makes you wonder.

I am truly agnostic - as an IT guy dealing with big iron systems - I can point out strengths and weaknesses in all platforms.

I appreciate your very objective input and those of others as well, but often wonder why these Mac vs PC debates often end up discussing IT issues, kernels, Linux, spectrophotometers, scintigraphy and proprietary systems when it starts out about which machine will run iTunes best and is easiest to hook to a printer?

 

[N80]

I thought that the Mac users had given up on their conversion zealotry years ago, but I guess not.

I think you're mistaking the old zealotry for unabashed snobbery. We don't really care if people stay with Windows anymore than BMW M5 owners care if people drive Impalas . We just don't mind telling you why we drive the M5.

Lets see, should a get a Zune or a iPod?

That's easy! Put it too the test. Simply study the look on the face of your 14 year old daughter when she pulls a Zune out of her stocking Christmas morning!

 

[Heywood Jannockitov]

We don't really care if people stay with Windows anymore than BMW M5 owners care if people drive Impalas . We just don't mind telling you why we drive the M5.

My Impala-driving wife doesn't mind it either when she hands the BMW M5 driver that $300.00 speeding ticket.

 

[N80]

My Impala-driving wife doesn't mind it either when she hands the BMW M5 driver that $300.00 speeding ticket.

Funny.