macs in science...
- Thread starter octane
- Start date
This is not news, this is opinion. The writer has no clue as to the issues that drive the purchase of hardware and software in the scientific community. He probably thought something like this:octane said:
In other words, an ignorant writer projects her own stereotypes onto others. Now that she has learned a few facts, the world is changing. The fact is that Macs play a significant role in science and have done so for two decades. The data acquisition program LabView was developed and matured on the Mac. National Instruments only later ported the LabView environment to Windows. Macs are dominant in the area of genetic sequencing. During my 1997 tour of the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, I was most pleased to see Macs everywhere. There were few Wintel machines to be seen. However, in every experimental carel in the lab, there was a Mac either controlling a running experiment or waiting for one to be built around it. I can't recall seeing a single Wintel machine serving that purpose.
What people like Robyn Weisman don't understand is that scientists are not about futzing with computers. Scientists are all about getting their work done. Macs excel at getting work done. What is more, scientists who like Macs also tend to like and respect UNIX. They respect and use UNIX for the power and reliability of the computers that run UNIX.
Scientists have three reasons--one good (sort of), one bad, and one somewhere in the middle--for running Windows. The good (sort of) reason for using Windows is that Windows benefits from the legacy of DOS. DOS computers became dominant as imbedded controllers in digitally controlled instrumentation. Prior to DOS, this had been a stronghold of minicomputers from DEC, HP, DataGeneral, and IBM. Microcomputers were a lot cheaper and became powerful enough to replace the minis. In the early days, a lot of these DOS machines ran user-written applications. Instrumentation vendors bundled DOS machines with their products. When the IBM-compatible market transitioned to Windows, so too did the instrumentation vendors. That's the good reason. The bad reason is that administration and staff in a lot of scientific environments behave just like staff and administration in other environments. Wintel means job security. So, they forced Wintel computers into more general use in their shops. Their success runs inversely proportionally to the strength of the scientific users. The one somewhere in the middle is that some scientists, just like other professionals, use Windows because they perceive it to be the low-cost solution to their problems. For some, that is a correct assessment; for others, it is a false economy.
But, the bottomline is this: Just because Robyn Weisman woke up doesn't mean it's a brand new day.
Another thought: Have you ever read a column about how _Windows_ machines were making more in-roads in Science? Well, probably not. And this because of one or more of the following reasons:
1.) You don't care. You're a Mac user.
2.) Nobody cares much. Because Windows is everywhere, anyway.
3.) It wouldn't surprise computer column writers and writresses.
But apart from all I've said above, Apple quite _certainly_ did earn a lot more credibility when they brought UN*X to the Mac. Science people - as MisterMe has said - are used to using UN*X machines. NeXT went after higher education when it was first created by Steve Jobs. It makes some sense that Science people would opt for the Mac. But I'm sure they also enjoy good machines from Sun, SGI, HP and others.
1.) You don't care. You're a Mac user.
2.) Nobody cares much. Because Windows is everywhere, anyway.
3.) It wouldn't surprise computer column writers and writresses.
But apart from all I've said above, Apple quite _certainly_ did earn a lot more credibility when they brought UN*X to the Mac. Science people - as MisterMe has said - are used to using UN*X machines. NeXT went after higher education when it was first created by Steve Jobs. It makes some sense that Science people would opt for the Mac. But I'm sure they also enjoy good machines from Sun, SGI, HP and others.
octane
I have issues, OK!
What I'd say in defense of the article -- old / naive though some of it may be -- is that it's reiterating the point that OS X is making a great deal of difference.
If we were here now, and Apple were still plodding along with OS 9 .. well, we wouldn't be here having this conversation and Apple probably wouldn't be in business.
A lot of the reasons for _not_ using a mac have disappeared. And in some case, those reasons _for_ having a mac; reliable, stable, powerful...
I see this article as good news, whatever your view of it might be. The more articles like these, then the more people get to see Apple and by extension OS X in a very new light...
If we were here now, and Apple were still plodding along with OS 9 .. well, we wouldn't be here having this conversation and Apple probably wouldn't be in business.
A lot of the reasons for _not_ using a mac have disappeared. And in some case, those reasons _for_ having a mac; reliable, stable, powerful...
I see this article as good news, whatever your view of it might be. The more articles like these, then the more people get to see Apple and by extension OS X in a very new light...
bbloke
Registered
Well, writing as a scientist and a Mac-user, it has been my experience that some academics use Macs (usually pre-OS X!), but that most used Windows on their desktops; a small minority (those who were more into computing) used Linux on their desktops. The academics who used to run pre-OS X Macs take some persuading to switch to OS X and some have switched to Windows, unfortunately.
However, workstations used in labs, for instance, were often UNIX-based. UNIX workstations running Solaris and IRIX are commonly used for workstations running complex instrumentation, for instance. Use of UNIX is particularly common in Physics, where a higher proportion would use Linux on their desktops too. For stability for running long calculations (eg a week), multi-user access, and use of software like LaTex, UNIX was essentially the only choice.
As x86 hardware became faster and Linux became available, Linux became a cheaper option. Now that OS X is out, people are "curious." There is still some stigma about owning a "proper computer" but I know some computational chemists and physicists who are interested in Macs now, whereas they treated them with disdain before. Indeed, the UNIX guru for our campus (who happens to be the guru for just about everything, actually) in IT Services runs OS X on a Titanium PowerBook, and I've heard that many computer scientists at conferences like showing off OS X on laptops, whereas they used to run Linux... and show off that!
OS X is really what changed things, with the ability to run "normal" applications plus the UNIX/Linux apps they need. But then there was the issue of the speed of the hardware, and many were reluctant because they felt the G4s were not soooooo fast and that they paid over the odds. So Linux still won out for calculations and so on. With the G5 now, people are probably going to start looking again. I know one major figure who is increasingly interested, after what happened at Virginia Tech. So, I would say the future looks more promising for Macs in science than it did a few years ago, and OS X is the single biggest reason for this, and the old price/performance issue is the final perceived hurdle for many.
However, workstations used in labs, for instance, were often UNIX-based. UNIX workstations running Solaris and IRIX are commonly used for workstations running complex instrumentation, for instance. Use of UNIX is particularly common in Physics, where a higher proportion would use Linux on their desktops too. For stability for running long calculations (eg a week), multi-user access, and use of software like LaTex, UNIX was essentially the only choice.
As x86 hardware became faster and Linux became available, Linux became a cheaper option. Now that OS X is out, people are "curious." There is still some stigma about owning a "proper computer" but I know some computational chemists and physicists who are interested in Macs now, whereas they treated them with disdain before. Indeed, the UNIX guru for our campus (who happens to be the guru for just about everything, actually) in IT Services runs OS X on a Titanium PowerBook, and I've heard that many computer scientists at conferences like showing off OS X on laptops, whereas they used to run Linux... and show off that!
OS X is really what changed things, with the ability to run "normal" applications plus the UNIX/Linux apps they need. But then there was the issue of the speed of the hardware, and many were reluctant because they felt the G4s were not soooooo fast and that they paid over the odds. So Linux still won out for calculations and so on. With the G5 now, people are probably going to start looking again. I know one major figure who is increasingly interested, after what happened at Virginia Tech. So, I would say the future looks more promising for Macs in science than it did a few years ago, and OS X is the single biggest reason for this, and the old price/performance issue is the final perceived hurdle for many.