Scientists Switch to Mac OS X 152
Adam Q Salter writes "A Boston Globe article quotes many scientists and engineers who have switched to Apple workstations or have immediate plans to do so. Craig Hunter, an aerospace engineer at NASA's Langley Research Center in Virginia, said 'OS X, I think, is the best Unix I've seen come along, ever.' Scott Sneddon, a senior scientific fellow at Genzyme, is quoted as saying 'OS X is a better Unix development environment than Linux or Silicon Graphics Irix.'"
They neglect to mention... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They neglect to mention... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They neglect to mention... (Score:2, Insightful)
If something is more difficult to use it is inherently less useful.
Re:I love OS X and I will support Linux (Score:1)
Yeah ... so I'll go to the Apple Menu and select "About this Mac" and get a console message: "NSError: 'Hey, anyone know how to generate this window? Can it wait until the next rev?'"
teh m4x (Score:3, Interesting)
I almost hate to say this, but "duh" (Score:5, Interesting)
1: MacOS X is Unix. Yeah, so is Linux, but Apple has put the prettiest, easiest to use face on a desktop Unix to date, period. I know and use both KDE and GNOME, and as good as they are, they don't compare in the usability area at all to Aqua.
2: The G4, though it can't keep up on raw clock speed with Intel, is in it's element when we're talking about a lot of the operations needed by people doing scientific number crunching. Write your code to be Altivec-aware (like Apple did when they ported BLAST), and it'll haul butt.
3: Apple provides nice development tools, Cocoa is a blast once people make the adjustment, AppleScript Studio is a really nice way to do GUI programming, and you can still use all the classic development tools. You can build apps for good old standard Unix, MacOS Classic, Carbon, Cocoa, or Java, and they'll all pretty much just work. And all the tools you need are either included or a free download away.
4: The PowerBook G4. It's pricey, and it's "only" 800 MHz, but it's about as nice as you can get for a portable Unix workstation. I haven't seen a comparable Intel laptop with battery life even close to what I get on my TiBook 667.
Granted, Apple's not playing in the 64-bit space (yet), but in the 32-bit world I'd have to say they're the desktop Unix of choice for most users, especially technical/scientific users.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I almost hate to say this, but "duh" (Score:1)
Re:I almost hate to say this, but "duh" (Score:2)
NeXTSTEP was quite pretty too.
I always loved NeXTSTEP, almost bought a slab NeXT station once.
But OS X is NeXTSTEP, or as close as you can get without the real OS. ;)
About time. (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem came when we told other universities that we had this product if they wanted them then they can have them for free.
Only then did I realise that engineers have no clue about software.
They all use Windows because its too scary to step into unix.
Even though most of the important CAD tools are only available for Sun they stay clear of them.
Its about time engineers moved back to unix.
Re:About time. (Score:1)
this isn't a troll. Unix has always worked better for heavy research. Wintel, and the architecture was developed by International BUISNESS Machines. Wintel is good for spreadsheets, etc.
Ask Detroit, or the Japanese auto makers, their aerodynamics and CAD programs all run on Unix Iron. The Nuclear weapons simulators all run on Unix. In the 1970's and 80's, a scientist had to know Unix and FORTRAN to do ANY computerized research. Unix remains the Big Iron of Operating Systems.
Re:About time. (Score:1, Funny)
Re:About time. (Score:1)
Re:About time. (Score:1)
They all use Windows because its too scary to step into unix.
I really do worry about this when I'm driving across bridges.
MacOS X has problems (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, its pretty much as stable as any other Unix. Yes, the OS never crashes.
But it still has problems.
OSX ships in a very non-secure state. Take a look at The Missing Manual: Mac OSX. You'd be surprised how poor the security is (and at how many vulnerabilities there are) on MacOSX out of the box.
That's one problem. The other problem is performance.
Just because somethings a Unix doesn't mean that it necessarily is slim and trim. OSX is not. It is enormously bloated. On the same hardware, it will run alot slower than previous Mac Operating Systems. Why? Because their GUI is unnecesarily fanciful, with useless animations and "glassy effects".
Run Debian on the same Mac you run OSX on and it will run alot faster, taking up less RAM.
Now, that said, if your willing to forgo the bloaty GUI of OSX, you can just run Darwin and install a minimal GUI like pwm; then, you won't have as much bloat.
OSX is a classic example of how companies add lots of useless features just to make a product more screen-shot worthy (i.e., animations, glassy effects, the whole Aqua appearance), despite the fact that those features don't really offer any advantages to the user.
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:1, Informative)
if your willing to forgo the bloaty GUI of OSX...then, you won't have as much bloat.
If you would stop being such an ass then you wouldn't be so much of an ass.
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:4, Insightful)
One: Mac OS X is the only UNIX that has Microsoft Office available to it, period. If you want to be a hermit and be unable to send your scientific reports to PC users since you have inappropriate software, then Linux is for you.
Two: Mac OS X may not be the sleekest girl on the block, but her OS underpinnings have been around as long, if not longer, than Linux. Under those "glassy effects" (which are optimized for speed in the 10.2 update) is a CLI and OS kernel that soars.
Nothing is useless in OS X. These scientists just believe that using your OS is more productive than having to play with the damn thing each time someone in the Linux dev group sneezes and makes Yet Another Attempt At a Stable Kernel.
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2, Informative)
Firstly, your WRONG. CrossOverOffice [codeweavers.com] provides MS Office for Linux users. Also, Wine allows one to run MS products on Linux. Next time, do a little bit of research before making outlandish claims. Secondly, even if you were right, who cares? OpenOffice and StarOffice can save files as MS Word documents, thus Linux users can share their files with PC users, and vica versa. Again, do your research.
Two: Mac OS X may not be the sleekest girl on the block, but her OS underpinnings have been around as long, if not longer, than Linux. Under those "glassy effects" (which are optimized for speed in the 10.2 update) is a CLI and OS kernel that soars.
Glassy effects optimized for speed? Maybe the updated version is faster than the old one, but its still a LOT of bloat, and one would be better off without it. The excellent, minimalist underpinnings of MacOSX are slowed down by its bloated filled-with-useless-features GUI.
Nothing is useless in OS X.
Yea, whatever. Exactly what purpose do the animations serve? What about the Aqua glassy effects? Or the icon zooming? Transparency? All useless, or of very minimal use. All designed for the sole purpose of having good looking screen-shots.
These scientists just believe that using your OS is more productive than having to play with the damn thing each time someone in the Linux dev group sneezes and makes Yet Another Attempt At a Stable Kernel.
When exactly has an unstable Kernel came out under the stable branch of the kernel? I don't recall it happening.
Ever heard of Debian? Makes updating to the latest stable release of packages rather easy. As for updating the kernel, that can also be done rather nicely in Debian, without even having down-time.
Your "quick answers" still do not deal with the fact that MacOSX is bloat-ware. The new finder in it is crap, for example.
One would be better off running a WM in Darwin if one uses Mac hardware, or installing Debian.
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
I would talk about the efficiency of X Window--if only there were a STANDARD that went with it. Forget about the window managers, for they inherently are their own standards. KDE and GNOME, for their goodness, complicate the efficiency that a GUI is supposed to accomplish. GUIs simplify a user's experience, not complicate it by duplicating every major UNIX command. There aren't many features in Aqua that don't have a function. Remember that UNIX and PC users were still puttering around on CLIs when the Macintosh popularized the idea that a GUI could actually do something worthwhile. Almost 20 years have gone by and the UNIX world has a GUI engine, but no consistency in the interfaces. X Window is no match against Aqua for consistency, and that's an impressive achievement considering that Aqua is very young. A more equal pairing would be a Display PostScript engine, which I hear is being worked on somewhere.
If your opinion is that Mac OS X is bloatware, OK. But this article proves that a lot of other users, especially those whose jobs rely on its speed and performance, disagree with you heartily.
And, if you really need X, you do realize that OS X supports X Window through the XDarwin project?
I agree with your criticisms, but not the spirit of them. OS X is a very strong OS for such a newcomer. Neither it or its hardware are as efficient as some Linux die-hards may want it to be, but it does the job very well, right now.
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
1. The GUI is not the OS. They are separate entities.
2. MacOSX is not synonymous with Mac hardware. They are separate entities.
I did not say that Mac hardware is terrible (though it is no match for Sun or SGI hardware). I also did not say that the operating system underneath OSX's GUI is bad/bloaty. I said the GUI is. Microsoft wants you to think that the GUI = OS = file-browser (IE). Mac apparently takes it one step further, GUI = OS = file-browser = hardware = kernel.
Regarding your criticism of Linux' GUI's, I disagree. Choice is a good thing, and different people will want different WM's and desktop environments (I prefer WindowMaker and pwm for the WM, and Xfce for the desktop). I don't know about other WM's and desktop environments, but the one's I've mentioned are very consistent in their user interface.
There may not be many features that Aqua has which are useless, but those which are there are very annoying and waste alot of your computing power. The worst one is Sherlock, which takes forever. Then there's the transparency, the Aqua effects (shiny buttons), the animation, the icon-zooming, the window zooming for maximization and minimization. Apple is using a very efficient core for its OS, so it should be running FASTER than previous versions of Mac's OS, not slower. But, the bloaty GUI obliterates any advantage that the more streamlized insides offer. Though one could say the more streamlined internal workings are what make the bloated GUI useable and somewhat responsive.
The people who like OSX don't like it because of the GUI. They like it because of the power its BSD/Mach-core provide. As for Darwin, I'm aware that you can forgo the Aqua GUI and just boot into Darwin, loading an X-windows manager. I did mention that somewhere (perhaps not in this post).
Personally, however, I'd prefer to load Debian if I had a Mac, because more *nix packages are available for it than for Darwin. Also, most benchmarks have shown that Linux performs superiorly to the BSD's (though we should not confuse performance with security and stability, both of which are categories which the BSD's have the advantage over Linux in).
I don't see why your calling OSX a "new OS". It is not a new OS. It is essentially the Aqua GUI strapped on top of a BSD/Mach core. What is NEW is the GUI, though I'd hesitate to even say that. MacOSX's GUI is a combination of the classic Mac GUI and some nice features of NeXT. What I dislike about it is that it is bloaty. There are, however, nice things about it, such as the dock. But Apple has really taken alot of steps backwards in the Aqua GUI. Firstly, there's no applications Apple menu. Secondly, they've abandoned hte hold click (corresponds to right click) in favor of control click. Thirdly, they've collapsed application switching and window switching within and application down t o just switching between all of the windows on the screen. In previous versions, APPLE-TAB switched between applications, while APPLE-~ switched between instances within an application. Now, APPLE-TAB still switches between applications, but APPLE-~ switches between all windows.
Also, they've given way to the MSesque idea that all configuration should be done through HTML-like interfaces (ok, not exactly). The control panel menu was great, why replace it with a less efficient system where you have to open up a window to access all of the different things within it?
I could go on and on with examples of how Apple has replaced efficient interface options in OS9 with inefficient bloated ones in OSX, but you get the point. Now, that said, this isn't something unique to Apple. It seems that every single application takes major steps backwards with each release, by catering to the lowest common denominator, and dumbing things down to the simplest level, at the expense of efficiency in interface. Just take a look at those stupid fucking Eminem "help characters" in the most recent versions of MS Office. Worse yet, whereas in the good old days, you could load help files instantaneously, now they're a mess of HTML which takes ages to load; the efficient "Table of Contents"/Search/Index scheme has been replaced by the "home page" scheme.
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:1)
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
Just a few corrections.
Control-clicking (or right clicking if you have a two button mouse) was indeed introduced with Mac OS 8. However OS X does not allow you to click and hold to get a menu. Web browsers like IE and Mozilla do, but that's been standard for a long time. There is a great free Control Panel for OS 8 and 9 called FinderPop that did that, and also let you add menu items.
Command-tab does switch between running apps in both OS's. I installed the free LiteSwichX, which give a list of icons when you switch. I use Option-Tab because it's less of a risk of hitting Command-Q and quitting your application.
Command-tilde on OS X pops down a menu from the title bar on a Finder window that allows you to Go To a folder. As you type the path in, OS X auto completes it based on directory names on your system. I think in OS 9 Command-Tilde switched between open windows.
I have been running OS X every day since 10.0 came out. Its a great OS... much better than OS 9 or Linux IMHO.
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
Wrong, moron. I've used both. Hold click does not work for many things in OSX, the few exceptions being folders on the dock and links in IE and Netscape. Hold click brings up property menu's in OS9.
As for the control panel, the new system to navigate through the control panel is less efficient. Its much quicker to just pull down a menu of all the control panel controls than to open up a window and click on icons.
Having used OSX alot, I also know your WRONG about APPLE-~. APPLE-~ brings up a finder window which asks you for the directory you'd like to go to; it does not switch between instances of a running applicaiton.
Next time, get your facts straight before saying something stupid. I've worked alot with both OS9 and OSX. I know about the GUI advantages and disadvantages of each.
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
FACT: APPLE-~ switches between instances of an application in OS9. Open several IE or Netscape windows, and put the focus on Netscape by pressing APPLE-TAB. Then press APPLE-~. It will siwtch between the different IE/Netscape windows.
FACT: In OS9, hold clicking brings up (for example) a properties menu (the menu which asks you whether you want to save the link as, open link in new window, etc) in IE. In OSX, you have to CONTROL-CLICK (which is more work).
FACT: Hold-clicking in OS9 does not make Icons "pop up into windows". That would be double clicking your referring to.
Anyways, my point was that OSX gets rid of a lot of stuff that was GOOD from OS9. Must be something relating to Moore's law that stupidity doubles every 18 months.
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:3, Informative)
I have to disagree with this. People use OS X (or any Apple OS) because of the GUI. If you want a generic UNIX you can run Linux or *BSD and any of the awful WMs in X11. And you can do this on Apple hardware too. But do you notice none of the scientist quoted in the article are doing that?
People use Macs because of the OS, especially the GUI.
2. MacOSX is not synonymous with Mac hardware. They are separate entities.
One again, wrong. Darwin is NOT OS X. You might as well run FreeBSD, unless you really want the Mach kernel. But I remember how much Linux users hated MkLinux because of the Mach kernel being slower.
A quote from the article:
If Apple hardware is so "slow" and "overpriced" as everyone here seems to think, then why would they do that?
Bottom line is, you don't get it. Some people like OS X, AND its GUI. You don't have to.
Also, I'm running OS X 10.1.5 on a 466 MHz G4 with a gig of RAM. It's not all that bloated and not slow at all. Sure, OS 9.2 runs a bit faster. But it's not the GUI. OS 9 is much older code, and has been optimized more over the years.
Any who has used Macs for a while knows that each OS release since 8.0 got faster than the last, even thought they added more features and the OS used more RAM. "Bloat" does not always equal slow.
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
The only response to this can be: IDIOT. No matter what you say, an OS is not a GUI. A GUI is the user interface to the OS. People may use MacOSX because it comes with the Aqua GUI, b ut that does not mean that Aqua is an OS: it isn't. Its a GUI.
2. MacOSX is not synonymous with Mac hardware. They are separate entities.
One again, wrong. Darwin is NOT OS X. You might as well run FreeBSD, unless you really want the Mach kernel. But I remember how much Linux users hated MkLinux because of the Mach kernel being slower.
Again, the only response to this can be: IDIOT. I said that Mac hardware is not synonymous with Mac software. In other words, software != hardware. Is that too difficult for you to grasp? Apple sells computer systems, with the Kernel and a GUI on top to make the OS, which are installed on hardware. That does not mean these components are all the same. They are separatable.
That Mac hardware is so great says nothing about its software. Try to understand that.
Your explanation doesn't even go together with your wrong refutation of my point.
True, Darwin is not OSX. OSX is the combination of Darwin (which is BSD with a Mach kernel), and the GUI (Aqua). I never said that Darwin was OSX. I said it was the core. Again, you make my point by saying that the Mach kernel is slower than the BSD kernel. So if your doing serious work, why waste time with it?
If Apple hardware is so "slow" and "overpriced" as everyone here seems to think, then why would they do that?
Apple hardware is fine. Its expensive (for personal computers), but its good hardware. Overall, its the most cost-efficient because it uses the least power and lasts the longest. But never-the-less, Mac systems (if running Mac's OS) are slow, because the software is bloated. Sit down at your local high-school's Mac, you'll see what I mean. Its not the hardware's fault, its the software's fault. In my experience, things always load slower on Mac's than on PC's. Obviously the fault of the software.
Also, I'm running OS X 10.1.5 on a 466 MHz G4 with a gig of RAM. It's not all that bloated and not slow at all. Sure, OS 9.2 runs a bit faster. But it's not the GUI. OS 9 is much older code, and has been optimized more over the years.
Wrong. OSX is based off of BSD and Mach, which are mature pieces of code: very efficient and lean. Yet, OSX runs slower than OS 9. It is the fault of the GUI, and all those extra useless features it adds like animation, transparency, icon zooming, etc.
"Bloat" does not always equal slow.
Again, another idiotic comment. Slow is relative. A GUI with extra features will run slower than if it didn't have those features, even if it runs fast.
You mention that Apple has added more features and the OS has taken up more RAM. Again, a problem. The OS should stay the fuck out of my way, not hog up all of my resources.
MacOS' are just resource hogs, be it CPU, GPU, or RAM.
Which is why if I were to buy a Mac computer, I'd buy it with nothing on it if possible and install Debian to get more performance out of it.
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
Only an idiot would say "Mac hardware." Who is Mac? They make cosmetics!
Only an idiot wouldn't know that Apple makes computers, not Mac. Well at least you didn't write "MAC."
Again, another idiotic comment. Slow is relative.
So is fast. So your statement is a circular argument. I think that's a pretty itiotic statement.
MacOS' are just resource hogs, be it CPU, GPU, or RAM.
Do you have some data to back that up?
I dont see it... sorry.
You mention that Apple has added more features and the OS has taken up more RAM. Again, a problem. The OS should stay the fuck out of my way, not hog up all of my resources.
So has every OS made. So what exactly are you doing on your computer that needs so much resources? I can tell that you don't use Mac OS X. But if you did, I'd ask what is it preventing you from doing? I suppose you don't want a GUI? Boot into Single User Mode then.
I do graphic and web design and audio editing. I haven't seen any instance where I couldn't do any work because the OS was in my way. Care to extrapolate on that comment?
True, Darwin is not OSX. OSX is the combination of Darwin (which is BSD with a Mach kernel), and the GUI (Aqua). I never said that Darwin was OSX. I said it was the core. Again, you make my point by saying that the Mach kernel is slower than the BSD kernel. So if your doing serious work, why waste time with it?
Okay, I'll talk slow here, so try and follow.
First you say "the GUI is not the OS" and then you say "OSX is the combination of Darwin (which is BSD with a Mach kernel), and the GUI (Aqua)."
Do you see a problem with that? You are suffering from a severe lack of logic, or the ability to put thoughts together in a way that is logical and isn't self contradicting. Oh and yes I know what OS X is. But BTW, it doesn't "run" on BSD, and you don't even have to install the BSD Subsystem.
Why "waste my time" with OS X? You seem to think that because it does something 5 seconds slower than OS 9 that it's not worth using. You are suffering from a feeling that any computer that isn't the "fastest" is inadequate. You need to think about that for a while. Stop and look at what you do on your computer and see how long things take. Do you need some tasks to be faster? Why? If I'd doing something that's going to take a while, say rendering a picture, I can just move on to something else. That's what multi tasking is all about. I find I'm much more productive in OS X than in OS 9. I use OS 9 at work everyday so I know. I also don't see a speed difference except for the Finder, and that's been fixed in jaguar. Photoshop, a program I use every day, runs faster in OS X than OS 9 at work.
Calling someone an "idiot" when you contradict yourself really shows a lack of credibility.
And yes, I understand your point, that the core OS is lean and you value that in an OS. But not everyone does, and just because YOU think OS X is too slow to be usable does not mean everyone agrees with you.
Obviously a lot of people in places like NASA don't. I would guess they are smarter then you are also.
On to another winner.
In other words, software != hardware. Is that too difficult for you to grasp? Apple sells computer systems...
What part of "computer systems" don't you understand? The same holds true of SGI and Sun. Most people who buy systems want the whole system. It's well known that one of the strengths of Apple systems are their integration between hardware and the OS.
Of what benefit would you get separating the two? Very little. You can buy a G4 and run Linux on it if you like. I run Linux on a G3. It doesn't run as fast as OS 9, so there goes your theory on bloat.
You can also buy a G4 and run Darwin and XDarwin. Again, to what advantage? Maybe it's a bit faster? So what. You can't do as much with it. How fast does it have to be, and what advantage is that when you lose most of the OS? If you can't get "serious work" done then you are doing something wrong. Don't blame it on the GUI being too slow. Of course your "serious work" is probably more serious than mine, even though it pays the bills. ;)
Here's something to think about, I don't use a Mac because of Apple's hardware. I appreciate their hardware (even if it's not keeping up with AMD or whoever). I have always used a Mac because of Mac OS. What makes Mac OS so different from Windows or Linux or IRIX or Solarus? I have used all of those but prefer Macs. It's the GUI!
People also don't buy cars because of speed alone. Sure you can have a stripped down car that's basically a motor on wheels. It wont ride very well though, and you miss all the amenities.
OS X is more of a luxury car than a Dragster. It corners better too!
Learn to accept that other opinions are as important as your own!
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
If your trying to say I don't know that Apple makes computer hardware, I believe that point is nixed, since I later said, "Apple sells computer systems.
80 Window Man 9.6% 9:54.89 5 271 305 3.57M- 52.7M+ 57.8M+ 94.9M+
Well, I don't know how fast your comptuer is, but you mentioned a G4, so I'll assume somewhere around 867MHz (that's what I read the G4 speed as being from Apple.com). So, your WM is using up 9.6% of your CPU's resources -- in loose terms, 83.232MHz of the 867MHz. That's alot of processing power just for a WM. That means it probably won't run on hardware that's 10 years old (10 years ago, PC's were around 100MHz, so I assume Apples were a little bit "slower"). On the other hand, many Linux WM's (pwm and any of hte light WM's, as well as probably WindowMaker) will run on 100MHz PC systems.
First you say "the GUI is not the OS" and then you say "OSX is the combination of Darwin (which is BSD with a Mach kernel), and the GUI (Aqua)."
Do you see a problem with that? You are suffering from a severe lack of logic, or the ability to put thoughts together in a way that is logical and isn't self contradicting. Oh and yes I know what OS X is. But BTW, it doesn't "run" on BSD, and you don't even have to install the BSD Subsystem.
Um, no, actually there is no problem with that. Aqua is not OSX, just as (in general) a GUI isn't an OS. Its like saying a fruit's seed is not the fruit, nor is just the "flesh" part the fruit. The fruit is the entire thing. I never said OSX runs on BSD, I said it was a combination of BSD and the Mach kernel, meaning it is based off of Mach and BSD code.
Why "waste my time" with OS X? You seem to think that because it does something 5 seconds slower than OS 9 that it's not worth using.
Depends on what it is that's 5s slower. If its a long long algorithm that normally takes hours, that's no problem. If its an application, that's a BIG problem. I usually buy either the best system available or one just behind it which is still great, but priced in accord with what it offers (i.e., so I'm not paying an extra 90% for that last 10% of performance). For the money I spend, I expect everything to happen instantaneously. Programs should load instantaneously, and should do any normal tasks instantaneously. I have leeway for things which SHOULD take longer and which aren't the fault of the OS. I don't expect a multiple alignment of 100 sequences averaging 10000 amino acids to align instantaneously...that'll take a while (like several minutes).
Btw, I've found that most "updated" versions of software run and load much slower (i.e., MSO 'XP loads about 5x slower than MSO '97), but yet don't provide many more *useful* features. If somethings going to take up 10 times as much of my resources as a previous version, I expect it to be 10 times better. Why should something perform 10 times worse if its not 10 times better? (better meaning that it has more useful features).
You are suffering from a feeling that any computer that isn't the "fastest" is inadequate.
Isn't the fastest it can be, given the needed functionality. I expect programs to load instantaneously, RAM usage to be minimal, etc. In general, I don't like "wait-time". I don't find it amusing waiting 30s listening to my hard drive thrash, or watching a little clock cursor go round and round because some routine is poorly designed.
Most other people feel the same way. If not, Broadband connections never would have become popular.
You need to think about that for a while. Stop and look at what you do on your computer and see how long things take. Do you need some tasks to be faster? Why?
I need things to be faster because I don't have the patience to wait for something to get done slowly when it should be done quickly. I can tolerate it taking 30s to (for example) align many long protein sequences with eachother; I can't tolerate it taking that long for the Word processor to load.
This partly about ideals. Sloppy coding pisses me off. In the good old days where people had to "rent" time on a computer, code was written very efficiently at all levels, so it ran quickly. It was a thing of beauty. Now, alot of code is just slop which is poorly written.
This is why I like Linux (particularly Debian) so much: because it can actually still run on a 386.
If I'd doing something that's going to take a while, say rendering a picture, I can just move on to something else.
Which will, consequently, make rendering the picture even slower; furthermore, whatever else you're doing will happen slower. Also, sometimes we want results fast. If I'm running a Bayesian phylogeny, I want the results ASAP, because its a competitive field; also, because quality (maximum likelihood) phylogenetic analysis is very intensive, and the quicker its done with the better. Regarding bayesian phylogenetics, MrBayes is a program which I particularly respect for representing the ideals of good code. Each new release has become faster, and it does in days what other programs would take years to do (MrBayes bootstraps maximum likelihood phylognies about a million times in two days, whereas doing that in PAUP via Maximum Likelihood would take months or more likely years).
That's what multi tasking is all about. I find I'm much more productive in OS X than in OS 9.
So do I, but I could be more productive in it yet if some of these issues were dealt with. Firstly, there's the performance issues (try running OSX on the same ancient hardware you ran OS9 on). Secondly, OSX eliminates alot of good features of OS9. My beloved Apple program menu is gone, for example. The very nice control panel menu that you could navigate to from the Apple menu is gone, replaced with a MSesq control panel. If one installs an add-on Apple menu in OSX, it has annoying mini-icons in the menu next to the words, rather than just the names of the program. Just having the name of the program and a carrot was great.
I'm not all negative on OSX. The core of OSX is great, and there's many things I like about Aqua's GUI [rr.com] (if you look over that site, you'll find several places where I praised Apple on their GUIs.
I use OS 9 at work everyday so I know. I also don't see a speed difference except for the Finder, and that's been fixed in jaguar.
Unless your comparing the two OS' running on the exact same hardware, its not a valid comparison. Asking someone who has run both OS' on the same computer at the UOR how he liked OSX, his comments were "I don't like it, I hate it. Its slow, it hogs resources, and its ugly. The only thing I like about it is that its stable and doesn't crash." I've seen how the two OS' perform on the same computer, and I agree. As for "its ugly," I have to agree. Aqua's water-like appearance is about as classless as a two dollar tramp. I prefer a simple, plain look. Again, the user should be given the choice to choose a faster, more classy appearance.
well known that one of the strengths of Apple systems are their integration between hardware and the OS. Of what benefit would you get separating the two? Very little.
I'm not separating them. They are already separate, technically. My face is part of me, but it is not me. You could put a different face on me and I'd still be me. My point was not that computers don't come as systems, as a package. My point was simply what I said. Software is not hardware. This is an important point as has been shown in recent MS anti-trust trials. Distinguishing between the various parts of a system is important, especially if we want to preserve modularity. One should be able to "mix and match".
You can buy a G4 and run Linux on it if you like. I run Linux on a G3. It doesn't run as fast as OS 9, so there goes your theory on bloat.
I question what distribution you're running. If its Mandrake, I can see that. But don't expect OS9 to run faster than Debian on a G3. It seems widely acknowledged that good Linux distros are faster than other "common" OS' such as Solaris, IRIX, *BSD, Windows, and the Mac OS'.
Now, I'm not saying Linux is perfect. Linux still has PLENTY of room for improvement. BeOS and QNX represent the ideal in terms of minimal system resource use and speed. Such performance panaceas are definately possible for Linux if proper care is taken to what really matters.
You can also buy a G4 and run Darwin and XDarwin. Again, to what advantage? Maybe it's a bit faster? So what. You can't do as much with it. How fast does it have to be, and what advantage is that when you lose most of the OS?
I wouldn't run Darwin and XDarwin, because many *BSD and Linux packages haven't been ported to Darwin. I'd run Debian. One advantage being performance. The other being Debian's proven record for rock-solid stability. The biggest advantage being the freedom factor. GPL'ed software doesn't tie me up in a web of legal knots.
Here's something to think about, I don't use a Mac because of Apple's hardware. I appreciate their hardware (even if it's not keeping up with AMD or whoever).
Actually, Apple's hardware is keeping up fine. Apple hardware may have a lower clock frequency (MHz), but it takes less clock cycles to get an instruction done.
It's the GUI!
Which has alot of pros. I'm simply pointing out some areas where improvement is needed (namely resource utilization) and where Apple has taken a step backwards by eliminating GREAT features that were in OS9, like the Apple programs menu.
OS X is more of a luxury car than a Dragster. It corners better too!
What scientist need is a Dragster for their heavy duty-computers and a Porsche for their PC's, so to speak.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:1)
They show the user where the window went.
Please. Like people can't figure that one out. Besides, that wouldn't be NECESSARY if applications minimized to their ICON on the DOCK, and then hold clicking that ICON on the DOCK would display all instances of it running, as should be the case. Also, all these animations are ANNOYING.
What about the Aqua glassy effects? Or the icon zooming?
The icon zooming makes it a lot easier to hit the right icon when you've got a LOT of things in the dock, as I do.
Firstly, that's not the way to deal with the problem. The way to deal with it is to create a scroll-up dock. Also, if they had KEPT the Apple Applications menu, it wouldn't be necessary to cram the dock full of all sorts of crap.
Transparency?
Maybe you don't ever need to see through a terminal window, but I sure do. Sometimes there's something behind there that you need to see.
Which would be nice, except for the fact that terminals (or other windows) aren't transparent. Menu's and the dock are.
If Apple's going to include all of these useless, questionable, annoying features, they should at least incldue a way to disable them and expunge them from one's hard drive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
Menu / dock transparency is not a "key part of OS X's competitive advantage".
Its competitive advantage is the power offered by a *nix OS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
In OS 9, menu response was instantaneous. In OSX, its nearly instantaneous. Not a big issue, but it is better to have things pop up immediately.
OS9 still had that nice Apple menu with applicatioins on it. OSX has replaced that Apple menu with a crippled Root Menu, lacking the spring-loaded menu for the control panel, and also lacking an applications menu. If you want the Apple menu in OSX, you have to download a special third-party application. Way to take a big step backwards, Apple. To be fair, the dock can have sring-loaded folders on it, thus effectively allowing the creation of a programs menu. However, the menu-based control panel was far superior to Apple's MSesque control panel, which presents the user with a bunch of icons. Again, another case where the user should have the choice.
That said, there are many areas in which OSX does improve greatly over OS9:
1. Minimization and maxmization are great features (which should have been added by Apple a long time ago), though maximization is buggy as it doesn't maximize the window to fill the entire screen.
2. The dock is great. Very good to have a dock and a desktop. However, the dock could use some work too. Firstly, one should be able to set prefs for if icons get smaller as more apps are loaded on it, or if you get a "scroll up" dock, or a combination of both. Secondly, apps should minimize to their icon on the dock, and hold-clicking on that icon (lets say Explorer) should bring up a list of all instances of that application running. Thirdly, dragging the icon of a running application off of the dock should quit that application. Once that application has quit, dragging its icon off the dock again (if its a permanent member) should remove it from the dock. Finally, one should be able to adjust how many levels deep one can go from a folder on the dock in menu mode; i.e., 5 levels, 10, etc, or infinity.
3. Column-based file navigation. This is a truly excellent way to navigate through one's files. What I really like about it is that navigation is possible entirely from the keyboard. However, Apple should work on keyboard-based navigation in the other Finder modes, which is poor.
4. And, of course, the terminal.
These are some very nice additions by Apple. However, there are areas where they should take it further than they have. For example, there's a universal menu in Apple's OS'. This is great, as it saves screen space. However, why not also have a universal tool-bar so that every application's toolbar doesn't take up space on the screen when that application isn't in focus? Also, why not give the user the option to make the universal menu hide-away, thus allowing the user to use more screen space? There are many other things [rr.com], which not only Apple's WM, but every WM in existence should be addressing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
GUI's in general save you time, even though they are necessarily slower than CLI's. This is because the time you save by being able to do things in a graphical manner rather than via the command-line greatly exceeds the time lost by increased load/run time.
Such features which save you time overall should be kept and/or added. Those which don't should be removed or not added.
Spring loaded menu's save you time overall, even though they take up more of your system resources and work slower than CLI equivalents.
As for backgrounds, themes, and screen savers, all of those are optional and can be disabled/removed for those of us who don't want to bother with them. The only one of them that's of any use is screen-savers, and I'd say good arguments can be made for a simple "blank screen" screen saver: (1) Saves power; (2) By requesting a password to exit it, adds to security; (3) Thus, saves you money.
My issue isn't that Aqua includes features you don't need, but that are overall useful. My complaint is that they include features which are useless, like the pretty Aqua effects, menu/dock transparency, and animations. Think of how many hours were wasted by Apple developers to make the Aqua effects, hours which could have been spent doing something more worthwhile. Transparency is easy to make and not too costly, but should still be optional. As for animations, the only possible use of them is telling you where a program went when you minimized it. This would be a non-issue if Apple had made things minimize to their icon on the dock (where hold clicking that icon would bring up a list of all of the instances of that app running).
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
As for the bouncing, it is a complete waste. It doesn't tell you which programs are running. A little arrow next to the program tells you if its currently running. The bouncing tells you that that program's prompting you with some kind of yes/no question. That could be indicated by making the arrow red rather than black.
Other animations which are annoying are the ridiculous minimization/maximization animations. I want something to minimize/maximize instantaneously -- the next frame, it should be minimized, or maximized, not in 15 frames.
I like OS X too, but come on... (Score:1)
> your scientific reports to PC users since you
> have inappropriate software
You haven't spent much time around the scientific community, have you? Inappropriate software? PC users? Scientific reports are written in tex, (or latex or whatever front-end to tex is the preference nowdays) not word. And the people who write them don't give two shits about the little people and their toy computers.
If they lower themselves to make ANY accomidation to the ms types, they just export their tex document to pdf, and be done with it. And word/office is *still* unnecessary in this case.
> OS X may not be the sleekest girl on the block
OS X is a memory hog. The best medecine for a slow Mac is an extre 256MB of ram. I think that actually helped ME more than going from 10.0 to 10.1.
> (which are optimized for speed in the 10.2
> update)
Won't help me. I don't have a 3D card that supports Quartz Extreme. But I do have room for another 256MB (see my above statement)
> CLI and OS kernel that soars.
No arguement there. Though I'm not a big fan of Apple's terminal program, I hardly ever have to use it (except as a novelty... to proove to skeptics that MacOS really IS BSD/Mach now). And getting X to run is no big deal.
cya,
john
MS-Word is used far more than tex ... (Score:2)
Pot, kettle, black.
Inappropriate software? PC users? Scientific reports are written in tex, (or latex or whatever front-end to tex is the preference nowdays) not word. And the people who write them don't give two shits about the little people and their toy computers.
The vast majority of documentation and other paperwork in industry is written in MS-Word. Tex may be used for papers submitted to academic journals and the like but day-to-day grunt work and documentation tends to be Word and Excel. As a matter of fact at a monstrously large global chemical corporation I was used to seeing chemists with PC and Unix workstations. The PCs were just for doing documentation.
Re:MS-Word is used far more than tex ... (Score:2)
I developed chemistry and molecular visualization apps that were used in academic and commercial environments. I ported computational chemistry apps from legacy platforms (mainframe) to more modern systems (workstation).
Who said anything about industry
By industry I am specifically talking about the scientific industry, not industry in general. Scientific industry is where most of the scientific market is and where a lot of research takes place. Some of the chemists validating my ports were world class chemists that are widely published in top chemistry journals, most likely more respected and more widely published than the academics you ran into. Does this make me special, no, I'm just a grunt programmer but don't try to pass off that crap about academic environments is where it really happens. I've spent time doing software for grant-funded researchers as well. I've seen both sides, academic and commercial. Tex is a niche product in science. Get used to that.
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:1)
So I would recommend upgrading to 10.2 before you go around bashing.
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
It may be faster than previous releases, but its still bloatware, filled with features which need to be eliminated like transparency, aqua-effects, animations, and icon-zooming.
Btw, you say "almost as fast as OS9," which means its crap compared to Linux, which runs faster than OS9 on Mac hardware. OSX is based off of BSD and Mach, which means it should be very efficient, more so than OS9. But, in fact, the opposite is true. That means that alot of extra superflous stuff is (like unnecessary eye-candy in the GUI) is slowing it down. I don't know what's up with your driver problems, because Nvidia provides Linux drivers for all its GeForce cards.
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
I'd bet that since the first GUI's in existence, the CPU/RAM/hard-drive requirements have increased about 1000x, while the usefulness has only increased maybe 2-10x (lets not talk about Amiga, even though they really pioneered the GUI and were the real visionaries before Apple popularized the idea).
What I want is that if the requirements are to increase 2x, then the usefulness is to increase 2x. In other words, if I have to pay twice as much money on Apples, I better get twice as many Apples or Apples that are twice as good. Hope that's not too much to ask for.
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
If whatever you're doing is so boring that you need a fancy GUI to distract you, you should be doing something else.
And the job of an OS' GUI is not to make computers fun. That's the job of games. An OS' GUI is not a game.
Stop being such a dork. Most people in the market for a computer want a fun, neat computer with which they can get things done, not a boring, stripped-down speed machine.
And the same features which most people (myself) find "cool" in the beginning are annoying after seeing them 1000 times. Animations quickly get annoying and grate on one's nerves, as does transparency and icon zooming.
A UI is supposed to help me do things quicker and stay out of my way [rr.com]. Emphasize the stay out of my way part.
If you want your shit to be so fast then don't use OSX and shut your hole. "Features that need to be eliminated." Christ. And you're even trying to inflict your monotony on others. Stop posting already.
Typical of the Mac community. Suggestions for improvements are received with hostility.
Yes, some features do need to be eliminated, because they add nothing or nearly nothing. At the least, one should be able to disable them and remove them from one's system. My hard drive is not there to support Apple's obsession over tacky animations.
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:3)
And your attitude couldn't possibly have anything to do with it. Hint: saying "it would be nice if I could turn some of the Aqua effects off to reduce CPU usage" makes you appear reasonable. Proclaiming that Aqua is useless and calling people who disagree with you idiots makes you appear to be a jerk.
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
I think the impact of a beautiful computing experience is greatly underestimated. Many of us spend the bulk of our lives in front of a screen, which is normally gray and hopelessly dull visually. Making that environment beautiful - which is virtually exclusive to MacOS X - makes our lives more beautiful.
I think doing that is worth a few extra processor cycles.
D
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
Oh, great, now its eating up my GPU's resources. Well, thank god for that. You know, I spent $400 dollars on the GeForce4 just so that OSX could hog all of its power up. If the Aqua interface is hogging up the GPU's power, that means the GPU can't do its job as well -- i.e., rendering 3D objects. Btw, this isn't really a solution to a problem -- Apple is just pushing THEIR problem onto someone else. Had they actually made their code more efficient or elminated some useless features, that'd be a real solution. What they've done is say to the user, "get a better graphics card". Gee, all the programming genius that musta went into that one.
I think the impact of a beautiful computing experience is greatly underestimated. Many of us spend the bulk of our lives in front of a screen, which is normally gray and hopelessly dull visually. Making that environment beautiful - which is virtually exclusive to MacOS X - makes our lives more beautiful.
All I can say for that is HAHAHA. If your job is so boring to you that you need a fanciful GUI, then you should have a different job. If what your doing is so boring that you need tacky distractions, you should be doing something else. Btw, many people (myself included) think that OSX is not beautiful, but tacky. Like a two dollar tramp with too much makeup.
I think doing that is worth a few extra processor cycles./I.
A few? OSX hogs up tons of RAM and tons of CPU (or GPU) cycles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
As another person noted, QuartzExtreme just pushes off the PROBLEM to the GPU. This is not a real solution. Now, its my GPU that OSX is hogging. Gee, if I wanna actually play any games or look at 3D images in Bryce, now the GUI is slowing me down. All Apple has done with Quartz Extreme is say to the user, "Get a better GPU; you'll now need at least a GeForce2 to run Aqua smoothly".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
The problem is they're making my hardware solve problems that should be solved by either them coding better or eliminating code (or giving me the option to eliminate code/features) which require alot of resources.
Also, you fail to consider that one may be running several Bryce windows at once; thus, Aqua windows will be redrawn.
The point is, these are useless (or near useless) features. At the very least, I should have the option to disable these useless features. Even if they don't affect my performance, they're still taking up RAM (who is Apple to assume I'm using hundreds of MBs of RAM?). Furthermore, they're using "milage" on my system. Computer systems have a limited life-time, which is dictated by how rigourously they're used.
Again, alot of little things add up, and there's alot of bloaty "features" in OSX.
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
Because, after all, software doubles in speed every 18 months or so
Seriously, Apple is building a product that is going to carry the platform forward for another 10+ YEARS. What you consider a superfluous waste of processing resources now is going to be lost in the noise before you know it. Granted, they are certainly going to ladle on more eye candy as this happens but it will always be a balance between performance and appearance. If you don't agree with the mix, than you are probably outside the target market and should go back to your xterm on twm. Nothing to see here - move along.
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
The prime use of eye-candy seems to be making good looking screen-shots to put on commercials.
That said, Apple's certainly not alone in that category. MS has recently started developing their applications to make better screen-shots not better performance (Word XP is for 99% of users no better than Word 97, yet it takes up more space, more RAM, more CPU %, and loads slower). And of course there's the screen-shot mania insanity in the Linux community that you can witness and gag from [themes.org].
Btw, if, according to you, there's "no performance problems" in OS' and GUI's, how come everyone and anyone who's used BeOS or QNX says things like "applications loaded instantaneously" and "I can play 50 movies at the same time without losing responsiveness"?
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
if, according to you, there's "no performance problems" in OS' and GUI's
I think you have me confused with someone else as I never said that. I joined the thread late and am not the person you were originally bantering with.
That said, I'll take the bait
What exactly is the purpose of all this eye-candy? I find that its mostly just annoying and a hindrance, as well as tacky. The prime use of eye-candy seems to be making good looking screen-shots to put on commercials.
That may very well be the case. After all, they are in the business of making sales and, like it or not, many people make their purchasing decisions based on appearances.
I think that what you are trying to say is that form should follow function and, if I have represented your position correctly, I agree. Unfortunately, while you and I may consider maximizing performance and efficiency as the primary function of the OS, Apple (and MS and, for that matter, RH) view the maximization of revenues as the primary function. Hence the emphasis on appearance as a tool to increase sales - even in the Linux community.
Now here's the kicker. I use OS X everyday on my desktop and laptop. I also use W2k, RH6/7 & SOL7/8 every week on a more than passing basis. I don't find the OS X GUI performance to be a significant hindrance. Frankly, I barely even notice it. What I do notice is the interface inconsistencies for X Windows applications and the general obtuseness of W2k. But hey, that's just me.
If you don't like OS X, fine - don't use it. It's not like Apple is trying to force it down the throat of world + dog like MS certainly would. But to deny it offers real value in an appealing package is somewhat disingenuous. While it may not be a open and free as Linux, it is certainly more open and free than Windows and like to become even more so. For that reason alone, Apple should be encouraged by the community rather than villified for perceived sub-optimal GUI performace (which, by the way, is one of the areas they seem to be working the hardest).
And anyway, their hardware is pretty cool
Re: (Score:2)
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
How arrogant. Aside from having to spend the money on OSX, now I have to spend 50 bucks to upgrade my RAM? I should not need to upgrade my computer just to run an OS smoothly.
Also, even if I have enough RAM to run it just fine, why should the OS use up so much RAM? You know, I buy RAM so I can multitask more programs. The OS should not be using up more RAM than any other program on my system (which is the case for most computers I've worked with, except some Linux, BeOS, and QNX systems).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
And it doesn't matter how much of my GPU its using, the point is, its wasting my GPU's power when it need not be.
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
And its demanding that I get a better graphics card. The OS should not be dictating what graphics card I use; if anything, it should be the 3D apps I use.
And, sure, it might be minor. But alot of "little" things that use up a "little bit of resources" add up to A BIG THING.
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:1)
Oh, horseshit. The drop shadows are great, and they replace pixel-wasting window frames. Once they're drawn, they just sit there. They don't use CPU. The animations do, but only when they're animating. I run on 300MHz G3s, so I'm very (but not too painfully) aware of exactly when the UI uses the CPU, I can see it.
You only have one mouse, how many windows can you resize, apps do you set a-hoppin' in your dock at a time?
Now, I hate the "lined" appearance. Looks awful, and I've heard it causes headaches. Toolbars get the same dumb lines as title bars, yuck. But the drop shadows are wonderful, and animations only hog when they're alive. I'll just live with the lines.
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
I do, every day as my main OS. I'm typing this in OS X.
But it still has problems.
Not as much as you seem to think! Every OS has some problems. But OS X has been very reliable for me. I don't have the newest Mac, and it runs great. It also supports a bunch of old peripherals, like a 3 year old UMAX 1220S SCSI scanner, a 7 year old Iomega Zip drive, a 2 year old Epson SP 870 printer, and an external LaCie SCSI CD-RW. The best part is showing friends that come over how they can plug their digital camera in, and OS X launches either iPhoto or ImageCapture and asks to download the pictures. My friend's PC running Win2K wont even work with her new Sony camera. You think you're going to get ease of use like that with any other Unix? Not likely.
OSX ships in a very non-secure state. Take a look at The Missing Manual: Mac OSX. You'd be surprised how poor the security is (and at how many vulnerabilities there are) on MacOSX out of the box.
Yeah, so? And how many people's OS X boxes have been exploited? I'm on a full time broad band connection. No one has gotten access to my Mac. And it does have a built in firewall too.
Plus Apple releases security updates once a month. I just downloaded one. Some of the information in the book is out of date.
That's one problem. The other problem is performance.
Once again it's not that big of an issue. It hasn't stopped me from using and working on my Mac in OS X at all. What it lacks in performance it makes up for in multitasking. And the little that I used Jaguar shows its faster still.
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
Scientists use powerful computers to run reiterated algorithms over and over, billions of times. So these things that "aren't that big of an issue" add up to hours of time.
Btw, multitasking is nothing new anymore. Every major OS multi-tasks. Unix multi-tasked back when it still used a CLI only.
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
Well as I said, I run OS X, and I don't see it being that much slower, and when it is, it's the Finder that's slower. But I don't do much work in the Finder as compared to other applications. I also disagree about Linux being faster on the same hardware, because I run both.
Scientists use powerful computers to run reiterated algorithms over and over, billions of times. So these things that "aren't that big of an issue" add up to hours of time.
So why are so many scientist running OS X? I guess they don't care as much as you think! The Human Genome project was run on G4 clusters.
Also having a slow GUI doesn't stop you from running "reiterated algorithms over and over, billions of times." They don't run in the GUI.
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
Re:MacOS X has problems (Score:2)
Depends on what you do.
I personally use XDirectFB. If you use that in combination with a good slim WM like pwm, then it is pretty small and very fast.
what kind of science? (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, TeXShop is a great app, I'm doing all my writeup on my PowerBook. Not science though
What the mac is good for is not specifically science yet, it just happens that scientists regard computers as tools and aren't as tolerant of crashes, and don't always have the time to play with the OS.
(I do have a dual CPU IBM netfinity for playing with Linux on
Matlab for OS X out for awhile (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Matlab for OS X out for awhile (Score:2)
Re:Matlab for OS X out for awhile (Score:1)
Re:Matlab for OS X out for awhile (Score:2)
Unless the high-quality acquisition cards you are talking about are for 10 bit uncompressed video
Re:Matlab for OS X out for awhile (Score:2)
Postgrad student. I should probably put it in my profile, only it's ending in a month.
Re:what kind of science? (Score:1)
Also no OS X native Matlab yet, meaning I have to switch to (yuck) classic. (I just go and use a SPARCstation).
Did you even take the time to look at MathWorks Website? Or have you not looked at it in the 6 months?
Here is a link to MatLab of OS X [mathworks.com].
Please have some knowledge before you post...
Apple better than SGI...LOL (Score:1)
Nothing Apple has compares to that.
Apple doesn't even have 64-bit processors yet, so lets not jump the gun and assume they're going to overtake SGI and Sun in the scientific market.
Granted, for the type of computer Apple offers (32-bit), they're great. But, as I said before, why use the bloated OSX which'll hog alot of your RAM and CPU time, when you can install Debian, which won't?
Re:Apple better than SGI...LOL (Score:2)
Nothing Apple has compares to that."
While true, you didn't bother to mention that the Fuel starts at $11,500...
A.
wasted fuel (Score:4, Interesting)
We've successfully ported our high end graphics/ video application from the SGI platform to Linux running on a high end dual-xeon workstation.
The Linux/Intel performance is more than double that of the fuel system, and our apps push the system to its limits. And, even figuring in the cost of the high end video boards, the Linux/Intel solution is 1/4 of the FUEL price.
It's very easy to justify the porting cost.
I've Seen This (Score:1)
Basically, it lets him have his cake and eat it too.
CAD (Score:1)
I really wish that Mac OS X had some serious 3D Mechanical CAD software. SolidWorks or Pro/E for example.
SolidWorks is Windows based, so I don't have my hopes too high for that package. Pro/E runs on both UNIX and Windows however, so it probably wouldn't be too hard to port it to OS X.
Re:CAD (Score:1)
Re:CAD (Score:1)
Good for Astophysics (Score:4, Insightful)
So now I'm happily reducing astronomical data on my laptop in one window and slashdotting in another.
Why this and not Linux? I've always felt that Linux wasn't quite ready for prime time. Its great in some respects, but always fell a bit short. I could say the same about Solaris which is what I also use for work. The extra usability and availability of some commercial software on OSX and porting of my standard applications is what convinced me.
And the TiBook does look pretty good too!
They seem to be doing OK in biology science stuff (Score:1, Informative)
Apples science stuff is here http://www.apple.com/scitech/ but they don't have articles.
It's all about good marketing (Score:1)
To: Depressed scientists around the world
Subject: Science can be happy!
Dear Depressed Scientist,
We at Apple understand the sterile environment you must live with using your existing system. We have developed OS X as a response, to help you help yourself!
Think of the joy of discovery you will experience when surrounded by the soft, chewy gui of OS X, rather than the hard, dry cinders of X-Windows.
Too many virtual desktops lead to confusion! Instead, keep your focus on our jelly buttons and smooth window-shading so you can produce and be happy!
Ask yourself, would Da Vinci use Linux? Would Galileo use Irix? You know the answer. It is up to you to Make Science Pretty Again!
Says Doctor Red Gorm, of the venerable BSS,
"I used to do my sociographic studies on a (*sob*) Intel box running Solaris. All my findings were miserable! My hypotheses centered on the existential meaningless of life. Now, thanks to OS X, I have been able to prove conclusively that teddy bears eat only honey and live in rainbows! I expect the Nobel."
Gastroenterologist Batty Lewis reported, "Since switching to OS X, I literally sh*t different!"
If you would like to know more about what OS X can do for you, check out other success stories here [apple.com].
If you would like to be removed from this list, please disconnect your computer from the Internet.
Thank you,
Apple Marketing
Virtual Desktops (Score:2)
A lot of Linux diehards have a tendency to poo-poo OS X because it has progressed very rapidly to a polished and robust OS, and I suspect that like those people, you resent Apple for that.
Next time don't forget to mention the one-button mouse. (Yawn)
Re:It's all about good marketing (Score:2)
Re:It's all about good marketing (Score:2)
Too bad it is so late in the thread. The believers have been mobilized and now feel compelled to debate any real or perceived factual errors in even clearly satirical pieces.
I am a scientist working as an engineer and I use OS X every day on my desktop at work and my laptop at home. I love it and, despite comments to the contrary here, the eye candy makes my coworkers go ga-ga (I barely even notice it anymore). And I can tell you, since switching to OS X, I literally sh*t different!
Ha ha - funny stuff. Really. I wish I had some mod points. Keep up the good work
What about performance? (Score:1)
Re:What about performance? (Score:2, Insightful)
amount of AltiVec support in FORTRAN. Without the parallel vector processing capabilities of AltiVec,
the G4 places near the end of the pack in performance tests using standard FORTRAN scientific codes.
In limited cases where AltiVec acceleration was available and tested under FORTRAN, the G4 showed a clear advantage with 4-7X greater performance and a 5-8X greater cost effectiveness than all other
workstation systems evaluated."
A complete listing of the system is in the pdf.
It is an interesting read.
real computation for real scientists... (Score:1)
I've recently adopted Mac OSX and the TiBook platform for the convience of using my unix/X11/GL based tools with standard desktop applications such as Word, Excel, and Powerpoint. Analogous desktop applications are available in the Linux/Unix world to fill this gap but I've found compatiblity problems with collaborators prevent this from being a robust alternative. So my desk usually has a Wintel box with cygwin/Xfree, a Wintel laptop similarly configured, a multiprocessor Linux workstation (for more brawny computing but not needing beowolf type performance), an SGI Octane/2 (for specific hardware/software interface to data acquisition eqipment which still has a truely impressive graphics engine regardless of the problems with CPU performance) and yes a Mac. Now using OSX I've put all but 1 of these platforms in one box (the SGI apps are hardware specific). From my viewpoint, the power of OSX is not that "it's pretty" or that "it has killer performance" but that its an all - in - one package. My work involves image processing, analysis, modeling, and relatively large (but not grand challenge level) calculations. Mac OSX is reasonably easy to port things to (at least as far as the X11 / OpenGL interface) and I'm quite content with it's performance and all the room I've regained on my desk.
In synopsis - OSX is a great platform to me in that I can develop my software, perform my calculations, and analyze my data in a fashion that is familar and transferable to other platforms without sacrificing the availability of the now-standard (at least in my organizational world) of Micro$oft office and other necessary desktop applications. Its a nice bonus that the architechture of the Mac enables such things as
PVM and other parallel computation tools but for the most part the economics do not work in favor of trading in my Linux beowolf cluster for a similarly configured rack of Xservers running 10.2.
MacOS X Workstation (Score:1)
Two Words: (Score:2)
Might as well own a fsking XBox.
They Know Their Business (Score:3, Insightful)
I assume that they have not really given Linux a try, and should not compare it to OS/X for that reason
I don't think you have a single reason to assume this. In fact, I suspect that research scientists, like other professionals, know their own business better than you or I. In other words, one can assume for the most part that they are familiar with the available tools of the trade and choose according to their needs.
Heck, I could "assume" that you are a Linux advocate simply because you've never given Mac OS X an adequate try. I mean why else would you have made a different choice than I did? I'm sure you'll agree that this conclusion would be unwarranted.
Re:who are they to compare OS/X to linux? (Score:4, Interesting)
I use Linux with Windowmaker, Mozilla, XEmacs, and an xterm, because those are all I need and it works great. However, if I weren't a geek hacker, and didn't have an unnatural attachment to the IA32 line, I'd use MacOS X.
I've been bashing Apple for years, but it's always been about their operating system. They've not only "fixed" it, but I'd say they now have the best all-round OS out there.
Re:who are they to compare OS/X to linux? (Score:3, Funny)
> Some secretary probably wanted a new Mac. When
> it arrived the guys wanted to check under the
> hood. They found that it is 3 million years
> ahead of their SGI boxes and decided to start
> switching/porting.
>
> I seriously doubt that they got into doing this
> with Linux... My guess is that they installed
> Redhat 5.0 a few years ago, and then maybe tried
> 6.2 on an underused partition, eventually
> scraping it when their uncompressed images
> needed more space... They probably never really
> investigated Linux as an alternative.
Sorry, but your fantasy doesn't jive with the article.
Scott Sneddon said he had been using Mac for years. He was using Mac, Linux, and SGI at the same time for different tasks. Then along came OS X, and he said "good-bye" to his Linux and SGI boxes, and freed up much disk space. He also said that "OS X is a better Unix development environment than Linux or Silicon Graphics Irix". Having done development under all three platforms (though SGI was ten years ago), I must agree. Cocoa is really sweet.
Craig Hunter, from NASA, replaced his SGIs with Macs running OS X.
Gaurav Khanna also replaced his SGIs with Macs running OS X.
Rob Meyer's company used to produce software for the Mac, and now they are back. Rob Meyer himself is a long time Windows user, and thinking of buying himself a Mac.
> Wait! I do have a point - I assume that they
> have not really given Linux a try, and should
> not compare it to OS/X for that reason....
Nope, you are point free. Next time, try actually reading the article before you post a comment.
"Godzilla and Jaguar: Punch! Punch! Punch! Hit! Hit! Hit!
We die if they stop fighting for us."
Jet Jaguar Song, "Godzilla vs. Megalon"
Re:who are they to compare OS/X to linux? (Score:2)
I know it's a cliche, but you really should read the article before offering these kneejerk responses. These people have considered your points about Linux, and rejected them. I actually had a temp job in the bioinformatics department at one of these companies last year, and everyone was running brand new, high quality workstations, with brand new Sun Blades and moderately old Mac G3s [with OS9 or even OS8.6] in about equal proportion (and most people running two computers). If they were to switch to new G4s running OSX -- and from the sound of it, they may be doing so -- then everyone would be much more productive. Switching to 100% Linux wouldn't be nearly as helpful to these people.
Re:who are they to compare OS/X to linux? (Score:1)