PC versus MAC? Are scientists switching to MAC?

OK - We've all seen the funny little ads for Mac versus PC. In one corner we have the younger, cooler, friendlier Mac and in the other corner we have the older, uncool, square known as the PC. But is there anything behind it? Recent retail trends have shown a drastic change in consumer spending on Mac. When consumers want to buy a computer, roughly 66% of them chose Mac over PC. Initially I thought it must be the clever marketing. People can't really be switching to Macs, can they?

Mac Pros:
*Macs have 1/3 fewer problems than PCs.

*In Popular Mechanic's speed trials Leopard OS trounced Vista in all-important tasks such as boot-up, shutdown and program-launch times. Popular Mechanics even tested Vista on the Macs using Apple’s platform-switching Boot Camp software—and found that both Apple computers ran Vista faster than their PCs did.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/reviews/4258725.html?page=1

*There are currently 0 (nada, nil, zip) virus in the wild that affect the Mac OSX.

*Most software IS now available for Macs

OK - this sounds great, but can a scientist actually work exculsively on Mac and avoid PCs? Has the scientific software progressed into the Mac world? With the Boot Camp software, one could run a Mac that runs Vista. To me this would mean that all software will run on a Mac or at least a Mac running Vista.

I haven't attempted to make the switch, have any other scientist in the community successfully switched to Mac? If so, were there any glitches with the more scientific software such as software for data acquisition and analysis? Let's hear it!

I don't think I will make the switch anytime soon, based upon several previous experiences with Macs:

1. Figures in Word or Powerpoint (for example, posters and presentations) can be altered significantly when moving from Mac to PC or the reverse--a substantial problem when a poster generated on a Mac is printed using a poster printer linked to a PC, or a presentation generated on a Mac is transferred to a PC for the talk itself.
2. My PI has had several Mac laptops over the past seven years or so, and all of them, without fail, crash at some point, causing her to lose all of her files and require the purchase of yet another Mac laptop. During this time, I have had few problems, if any, with the 2 PC laptops I have had during this same time period.
3. Most of the oral presentation problems I have seen at conferences occur when presenting (or attempting to present) Powerpoint Slides generated on a Mac.
4. The majority of software I have and use is for PC, not Mac (e.g. Endnote, GraphPad, SigmaPlot, Photoshop, etc.), and it would be fairly expensive to replace them with Mac versions.

I suppose most of these problems could be prevented by running Vista on a Mac, but I think I will wait and see how it all works out before switching to Mac myself.

I don't know about switching to a Mac - I've always used a Mac and I haven't experienced failures except once in a monitor. My desktop is 12 years old and still operating wonderfully and I have one laptop that is 10 years old and still works fine. I've also not had problems running my PowerPoint presentations on a PC and I've presented in several different countries. Generally, problems are caused by improper saves or incompatible movie file formats all of which are easily managed. The MacOS is so much more user friendly compared to Windows, the machines come ready to use right out of the box and they have almost anything you could want already installed so that you don't have to have a variety of cards or gadgets installed to do what you need to do. If anyone lost data it again points to backing up important items. I admit that in the lab I've been forced to use PCs only because of the instrument manufacturers. Since the new MacOS has been set as the government standard in security I believe it is the safest computer system available to the general consumer. While it's true that if the software you have is for a PC then a conversion would require either running both Vista and the MacOS or buying new software, there is an alternative. Wait until you would be updating your software and update with the Mac compatible version. Once a person made the switch to a Mac I'm sure they'll wonder how they ever put up with a PC. The ads are true.

I must admit that I'm a PC loyalist myself. The main reason that I posted this was that there were so many signs pointing to a switch from PC to Mac. For years, anyone that had a Mac I simply felt sorry for (kind of like AOL users). However, recent performance tests made me reconsider my prejudices against Macs. Despite the impressive performance by Mac, I won't be running out to the store to buy one. But when someone mentions they bought a Mac I can no longer snicker and mock the person (Ahh…they were good times)

My bottom-line is this: Macs will be a huge hit with traditional personal users who want to build a simple web site, modify photos, etc. For the rest of us "power users", we will still want the pc....if not for any other reason then the memories (I'm looking at you 8 track player owners). Besides PCs are still in the majority for business which makes it a must for business users (for compatibility reasons alone).

I would like to add/inform on several key elements many people might not know, consider, or fully understand.

MAC
1) Super simplistic
2) Gives users exactly what they need up front
3) Written on top of UNIX
4) Has fewer breakdowns than PC

PC
1) Super automated
2) Gives users exactly what they need up front
3) Has a wizard which will allow you to search/guide you through anything you would like to do
4) Easily accessible searchable Help and Support to walk a user through easy to hard task.
5) Written on code not publicly available, but widely altered
6) Has LESS problems as of the release of Vista

MAC
To explain some of the key highlights here MAC does a great job of making the user interface for the basic user super simplistic. It does a great job of putting what you want and need right on the desktop so the user doesn’t have to go looking for it. Is this really a vital and successful practice or is this something that could potentially hold you back, without you even knowing! If you spent 365 using that MAC doing the same thing, and something went wrong, how would you fix it? If it is your work terminal you can always call support, but if you are at home your options are limited.

PC has about 40 configuration changes that you can make to nearly any given menu, window, desktop, user profile., etc. MAC, has very little customizable, without a significant computer knowledge. For instance MAC has it’s version of Windows Control Panel with many options right there to allow you to make changes as needed. If you compare the number of options, and things you can alter in the “MAC’s Control Panel” to a “Windows Control Panel” your options are cut in half. Now many of the things you can change in Windows can be change in MAC, although you do not see options for said configuration changes. The only downside is you have to do it through command prompt, UI enhancements, etc. Overall MAC is great for a basic user who wants applications, and does not need to tweak a computer more than a few display options, out of the box.

PC
To explain and set the record straight…. For all that MAC is accredited for being “Super Simplistic” it is not really user friendly when a problem does occur! A great example is networking. If you plug your computer into a network, and something goes wrong, it will tell you likely what the problem is. If it were to say “could not communicate with DHCP server” or “Connection disconnected” you may, or may not know what the problem is, or what to do. If you are a basic user, it is likely you are going to not know, and seek further assistance. If you were on a Windows PC you would be offered an option to try to resolve it for you, using many of the same ways a PC expert would, but without having to call for an expert. Windows will automatically detect problems, alert you, and will even attempt to resolve them. MAC has some fail safe protocols built in, but not nearly as many and lacks user friendly wizards for a number of things. An example of this would be drive failure, cleaning up temp files, recovering data, etc. MAC as of recently has implemented backup and restore features but in Windows Vista as well as previous versions of Windows you can backup and restore your computer and files. All of Which can be done within Windows, or more importantly using the Windows CD, to go back to a restore point, when your computer isn’t working at all, which is usually when you need it the most!

Also regarding children and computers I hear people say all the time “they are so smart and so young, how do they do it?” but you might be wrong. I’m sure said child is very smart, but maybe Windows makes computing easier than you think. Maybe that Help and Support menu you’ve neglected to click since you’ve purchased the computer holds the key to many questions you’ve never bothered to ask. Such as how do I (insert question here). Literally it is that easy, and in Vista that menu has grown so much, and become even more dynamic. As right on the start menu is a search bar which will find files, programs, websites, and more just by typing in whatever you want to find. And if that wasn’t easy enough, there is spyware and virus protection built into Windows now. Windows has so many automations running PC is super easy, and can be finely tuned to run exactly how you want, and automate backup and recovery. That is something MAC has lacked for a very long time.

Aside from the great smear campaign MAC has been doing against Microsoft each have their downfalls. The only thing I’ve seen different in recent years between the two is Microsoft has been resolving theirs. MAC on the other hand just cuts support every few additions and that is that. Also a rumor that MACs are more secure is just not true. MAC has significantly less problems with virus and spyware because the amount of virus and spyware written for a MAC is very small. This doesn’t mean that MAC is more secure, it means that MAC is less attacked. How many MAC computers do you see running Anti-Virus? Very few… and I can tell you I’ve seen an unguarded MAC go down within minutes, and become unrepairable. It is not to say that it couldn’t be fixed with 5+ hours of work, but simply it isn’t worth it. A properly maintained PC, with up to date Anti-Virus simply would not have such a problem. Also MAC cost $2000 for many models and configurations. If you look at a PC with the same specs it cost about the same. In general PC cost less, because it runs on less. The same cannot be said about MAC. Sure the OS itself will, but put Photoshop among other things and you will likely see things differently.

ScottICN000308650 wrote:For the rest of us "power users", we will still want the pc....if not for any other reason then the memories (I'm looking at you 8 track player owners). Besides PCs are still in the majority for business which makes it a must for business users (for compatibility reasons alone).

What can a "power user" do on a pc that he can't do on a mac? What difference does it make to a business user what platform he prepares his proposal/spreadsheet/presentation on, as long as it is in a compatible format?

JEFFREY177045 wrote:
What can a "power user" do on a pc that he can't do on a mac?

A power user typically is someone like myself who uses lots of software development tools, or someone who uses scientific software unavailable on the Mac. For me, the software is not the problem as much as my comfort level with the UI. You'd be surprised how many variants exists when switching from PC to Mac. Typically the same functions are available, but it is a matter of retraining an old brain to do new tricks. [Wow - I sound like my professors that talked about punch cards]

What difference does it make to a business user what platform he prepares his proposal/spreadsheet/presentation on, as long as it is in a compatible format?

I can't speak to personal formatting issues, but I've attended conferences where users who worked on Macs had formatting issues with their presentation. Most likely this is user error and the problem could have been prevented.

On a side note, The Scientist's system administrator recently was able to hack into a Mac without knowing the password. The Mac allowed him to create an administrator user and login to the Mac with full permissions. To me this is unacceptable!

JEFFREY177045 wrote:

What can a "power user" do on a pc that he can't do on a Mac?

A power user typically is someone like myself who uses lots of software development tools, or someone who uses scientific software unavailable on the Mac. For me, the software is not the problem as much as my comfort level with the UI. You'd be surprised how many variants exist when switching from PC to Mac. Typically the same functions are available, but it is a matter of retraining an old brain to do new tricks. [Wow - I sound like my professors that talked about punch cards]

There is a bit more to it than that. You can't manage one Mac from Mac. You from my knowledge can do a bit of that with Apple's branded Directory Services or additional software. Microsoft has a bunch of tools built into them that allow for manageability, and most importantly scalability. That means 1 to x,xxx number of computers can not only be networked but linked through a set of policies. Those policies maybe used for security, they maybe for functionality, or installing software on those Machines. Mac includes some of those functionalities but requires the use of their directory services but they are in no means as layered and functional as Microsoft's version.

What difference does it make to a business user what platform he prepares his proposal/spreadsheet/presentation on, as long as it is in a compatible format?

Personally I don't think to the business professional or the typical end user it matters much as long as it is a system that they are familiar with. As new technology comes out things change and there is always a learning curve. With Mac there isn't usually one, because every version of Mac essentially works the same at least regarding the core built in functions. That doesn't mean Mac is, or is not the answer.

For IT it has to be easy to fix, replace, manage, and incorporate into a network and in today’s world Mac is more of a problem than an answer. Software cost alone is a great example of a reason why not to move to Mac. I can purchase a volume license of Microsoft Office for Windows at $x,xxx for x amount of computers. If I have Mac they would have to be under a different volume license or purchased separately. If you have a very large number of computers Microsoft may allow you to include Mac client in your volume licensing. The same goes for Symantec, Trend Micro, the list goes on. That pretty much means big business is running Windows, for cost reason alone. For every Mac you purchase you can purchase 2 PCs typically.

On a side note, The Scientist's system administrator recently was able to hack into a Mac without knowing the password. The Mac allowed him to create an administrator user and login to the Mac with full permissions. To me this is unacceptable

Although if you can get to the physical drive in Windows or Mac you can get to the files, you can't boot Windows up in safe mode and create another administrator without first knowing the password to an administrative account. On Mac you can. It is rather funny to have found that you can do that, and I chuckle to myself every time I think about it.

ScottICN000308650 wrote:
I can't speak to personal formatting issues, but I've attended conferences where users who worked on Macs had formatting issues with their presentation. Most likely this is user error and the problem could have been prevented.

The problem with Powerpoint (noted in another post) results from incompatiblities in the mac and pc versions. When you paste a large graphic into Powerpoint for mac, it is converted and stored in tiff format, which works fine on the mac. However, Powerpoint for the pc doesn't know how to display tiff files so it chokes when the slide comes up. Microsoft chose to a) make the pc and mac versions incompatible, b) not support display of a well known and widely used graphics format, and c) not tell users about the issue or fix it. NOT a user error.

Apart from this issue with recent versions of Powerpoint, I've been preparing documents, spreadsheets, and presentations on the mac and sharing them in a pc-centric environment for 18 years. Office for mac works fine, and Open Office (and other software) is able to produce Office compatible files for mac and linux.

The problem with Powerpoint (noted in another post) results from incompatiblities in the mac and pc versions. When you paste a large graphic into Powerpoint for mac, it is converted and stored in tiff format, which works fine on the mac. However, Powerpoint for the pc doesn't know how to display tiff files so it chokes when the slide comes up. Microsoft chose to a) make the pc and mac versions incompatible, b) not support display of a well known and widely used graphics format, and c) not tell users about the issue or fix it. NOT a user error.

JEFFREY177045, I think you might be misjudging the real problem. Mac often comes with a very powerful graphics controller because the system and user interface requires it. There for it handles graphics much better than low end pc. Having said that there are no incompatibilities with PowerPoint and Tiff on Windows. The choke you are likely seeing is likely hardware, not software. This is true that this isn't a user error, but it doesn't mean it is software either.

ScottICN000308650 wrote:

JEFFREY177045 wrote:
What can a "power user" do on a pc that he can't do on a mac?

A power user typically is someone like myself who uses lots of software development tools, or someone who uses scientific software unavailable on the Mac.....

I've written lots of simulation and data acquisition programs on the mac, in Pascal, C, and Java, and assembly. I've built cross assemblers, real-time kernels, etc. for microcontrollers and dsps. I've built databases and servers. I do use a pc to run the canned software you usually get with an evaluation board, for example, but further development is done with gnu tools on the mac. Not having to spend time learning new things is a valid reason to stay with a pc. But it is inaccurate to suggest that there are significant tasks that cannot be done on a mac (or linux box for that matter).

What software do you use that is not available or doesn't have a functional equivalent on the mac?

JoeTS1005663 wrote:
JEFFREY177045, I think you might be misjudging the real problem. ... there are no incompatibilities with PowerPoint and Tiff on Windows. The choke you are likely seeing is likely hardware, not software. This is true that this isn't a user error, but it doesn't mean it is software either.

I was wrong about the problem being TIFF only, but it is a software bug (or feature). The slides display a white box where the graphic should be with text reading: "QuickTime(TM) and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture". Powerpoint for Mac tags the graphics files as QuickTime TIFFs, requiring the PC to have both QuickTime Player and a TIFF plugin specifically for QuickTime. Most PC's do not have this combination, and fail to display the graphic. It's a treacherous bug because smaller graphics (small figures, company logos, etc.) work fine, then you get to the main figure in your talk and nada.

JEFFREY177045 wrote:
I've written lots of simulation and data acquisition programs on the mac, in Pascal, C, and Java, and assembly. I've built cross assemblers, real-time kernels, etc. for microcontrollers and dsps. I've built databases and servers. I do use a pc to run the canned software you usually get with an evaluation board, for example, but further development is done with gnu tools on the mac. Not having to spend time learning new things is a valid reason to stay with a pc. But it is inaccurate to suggest that there are significant tasks that cannot be done on a mac (or linux box for that matter).

What software do you use that is not available or doesn't have a functional equivalent on the mac?

I'm sure most of my software programs will work - I know some work on a linux box already - (I develop on XP, test in a linux staging environment), so it would only make sense. It's possible that IDEs may not support it, but in those cases you can find a new IDE that will support it.

Let's return to the original question- would you make the switch to Mac (assuming currently on a PC). It sounds like you are a die hard Mac user who wants to stand in Macs corner - which is perfectly fine. I'm suggesting that if you've already made significant investments in software for PC - you may not want to repurchase the same software to get the Mac version.
Plus some scientific users have noted that they ARE having problems converting to Mac due to particular companies not supporting Mac [from the community - not my experience]

The reason I wrote this article is that the Mac has really come a long way over the years, and I was attempting to give it some credit for its improvements. At the same time, I was curious if the trend towards Macs was still limited to younger generation and artist. Besides a small handful of scientist, I have yet to hear Mac having a large adoption rate within the scientist community.

ScottICN000308650 wrote:
Let's return to the original question- would you make the switch to Mac (assuming currently on a PC). (snip) I'm suggesting that if you've already made significant investments in software for PC - you may not want to repurchase the same software to get the Mac version....

The original question is a good one, but as posed is too general to be answered. I see three scenarios depending on additional assumptions made:

1. I'm fed up with Windows but I don't want to spend time learning new apps. I might switch if I can obtain and afford Mac versions of all the software I run now on the PC.

2. I need a new computer. If I buy a Mac I can use it as a Windows box now and have the ability to switch to the Mac OS later. I may even switch incrementally by running Windows in a virtual machine and gradually using more and more Mac programs.

3. I'm fed up with Windows and Microsoft in general. I'm willing to spend time buying and learning new apps for the long term benefit of an operating system that has advantages x, y, and z, and to have a unix-like OS that gives me access to all the free open source apps available now and in the future.

I don't see much point in switching under scenario 1. Why switch from an operating system that you don't like because it is complex, unintuitive, crash-prone, (or whatever faults you perceive), only to keep using applications that share many of those same faults?

I think it does make sense to switch under scenarios 2 and 3, although one needs to determine what specific functions are needed and whether/how they can be done with a Mac.

It would be great if scientific users considering switching could ask "How can I do X on a Mac, and what will it cost me in time and money?" and get answers from knowledgeable users. But that belongs on a different thread.

ScottICN000308650 wrote:
It sounds like you are a die hard Mac user...

I am partial to the mac, but I have bought and used many macs and pcs, both at work and at home.

3. I'm fed up with Windows and Microsoft in general. I'm willing to spend time buying and learning new apps for the long term benefit of an operating system that has advantages x, y, and z, and to have a unix-like OS that gives me access to all the free open source apps available now and in the future.

Sorry not to beat a dead horse but all of those open source apps you likely want are available for Windows as well. As for as unix-like I feel its hard to really call it unix-like. Its Mac, they just switched the system on which the UI resides to unix. It to many lengths gives you no more functionality than Windows, or the older version of Mac. From my understanding they switched the core system for speed alone.

And Vista now supports unix based applications to some degree. To say the least, you can run Unix apps on Windows, but it is intended for Enterprise Clients. The following is taken from Microsoft's website.

Migration and Integration
Taking advantage of the latest technology and improved security usually involves upgrading to the latest operating system. However, this can be a problem when your organization is using applications that are not compatible with the newest operating system version. Windows Vista Enterprise helps make migration seamless, enabling you to upgrade to the latest desktop platform while cost effectively continuing to use other applications. Windows Vista Enterprise also provides improved application compatibility with the rights to four Virtual Operating Systems and Subsystem for UNIX-Based Applications. These offerings ease integration between Windows and UNIX/Linux environments and help users leverage their UNIX skills and overcome the challenges of moving their workloads to the Windows platform.

Refrence
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/sa/benefits/vista.mspx

What I'm trying to point out is Windows is making integration with Unix and Unix with Windows a bit more viable. Mac has not made such concessions for Windows, where as Windows dominates the market and yet makes concessions for other OS mfgs. So, all of those proprietary apps that are made for one OS or another, can run on Windows Vista. The point of Vista was to be more secure, more functional, and easily integrated on many levels with many technologies. I've personally been part of the Microsoft Vista beta test and spoke to many Microsoft Engineers and there have been so many improvement in these areas from a truly tech standpoint Microsoft is doing things that Mac doesn't, and like cannot afford to within a near future. Hence why there is a need for Open Source for Mac. Good luck getting support for open source though.

So as a recap to the original posters question, no I do not think scientist will be making a switch to Mac. I've stated many reasons as to why, but the most important is many people are already familiar with Windows, they have the software they need, and applications from other OS can be run on Windows. Windows fits many more environments than Mac, and Mac cost much more than Windows. Both software, and hardware. People who don’t care about cost maybe you’re a fan of SUVs as well, but that is another topic.

As a Mac an PC user I had problems mostly with Windows, and now with Vista those problems start to get real. So I made the migration to Linux (Ubuntu) on my PC, something free and so good you can't believe it. Ubuntu is closer to Mac, but with so many nice features (like having 4 or more desktops per user!) I strongly recommend it

Coming from a consulting background I find that most users are not computer experts, and that things need to be easy, mainly to reduce frustration of having to mess with the computer. Generally that means it just has to work. No pun intended, but that is hardly Linux, and for that matter Ubuntu. UNIX is a great OS, Linux being a bi-product is hardly UNIX. Linux is an open source, openly developed product which yields no two exact revisions. Not to mention developers can do whatever they want to it, and you would never know if they built a key logger into the OS. The point I'm trying to make here is the community that develops Linux is not a company, and there for has little or no quality control procedures, and is not governed by an entity that will ensure no single bad release will be available. In fact it is the complete opposite.

As for Ubuntu and Linux in general there are two problems I see with this as an IT support issue. 1) if there is a dramatic problem you can't call for support. Sure if you go with a distributed Linux distro like Red Hat among others you will have that available to you. You can even get that with certain distro of Ubuntu, but you will have to pay significantly close to what you would for a Windows OS, which typically comes with a computer when you purchase. Then there is a program issue. There are Windows and Mac emulators for Linux/Ubuntu, but your programs will not run as they should natively on their intended OS. If there is a problem troubleshooting it is not the same. If you have to call the software distributor for support they won't support it. So there you are adding many hurdles to what could be an easy thing.

I would say go Mac if you are that much inclined to dislike Windows. At least then you will have a better support base, supported drivers and applications as well. I feel this is the time to stress that 1) we should trying to stay on topic which is "Are scientist switching to Mac?" and 2) for all of the problems I've heard people say with Windows, and Windows Vista I can abolish much of those with either hardware problems, or lack of "know how" to operate the new OS. You can't blame an OS because you purchased the cheapest PC you can get, and it is slow. A slow computer will cause software problems, if you run a heavy application work load. Further more it is the new fad to hate Windows, which is fine for me. I'm not trying to convince anyone that Windows is the only option. There are many many options and you need to decide for yourself. Everyone needs to keep in mind however Microsoft Windows is the only OS to fully support directory services, and have countless security measures which can be easily implemented from a managed system with only the software it comes with. It also can be administered easily and cheaply. Thus making it the right choice in any mid to large sized company. Small companies even more require little administrative over head, thus making Windows the right choice.

I am using a MAC since one year but I have not found replacements for software like AutoCAD and OriginLab... During work I am almost time using BootCamp with XP.
The are MAC versions for Mathematica, Matlab, COMSOL even to LabView. However, for the case of LabView, the installed MAC version has 700 Mb instead of the 4/5 Gb of the PC version. Why MAC versions of commercial software are having constrictions and why there are some software companies, like Autodesk, which are not converting at all?!

The biggest problem with PCs is that in 2007 it was estimated by some that 25% of all PC's were in a botnet, and while that number is not well established, recent news hasn't given much reason to doubt it. We are reaching a point where every new PC comes standard with four things: Microsoft software, a microphone, a webcam, and the Russian Mafia. (Well, sometimes it's the Ukrainian Mafia, but that's close enough for government work).

I am a PC.