Things have been far too busy recently for me to do any substantive posting. But I have noticed that our discussions of topics such as race and gender and interpretations of quantum mechanics are far too genteel and rational for my tastes. (Seriously, why is it that people just cannot resist the temptation to argue with people who say outrageous things, even if they know perfectly well that those people are absolutely immune to reason?)
So I’d like to broach a more controversial topic. I’m thinking of buying a new laptop. Tell me: Mac or PC? I’ve used both quite a bit, so I’m not a fundamentalist either way. The Macs are of course Linux FreeBSD-based, which is useful if you’re a scientist. And there’s the fight-the-evil-empire business. But one cannot deny that there is useful software that isn’t available for Macs. And the variety of laptop hardware is much more diverse in the PC world, including attractively thin ultralights. So — reasonable cost-benefit analyses on either side? Your thoughts are welcome.
And play nice.
The interpretation of QM discussion was not too bad I thought, maybe memeory fails me.
I am infatuated with the convertible/tablet PC I have, and they do not have macintosh version, look at
http://www.toshibadirect.com/td/b2c/ebtext.to?page=tabletpcfam&ccid=1291021&seg=PSE&sel=1
I have M200, they seem to have a new model out. There are a few extremely cool things you can do with the tablet, and since it is convertible you don’t lose the laptop option, the M200 is a decent enough laptop, it is pretty light and fast.
(incidentally, sorry I will miss your talk)
Mac. Come on. There’s just no contest.
Anything you can’t do on a mac really isn’t worth doing.
It’s that simple.
-cvj
It really depends on what you want to do with your laptop.
E.g., if you want to write and compile code, then the Mac comes
with a free development environment. If you want to play games, go with the PC.
Then, what software do you already have that you want to keep?
That may determine what suits you.
In any case, Apple is in the middle of a IBM PowerPC to Intel Processor transition; so be sure to buy the Intel Processor laptop if you should go with the Mac. Only a higher-end set of models have been announced so far.
My personal machines have all been Macs, since 1994.
-Arun
Less glibly, I’d say that on balance a mac is a better all around machine.. and will last you a lot longer, will be way more stable, etc. If you want an ultra-light machine above all else, then don’t get a mac, but if you want a machine that will aloow you to do a huge range of things very easily and transparently, and maybe is a little bit heavier, then a 12 inch powerbook is the way to go…. 15 inch if you want the best compromise between weight, power, and versatilty.
I’ve done it all…both sides of the aisle: I had the cute ultralight Toshiba models, that everyone was ooing and aahing at…. they’re fine, but after a year windows machines just seem to get cluttered and slow down and don’t work as well as when they were new…the software is just badly written……Also, once mac changed their operating system to a Unix core, and at the same time once you can run all the annoying Microsoft office software on a mac (people still don’t realise this), there is really nothing else tying you to a windows platform. My mac works as well as it did the day I first started it up a while ago now…..maybe even better, as I discover the wonderful things I can do “under the hood” using unix.
I could go on….. but I won’t, you’ll be happy to hear.
Cheers,
-cvj
Sean,
I would say MAC no question. EXCEPT for the following piece of evidence. I noticed in previous threads that you may have some interest in poker. If you are looking to play on-line, you should be aware that the number of on-line poker sites you can play on a Mac (native not using virtual PC) is very limited.
I have been using computers since the punch card days. MAC by far is the best technology choice.
Hope that helps,
Elliot
Cliff got there before me:
Yup. Macs are also much more stable, plus the Mac version of PlainTex is wayyyyyyyy better than all that silly mucking about with TeXshop. So there.
–Q.
And for people who own Macs who don’t know….. Fink! Fink! Fink! Fink!
Google to find out. All your favourite wonderful Unix applications run and install seamlessly on macs becasue of the Fink project (we have our very own Dave Morrison to thank for part of that……)
Oh…. and you like giving nice presentations, I recall. Once you’ve used Keynote (in conjunction with say Equation Service – there, I’ve given away all my secrets now), you’ll forever henceforth get annoyed (as I do) when anyone ever calls your computer presentation a “powerpoint” presentation.
Oh, I could go on… but I’d better stop…..(again).
-cvj
But one cannot deny that there is useful software that isn’t available for Macs.
Well, what exactly? I mean, the question is not “useful software in general” but is there some piece of software you must use or really want to use, or a file format you must be able to access, that is not available for or supported by the Mac? Scientists often have the easiest time switching because their files and data are in easily transportable formats (like LaTeX).
If not, that just leaves the hardware form-factor. Personally, I think the tradeoff between ultralight + Windows OS vs MacBook + OS X leans heavily toward the latter, because OS X is just so much better designed on every dimension than Windows.
I use Macs exclusively now, but used Windows on a Dell for ~ 8 years and Linux on a variety of platforms for another 5. Given my work needs, I wouldn’t go back to either alternative.
Wait a few months for the Intel iBooks.
I should mention, though, that the Mac UNIX is based on BSD, not on Linux.
Oh yeah, and vi kicks emacs’s ass.
I can’t believe I actually get to be the first one to point out that Macs run Darwin, a FreeBSD derivative, rather than Linux. Whatever, they’re all pinko-commie-anti-market Open Source, right? <ducks and runs>
JD
Okay, second one to point that out. I type too slowly, clearly.
JD
LEt me be annoying: Actually JD you are third…. although I was being too subtle…. I said unix in my remarks above…hoping that it would gently point Sean to correct his typo (I think he knows it is not Linux).
Cheers,
-cvj
Hmmmm I’ve re-read my comments…way too subtle on the Unix/Linux correction, he’d nbever have seen it since Linux is a flavour of Unix. So I withdraw gracefully. You were second, JD.
Cheers!
-cvj
Turbo Texas Hold ’em is not available for Macs. Just as an example. (The tablet features and ultralights are examples of hardware differences.)
I presume the Linux vs. BSD distinction is something that lies close to the expert’s heart, but wouldn’t affect my ability to use software I currently use on my Linux desktop?
I already use Open Office, so PowerPoint is not an issue.
Here is my problem with taking anything away from these debates: I don’t know what phrases like “better designed” are really supposed to mean. Crashes less often? More efficient use of disk space? Nicer user interface? Batteries last longer? Laptops weigh less? Programs run faster? More likely to smoothly talk to an LCD projector? And are these judgments subjective, based on data, or…?
Why not suck it up, support the open source community, and get a local computer geek to put a GNU/Linux laptop together for you? Requiments: a used laptop (help out the growing recycling problem created by computers and save some money) and access to the Internet to grab the lastest version of, say, Debian GNU/Linux (created and maintained by 1500+ people around the world — the only Linux distro to do that). OpenOffice.org provides the office suite, GIMP and InkScape for bitmapped and vector graphics, Firefox for a web browser, jEdit for plain text editing (with plugins for Tex, XML, HTML) and thousands of other robust applications from the open source community which strongly supports scientists.
Cost? $500. 300 for the used laptop from, say, eBay but probably just as easily had from someone on your campus who just bought a new one and $200 in pizza and soda for the computer geek to fine tune it to your specs.
> Turbo Texas Hold ’em is not available for Macs.
Sure, I’m not going to argue with you about this: if you need to run this program, you need to run it. I don’t know if equivalent poker software is available.
> I don’t know what phrases like “better designed”
> are really supposed to mean.
Roughly speaking, all of the things you mentioned — though I can’t speak to ‘laptops weigh less’ and batteries. Better designed under the hood means the OS is more secure, less prone by design to failure, to internal problems, to external viruses/spyware, etc. Better designed on the surface means easier to use, better integration of applications, more consistency in use. Better physical design, too: they don’t just look better, they’re very well thought out. Also, the culture of Mac software development is, I think, also stronger — I mean third-party applications are also likely to be better than you’d expect, thanks to the knock-on effects of having a good platform.
As I say, if Poker is make or break, then you’ll be getting a PC. Pity.
Crashes less often? Y
More efficient use of disk space? Y
Nicer user interface? Y (but nicer is subjective)
Batteries last longer? Depends
Laptops weigh less? See above….generally N
Programs run faster? Depends upon the program…often, yes.
More likely to smoothly talk to an LCD projector? About the same on both sides.
On point one for example, I go for several months at a time sometimes without shutting down or restarting my computer..running any number of applications, etc. Do that for a week or two with windows and you’ll get a crash, or stuff will start doing weird things….
-cvj
Macs are wonderful, and my 12″ Powerbook serves me far better than previous PC laptops I have had. However, I will add a couple of caveats. It’s a rather slow machine compared to some laptops you can get now. There is no equivalent 12″ Mac laptop with the Intel chips yet, and I would be slightly wary of getting the first-generation of the Intel Macs. The 12″ Powerbook is very light and portable, but there are even lighter PCs. Either a PC running Linux or a Mac will be fine for any Unix-y stuff you want to do. Mac OS X is much more polished than any Linux environment I’ve ever worked in (and I do like Linux; I’m using it right now). So to some extent you can’t go wrong. If there were 12″ Intel Mac laptops available right now and people seemed happy with them, I would recommend it without question. As it is, if you want a very light laptop right away, I don’t know what to recommend….
Alright, I will try to be brief, but here are some cool things you can only do with a tablet: write your notes (the most intuitive way, with a pen on a flat surface), save them as PDF files and email them to your friends, or post them on the net if they are your class notes…add your scribblings to papers you read (in PDF format) and then cut and paste them to your notes…
Also- hyperlink your notes, minimize part of the page and restore it (very useful for intermediate steps in calculations), right click on a formula in your notes and generate a plot of it…then when you are done use your notes (hiding the parts you don’t need, adding pictures and other file formats) for your presentation.
I really should get some commission here…
Asking if you should get a PC or a Mac is kind of like asking if you should get a car or a Ford. A Mac is still a subset of computer types, one that happens to have a proprietary approach to hardware and software.
Nothing beats the ease of fixing any PC versus a Mac. DVD burner dies? Just pick one up from the nearest store, open up the box, and voila. Macs are a lot more difficult to fix and they cost more. Also, last but not least, because of the testing required for Macs, their hardware is usually about 6 months behind the curve, so if you care about speed or the last innovation, it won’t come from a Mac.
If you aren’t into computers, go with a Mac, because they are easy to use. If you are into computers, especially to the point of being a geek or having special computer needs, get a PC.
I would tell a computer literate scientist who is competent and interested in computers to get a PC. I would tell Aunt Jane who is still mired in the email and mouse stage to get a Mac. Or my friend the graphic designer who wants a solid computer that does all the art and graphics stuff.
I think they cater to very different segments of the user population.
Hi,
I disagree with that, on the “if you’re into computers” aspect. At least at the software level. You can do a lot more “under the hood” more readily with a Mac than you can a PC. As for hardware, and geting easily fixed on the high street…. is it really that much of an issue if they simply don’t break that often and the service is really excellent? And you can plug and play a lot of standard components (external drives DVD burners, etc) off the shelf with a Mac just as you can a PC.
-cvj
Correct answer is PC.
I have to say anotheranon is brushing right up against the trolling border here… 😉
Nothing beats the ease of fixing any PC versus a Mac. DVD burner dies? Just pick one up from the nearest store, open up the box, and voila.
Seeing as we’re talking about laptops here, I’m not sure this comparison is relevant, setting aside the question of whether it’s true.
and they cost more.
You can buy a Wintel machine that’s cheaper than any Mac, sure. What is much harder is to buy cheaper is one that has the same hardware features than an equivalent Mac. I’ll grant that it’s typically easier to pick and choose amongst PCs for exactly which subset of hardware components you want.
hardware is usually about 6 months behind the curve, so if you care about speed or the last innovation
I was going to bite my tongue on this one, but I can’t: would you rather your hardware be 6 months behind the curve or your operating system 6 years behind?
If you aren’t into computers, go with a Mac, because they are easy to use. If you are into computers, especially to the point of being a geek or having special computer needs, get a PC.
I would tell a computer literate scientist who is competent and interested in computers to get a PC. I would tell Aunt Jane who is still mired in the email and mouse stage to get a Mac.
This is an absolutely false dichotomy. Computer literate scientists, software engineers, people with special computer needs, and what have you are happy to choose Macs. The OS runs on top of a version of BSD Unix and comes with a full set of software development tools for Heaven’s sake! The fact that “Aunt Jane” doesn’t have to know about any of that stuff if she doesn’t want or need to is a virtue of the high-quality design, not some kind of liability. Macs make it easier to be productive whether or not you care about computers as such.
Again, for someone like Sean the choice will boil down to stuff like favorite can’t-do-without applications like the poker game, or an absolute preference for an ultralight or tablet format. Those considerations are perfectly reasonable. But anotheranon’s arguments are off-point or just wrong, I think.
Since I went Mac (2 years ago now), I stopped hating computers.