Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Switch to Mac OS X

Posted by pudge on from the i-try-to-get-out-and-they-pull-me-back-in dept.

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.'"

5 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. They neglect to mention... by Pumpernickel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They neglected to mention the fact the Mac OS X is a lot easier to use than Linux. Unfortunately, most products can either go for easy to use or easy to personalize. There is no in between.

    1. Re:They neglect to mention... by zmalone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree with you in some sense. Mac OS X is easier to deal with then Linux (on the desktop in particular), and Apple has a long history of being used in research (I've been to quite a few biotech related labs, and they usually seem to have Macs on the desktop). However, I wouldn't credit Mac OS X as being more powerful then Linux on x86 or other unices (as the articles seem to), it just happens to be more convenient for the scientific desktop.

    2. Re:They neglect to mention... by anarkhos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't see how you can separate the two.

      If something is more difficult to use it is inherently less useful.

      --
      >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
      >life
  2. They Know Their Business by feldsteins · · 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.

    --
    You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
  3. Re:MacOS X has problems by Spencerian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Two quick answers:

    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.

    --
    Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.