Slashdot Mirror
Most Useful OS For High-School Science Education?
Clayperion writes "I teach at a high school program for gifted students which emphasizes math, science, and technology. Currently we have two computer labs for the students: A new programming lab (all Dell PCs running XP, MS Visual C++, Eclipse, and SolidWorks for programming and CAD) and an old general-purpose lab (all Macs running OS X 10.3, with software ranging from some legacy OS 9 science applications to MathCad). Most of our students eventually pursue graduate degrees in science and engineering, and we would like them to have experience with the tools they will find out in industry. As we look to replace the old machines, there has been a push to switch to PCs with XP so that there is only a single platform to support. There are over 5000 machines on the district's network and the IT department is very small (fewer than 10 people), so the fewer hardware and software differences between the machines, the better. Without opening a flame war as to which one is 'better,' I'd like to know what those of you in the science and engineering fields actually use more in your labs (hardware, OS, software), so that we can decide which platform to support. It will most likely have to be either XP or OS 10.6, with very restricted permissions to students and teachers, as that is the comfort level of IT and administration, but I'll push for whatever would benefit the students the most."
computer hardware is probably a pain to procure at a high school, so i recommend the relatively inexpensive Mac mini. we're planning on converting our XP lab to Mac Minis running Windows 7 in a virtual machine (Virtualbox) which means our computer hardware won't be a limiting factor when selecting the software we teach students in our lab. Mini's are as much power as you'll need, and this makes more sense than iMacs when you factor in the cost of 22" or 24" LCDs. and by running Virtualbox, you can even set up multiple vm's so you can test out new versions of software without having to perform complete rebuilds if some microsoft update hoses the system. hell, you can even add some linux to your environment should their be some cool engineering or programming tools that would otherwise be too costly on the microsoft or apple platforms.
yep, you can buy a pc cheaper and of course you can run Linux for free, but it will probably help your students the most if they get a little bit of experience with multiple operating systems since once they graduate from college, they'll probably be using OSX 10.7 or Windows 8. running XP is a nightmare because of the security holes AND because Microsoft has already started to eliminate XP, say 2 years ago when they first discontinued it.
having dealt with apple dealer to school sales since 1991, I think the choice [Mac or PC] is a false choice. And since there are no viruses or malware that run on OSX, the schools we support who run OSX spend a shitload less on support costs, which can quickly suck up your budget, your time, and your patience in a school environment should you be running XP and get zapped by malware. since running vm's is easy, it's become a preferred way to quickly switch a lab from one group of students to the next.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
. . .I would recommend Windows, Windows, and (not strongly) OSX.
There is no question in my mind that Windows is the way to go for chemistry software, as I've now spent almost ten years at three different universities working my way to a PhD (almost there!), and besides the occasional foray into Linux (control software for two different brands of NMR), it's been Windows all the way (and the NMR software was available for in a Windows client, also). I could post a list of all the instrumentation I've used, but trust me, it's long, probably around twenty-thirty instruments now.
From my undergrad experience:
I haven't used as much software earning my bio degree, but we mainly used statistical packages, and they all ran on Windows - the SEM (the only instrument I used in that department) ran on XP, too.
I only had a year of physics as required for the chem and bio degrees, but the physics department uses Macs for the computer labs and the classroom computers - supposedly there are a lot of interesting software packages available, which I never used. The instrumentation I had the opportunity to use (the Mossbauer spectrometer and the x-ray diffractometer) both ran on XP, though.
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
You're going to run into one of two problems.
1) By time the kids grow up everything in industry will have changed.
2) You can't afford what they use in industry with a HS budget, even the [college] student licenses.
I'm a mechanical engineer. I make my living using Matlab, Simulink, CANape and some internal company programs.
I went to HS with Windows ME (with MacOS 7/8 at home) I honestly don't ever even remember using them. Our "Physics Lab" was an Apple II running some highly custom software and hardware. (Running lasers to time ball bearings going down ramps and such). I learned the basics of programming with TI-Basic. In college I picked up Java, C, & Matlab/Simulink.
Now I run 10.6 at home and XP at work. Something no one could have predicted back in the day. Teach the kids the basics. If someone 'gets' how to program, it doesn't matter. If someone 'gets' chemistry, it doesn't matter if they're drawing them on paper or in some 3D model.
And I haven't priced a student's version of Matlab recently, but I know my seat at work runs 20k. Simulink doesn't make too much sense until you've had DiffEq. I haven't used Octave enough to know how compatible it is. CANape... well you'd need quite a bit of money for the stuff to run it on. There's a reason there are a half dozen solid modeling programs, because companies use different ones. And with my short time with most of them, they're completely different. AutoCAD, CATIA, ProE, SolidWorks, etc.
XP is dead. If you aren't stuck to a legacy system (as this guy isn't) you would be a complete fool to stick with XP. It would be a mistake you will constantly regret. Most of the things you would want to extend XP's features are built into 7/Server 2003. Remote administration, Patching, Application Control, Network Image Deployment, locking down the desktop like deep freeze does, all can be accomplished with built in (and supported) features. Security is also better (requiring drivers to be signed, built in support for full disk encryption, Memory address randomization, better default settings, better implementation of SFC, etc), and the systems are a lot more usable running as a non-admin without lots of extra scripting work. You also get better ip v6 support, and improved network performance in general. Just the fewer headaches in patching alone makes it worthwhile (even with a WSUS server, I find myself frequently manually updating XP machines, I've never once had to do it on a 7 machine).
The 7/Server 2008 networks we have deployed require substantially less maintenance then the XP networks. Support for XP is being phased out on new hardware, as it is you have to stick to certain long-term support models to get support for XP from the big OEM's (there's a difference between "heres some drivers, good luck" and officially supported). 7 is a mature OS, if it makes you feel better think of it as Vista service pack 3. Furthermore if you don't have the cash to shell out for VLC licenses, expect trouble when Microsoft drops downgrade rights on OEM licenses. Setting up a brand spanking new network with Windows XP is like making a brand new web app from scratch, and designing it in Visual Basic to only work in IE 6. You can do it, and the technology is tried and true, but you will be creating more work for an inferior result that will bite you in the ass in a short time frame. The only reason for not deploying 7 on new hardware where you are not constrained by legacy code is you want to stay in your comfort zone, and are scared to learn new things. If that's the case, you need to GTFO IT, it's the wrong field for you, and you are doing your clients/employers a disservice. Being skeptical of new technology is fine, but being irrationally afraid of it is stupid. As far as Engineering/Science goes, any commercial software package that can't run at all under 7 is probably on it's way out anyways. Whats bleeding edge today will be a generation behind by the time the students get into the real world.
All that said, I think XP/7 is the WRONG way to go. If you want a Windows environment, your best bet will be to buy some thin clients, network boot them with something like ThinStation, and have them RDP to a farm of nice beefy 2008 R2 Terminal Servers. Thin clients are the only thing I've seen hold up to a school environment. Unlike a corporate environment where you can expect the employees to only cause damage out of ignorance, high school students will be actively malicious, and will destroy/break/steal things just to do it. If you lose a thin client, the teacher can yank it out, pull a spare from the closet, and send the old one to be diagnosed/redeployed in your spare time. Because they are stateless, if one is stolen you are out a couple hundred bucks and not any information. It will be easier to setup a consistent environment, and you can shop around to different hardware vendors if needed while maintaining a consistent experience for the students. It will be easier to create flexible lesson plans, install software, and you can often really cut down on licensing costs. Thin client tech has come a long way, and if you spec your servers properly, and have a decent network, you can't tell the difference. I took a class in Solidworks (a ram hungry and CPU hungry 3d CAD program that makes your average office workstation dog slow) that was taught in a lab using thin clients and terminal servers, and it ran better on them then my personal laptop, despite having 20 other users on the same serve