"TMO notes that scientists, on the other hand, have a mentality that the obvious answer isn't always the right answer. As a group, they are paid to stop and think about alternatives -- which may be why Macs are so popular with scientists. "

Or it could be that much like how Microsoft has been spending the last 20 years trying to dominate the business market, Apple has been trying to dominate the education market. The only Windows based computer I ever touched until I got into college was my family's computer. And once I got into college I used Unix, Novell, and Microsoft based operating systems because I entered the Information Technology field. Now with the greater pervasivness of Apple in schools, it's only natural that a scientist who specialises in genetics would use a platform so widely accepted by the academic elite.

There's no critical thought involved in the selection of Apple over Microsoft. If there was critical thought put into the type of platform that is to be used in a labratory, it would probably be Linux based since so much of that is open source and allows you to customize your software to your needs. Apple isn't open source friendly.

Quote

Guest wrote:
There's no critical thought involved in the selection of Apple over Microsoft. If there was critical thought put into the type of platform that is to be used in a labratory, it would probably be Linux based since so much of that is open source and allows you to customize your software to your needs. Apple isn't open source friendly.

When there isn't critical thinking involved, a person defaults to Windows, as this article states.

Apple is very open source friendly; they both adopt from and give to open source. And most of the same open source applications you can run on Linux, you can run on Mac OS X (and modify them to your hearts content). You can even modify much of the core OS (through Darwin), though only a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of users would ever do so. Even scientists who choose to modify software would more likely modify the applications, not the operating system. Mac OS X gives them that option just as well as Linux does, while also offering a wealth of commercial software that Linux cannot match.

Quote

jimothy wrote:
When there isn't critical thinking involved, a person defaults to Windows, as this article states.

Oh, thanks, I forgot. This article is the gospel truth.

I think it makes sense for most people to run the same operating system. The vast majority of people who use a computer to do their work (not a computer IS their work) are given a machine running Microsoft Windows and receive some sort of training on it with their first exposure. It doesn't make sense to have to relearn how to use a computer at home, but it does make sense to leverage the training and experience you have from your job on your home computer. If you are using the same systems at both places, it also means you can consult the IT experts at your office for advice for your computer at home (I know people that do just that). When you have spent the past 12 years using Windows for 40 hours a week, you have learned how to handle the routine tasks in an efficient manner, and it just doesn't make sense to have to relearn all the routine tasks on another system just to have a computer in your home. For people whose jobs involved computer expertise, learning new systems and how to manage them is something that does not involve as much work, and in some cases is a hobby.

This is sort of the same reason that word processing has always had a monopolistic product. It is desirable for everyone to use the same program for word processing because it means that once a person is trained, they do not need to be retrained when they get a new job at another firm. This is why word processing has been a serial monopoly, from WordStar to WordPerfect to Word, each in its own time has been the monopolistic product.

I see your point, but I have to disagree.

In the old days (and I'm talking about the mid-80s), there was MS-DOS, Apple II and Amiga (and sundry others). Although there were some similarities between the latter two, all three required some specific learning. Neverthless anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together, once having got to grips with one of them, wouldn't take long to learn how to use the others. Even MS-DOS.

These days, there's Windows in its various flavours, OS X, and a collection of other Unixes with different GUIs. But what's the difference between them? From the user's perspective, relatively little.

Configuring Windows can be a real pain (it always takes me ages to get my WiFi signal detected and file sharing working properly), but once everything has been set up, the operating system, no matter which machine, fades into the background - just as it ought.

As for applications, a web browser is a web brower is a... Word processing is similar - the actual quick keys to do something differ, but the concept is usually identical.

Training should be more about the concept than the particular product. If something conceptually simple is hard to learn, it's not good design.

It then comes down to personal preference. I use Macs partly because I can't be bothered swearing and wasting time configuring things which ought to be simple.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Oh, thanks, I forgot. This article is the gospel truth.

What a putz.

Quote

LaurieF wrote:
I see your point, but I have to disagree.

In the old days (and I'm talking about the mid-80s), there was MS-DOS, Apple II and Amiga (and sundry others). Although there were some similarities between the latter two, all three required some specific learning. Neverthless anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together, once having got to grips with one of them, wouldn't take long to learn how to use the others. Even MS-DOS.

These days, there's Windows in its various flavours, OS X, and a collection of other Unixes with different GUIs. But what's the difference between them? From the user's perspective, relatively little.

David Pogue, in his talk at the TED (Technology Entertainment Design) conference explained just why: in 1984, very few people used computers; today, most people do. As the user base expanded, it embraced more and more people who are not able or don't wish to learn much, if anything, about the computer, itself, nor the OS. They just want to do stuff--work, play, create, etc.

The same thing happened with automobiles. Early cars required the driver to also be a mechanic, as they broke down frequently. Many car owners liked tinkering with their cars. As time went on and the "user base" expanded, most drivers and car owners were not interested in fixing their own cars. Automatic transmissions were invented to reduce the complexity and learning required to drive a car. Computers were installed, not only to optimize the engine settings but to perform diagnostics. Instead of oil pressure and other gauges, we now have a series of warning lights.

Have you seen a Model T? Gear selection is done with your feet (there is no clutch); the throttle is set with a lever on the steering wheel. (At least it didn't steer with a tiller.) Suppose a manufacturer today decided to put out a car controlled the same way as the Model T: how many do you think would sell? You might say that it would be "easy" to learn the different system, but, why would anyone bother?

Quote Guest, "I think it makes sense for most people to run the same operating system."

Not in my opinion. In computing as in nature, a single species ecology stands a high probablity of being wiped out when a virus or some infection hits.

Ever wondered why a virus, worms etc propagate so fast?

A variety of OSs would make it much more difficult for a virus to spread. Of course better Windows security would help but it's not the complete answer.

Quote

jimothy wrote:

When there isn't critical thinking involved, a person defaults to Windows, as this article states.

You know, I think the main problem is that "critical thinking" isn't defined. Perhaps an acceptable definition is "outlining specific criteria to meet for a platform to be acceptable." An example of an outline such as this would be: "a platform that allows the largest range of applications to be used available on the open market, is widely accepted by both businesses and home users, is used widely throughout the world and supports the largest range of languages. And allows me to play Neverwinter Nights 2."

Quote

Apple is very open source friendly;

Yea because Carbon, Cocoa, Quartz, and Aqua are all open source making so that anyone can use OpenDarwin to run anything you buy for Mac OSX. Oh wait, that's right, Apple wants to make sure you can't run Mac OSX software on OpenDarwin, so why would they let you use the API's that would make it possible? /sarcasm

Quote

they both adopt from and give to open source.

They sure do adopt from the open source community, but damn, if they're giving back, I'm terrified of what Apple will do when they start screwing over the open source community.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/8EBA14E1-63C0-4771-ABCE-A57E587D21DF.html

http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/2007/03/apple_failing_to_understand_op.html

http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/54178/index.html

http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19990324S0027

There's so much evidence of Apple's good faith in the open source community! /sarcasm

Quote

And most of the same open source applications you can run on Linux, you can run on Mac OS X (and modify them to your hearts content).

If only the reverse was true! But then, we all know that Apple = good and Microsoft = evil and open source community = douche bags. /sarcasm

Quote

You can even modify much of the core OS (through Darwin), though only a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of users would ever do so.

I wonder why. Could be it be that without Carbon, Cocoa, Quartz, and Aqua it's actually worse than NetBSD?

Quote

Even scientists who choose to modify software would more likely modify the applications, not the operating system. Mac OS X gives them that option just as well as Linux does, while also offering a wealth of commercial software that Linux cannot match.

Yea this the part where Apple doesn't give back to the open source community.

Oh and everything you just said goes for Microsoft too.

Let's try your paragraph with Windows in Mac OS X's place and Mac OS x in Linux's place!

Even scientists who choose to modify software would more likely modify the applications, not the operating system. Windows gives them that option just as well as Mac OS X does, while also offering a wealth of commercial software that Mac OS X cannot match.

Wow, it's like your paragraph was meant to be a praising of Windows over Mac OS X!

Quote

LaurieF wrote:
I see your point, but I have to disagree.

In the old days (and I'm talking about the mid-80s), there was MS-DOS, Apple II and Amiga (and sundry others). Although there were some similarities between the latter two, all three required some specific learning. Neverthless anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together, once having got to grips with one of them, wouldn't take long to learn how to use the others. Even MS-DOS.

These days, there's Windows in its various flavours, OS X, and a collection of other Unixes with different GUIs. But what's the difference between them? From the user's perspective, relatively little.

Configuring Windows can be a real pain (it always takes me ages to get my WiFi signal detected and file sharing working properly), but once everything has been set up, the operating system, no matter which machine, fades into the background - just as it ought.

As for applications, a web browser is a web brower is a... Word processing is similar - the actual quick keys to do something differ, but the concept is usually identical.

Training should be more about the concept than the particular product. If something conceptually simple is hard to learn, it's not good design.

It then comes down to personal preference. I use Macs partly because I can't be bothered swearing and wasting time configuring things which ought to be simple.

That's an interesting story you have there. Notice that in the late 1980s a PC in every home was still just a vision, not a reality. Windows 95 went a long way to creating a standardized look & feel, and ease of use such that it became a reality. Configuring Windows is something the vast majority of home users have done and can do now. I personally struggle to get a mac on any network, and so does the IT staff here at my job, because they have to relearn it every time since it is only necessary every other year or so for them, they only deal with Windows & Linux flavors for the most part. It was only after Microsoft's operating systems became the dominant systems that home PC use exploded.

Quote

Rainy Day wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
Oh, thanks, I forgot. This article is the gospel truth.

What a putz.

Clearly, if someone owns a Mac, there was critical thinking involved. No one chooses a Mac based on anything else.