Mac or PC ?
krasel at alf.biochem.mpg.de
Mon Nov 21 12:56:16 EST 1994
Tim Cutts (tjrc1 at cus.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
> dehais at next9.lirmm.fr (Patrice DEHAIS) writes:
> >I work in a laboratory specialized in genetics. We have to change all
> >our old personal computers (old PC running DOS) and buy new machines.
[In favour of PCs:]
> Unix is available quite cheaply these days
> (even for free, in some cases, like Linux or FreeBSD), and there is a
> lot of genetics analysis software for Unix, such as the GCG and Staden
But I doubt that GCG for Unix is supported for Linux (and I'm not willing
to spend $3000 to try out :-).
> I think the PC is also superior for connectivity. Networking
> macintoshes is expensive, unless you buy an expensive macintosh with
> built-in ethernet. If you will need to connect to remote hosts (for
> example, my groups use an SGI machine running the Staden and GCG
> packages), the PC stands out. I can use my PC as a dedicated
> X-terminal to the remote machine. My fellow lab workers on their
> macintoshes cannot. There are X servers for Macs, but they are
> supposed to be awful. After all, X requires three mouse buttons, so
> you're onto a loser from the word go...
In my experiences, PCs are much harder to network than are Macs. Especially
with the new PowerMacs which come with built-in Ethernet, it's just
plug'n play. MacTCP is for sure some of the most unreliable software
you can get on a Mac but compared to Windows or DOS, it's still out-
On the other hand, there is really no decent X server for Mac. I have
some experience with MacX, and I found it slow and clumsy. You can get
around the one-button-mice problem by buying three-button-mice from
third-hand parties, but accessing a workstation by X is still much nicer
on a fast PC with eXceed for Windows (or the like).
> Also, other software. Microsoft is now the established king of the
> applications software world. They obviously push their own system
> first, so all their Mac software is usually lagging a bit behind the
> Windows version. Just something to consider.
I'd like to add the following rumour: Microsoft Word for Windows is reported
to be faster on a PowerMac running SoftWindows than Microsoft Word for Mac
(both version 6). Makes one think :-)
In addition, I think a DOS-/Windows-based environment needs some more
administration than a Mac-based environment (which still needs to much
of this :-).
/* Cornelius Krasel, Abt. Lohse, Genzentrum, D-82152 Martinsried, Germany */
/* email: krasel at alf.biochem.mpg.de fax: +49 89 8578 3795 */
/* "Science is the game you play with God to find out what His rules are." */
More information about the Bio-soft