krasel at alf.biochem.mpg.de (Cornelius Krasel) writes:
>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
>> packages.
>But I doubt that GCG for Unix is supported for Linux (and I'm not willing
>to spend $3000 to try out :-).
Yeah, OK, but Linux now supports a lot of SCO software. I'm running
SCO WordPerfect 6.0 under Linux this very second. :-)
>> 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-
>standing.
I use OS/2 and Linux, for precisely that reason... :-)
>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).
Or real genuine MIT X11R6 under Linux :-) (just kidding, eXceed is
pretty good, and much easier to maintain than a Unix X server).
>> 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 :-)
And both are painfully slow anyway ;-)
>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 :-).
Yes, but I think from the administrator's point of view they're easier
to fix than Macs when things do go wrong. I worked on a help desk for
Cambridge University for a year, and found that I could solve most PC
problems, but Macintosh ones I wasn't so successful with, and this was
not necessarily due to a lack of knowledge, but the idiot proofing
(and hence also expert-proofing) of the Mac interface.
Tim.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
194, Vinery Rd, Cambridge, CB1 3DS, UK (+44) 1223 572622
http://cyclin.zoo.cam.ac.uk/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
