Ref PC' or Macs

Joseph J. Strout jstrout at ucsd.edu
Wed Dec 17 15:26:02 EST 1997

In article <677a3v$qb5$1 at cronkite.lanminds.com>, "John Monahan"
<monahan at avigen.com> wrote:

>Dont know about the percentages. What does it matter. This is the late 90's,
>PC's are are on at least 95% of desktops out there. Current software is
>converging towards W95/NT/DCOM/ActiveX/Java. The Mac blip has passed, lets
>move on!

Don't think so.  I've worked in three different biology labs, and all three
still rely mainly on Macs.  That's because we're interested in doing
science, not it wasting time trying to get our computers to work.  Also,
they're considerably faster for the money (many Photoshop operations run
2-4 times faster on a 200 MHz PowerMac vs. a 200 MHz Pentium, for example),
and have some important applications (such as NIH Image) which aren't
available (or have only poor partial ports) for various flavors of Windows.

I'm of the philosophy that if something's better, one should use it.  I'll
be using Macs until something better comes along, and Win95/NT are
definately not it.

|    Joseph J. Strout           Department of Neuroscience, UCSD   |
|    jstrout at ucsd.edu           http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~jstrout/  |

More information about the Bio-soft mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net