What is with the MACevangelists here?

I mean seriously. WTF?

I think we just have different type of computer users.

Types who like to work on their machines.
and
Types who like machines that work.

It's a little more complex than that, but basically, you're right.

The thing that makes it more complex is this:

People who work on machines a lot don't necessarily LIKE to work on machines a lot--in fact, they usually don't like to work on machines a lot, but when something goes wrong they know what to do. These are people who enjoy knowing how things work. These people usually would enjoy using a machine that doesn't have problems. These people have a tendency to question corporate authority a lot for products they use.

People who simply "like machines that work" usually don't want to know how their machines work, they don't care how things work, they just want them to work, and when they don't work, they have no idea what to do. These people have a tendency to just accept at face value what corporate authority figures say for products they use.

There are, of course, exceptions to both of these--a lot of exceptions.

The group of people who are not listed in this are die-hard Linux users, who pretty much enjoy using a computer that has tons of problems--who get exited when new problems arise. These people also usually know how to program and could build a linux operating system from the ground up. These people generally don't enjoy doing anything useful with computers other than running servers of several types (and being system administrators), surfing the web, and teaching others how to do get standard functions even working properly in Linux.

*SMACKS FMEH ON THE HEAD*

Its not about logic or thinking things out, the whole MACevalgelism is about trying to act witty but mistakenly coming off as an arrogant ass. I happen to like Macs for some things, but they don't fit my needs for home use. *shrug* for some reason the MACevalgelists can't fathom that.

I used to service computers for a living.
You start putting some of the complete idiots I've come across on a mac, and you wouldn't say that any more. Hardware breaks, and even the best software can't stand up against the decidedly stupid.

That's where you get brilliant phrases like:

"I fixed it but it still doesn't work."

As they say "Build something Idiot Proof & they build a better Idiot"

Don't just single out the Mac-evangelists for that. Since first starting to use Linux in 1998 and then more recently OS X last year I have been told many times that my computers are unsupported and that I should just use Windows like the overwhelming majority; thing is, Windows just doesn't fit my needs as an astronomer!

At one point I wasn't even allowed to connect to my university's network because their rules said everyone who wanted to be authorized for an IP must first follow a bunch of Windows-specific procedures designed for security. I couldn't go through the list, obviously, since I didn't have Windows and so under their rules I was not authorized to use the network that every student is supposed to be able to use. It took two weeks of fighting with the IT department just to get an IP.

out of curiosity, why can't windows work for an astronomer?

lol i got yelled at on another thread by some Mac users because they asked me what did i do with my old hardware because PC users replace their machines every 2 years, and i replied with "use it to hold my porn." now correct me if im wrong, but judging by the overwhelming testimonials that Macs are far better at Images and Videos than PC's then couldnt one justify that Mac's are the best machine for porn use? or maybe porn is a PC only app... *rolls eyes*

I love Linux for number crunching I put together a cluster of 10 pcs for a project I did several years back, it worked wonders, but that wasn't for home use.

It can work, but as I said it doesn't fit my needs, or apparently the needs of well more than half of other astronomers I've encountered (at the last American Astronomical Society meeting, about half the computers I saw were Macs; the other half were split about evenly between Windows and Linux). One of my needs is for things to work with minimum hassle. That's the same argument I hear a lot for Windows over Linux, but in the case of the work that most astronomers do, the situation is reversed.

A lot of the software still in use in astronomy is from pre-PC days. I work with code that originated on punchcards and was eventually transcribed line by line to a PC...but not modified at all from the original. It's actually quite depressing. In fact, right now I'm in the process of revising a program that still uses function calls to 1960s Calcomp plotters. Those calls go through a black-box library that makes calls to a newer plotting library to get the actually drawings. I have to get rid of the black-box in the middle. It could have been done years ago, but just never was...

Also, and I'm just making a guess, here, but I think that the majority of the software used for data reduction is native to *nix. At least the programs I've used are. The last time I checked, to get IRAF (Image Reduction and Analysis Facility) on a Windows machine, you first need to install Cygwin--a sort of virtual machine that emulates Linux. I don't see why one should add that clunkiness when one can just use Linux to begin with.

For anyone who works with most astronomy code it's just easier and cheaper to use a *nix system. That may change in the future as, hopefully, more of the new people in the field get fed up with this ancient code and start doing something about it. I usually write new code in Python and I'm trying to convince the others in my office to move on from Fortran 77.

Oh, and astronomy often requires typesetting for papers and, in the case of my job, books. Getting a full TeX system running on a *nix system is easier than getting the same thing running on a Windows system. I'm basing that statement on past observations of different people, both with about the same level of admin experience on their respective platforms, who've tried to install and configure a TeX system. TeX on Windows is more of a hassle than TeX on a Linux system or a Mac.

The irony being that your machine is, by default, far more secure than a Windows box with a third-party firewall/antispyware/antivirus.

I like Apple, too bad there are no Apple computers anymore, I could go back into the company history and the predicted arc for the future of the Mac line... but I wont it's in another thread

My theory on the "MACevalgelism" is... hell I dunno, Im not one of em, I dont even get it. common logic, history and predictable outcome shows the direction the company is going

I did some digging and found that i-pod (and ipod product / service) accounted for between 80 and 85% of this last quarter's sales, the G5 a staggering 10-12% of the desktop systems sold, 75% of them were intel Macs

So yes, as a company they are doing fantastic, the net income for this quarter exceeded predictions. However breaking down the numbers shows that it isn't the desktop systems driving the profits, I expect them to be dropped in favor of more of the successful i-pod line much like the apple II line was dropped in favor of the Mac line

So MACevalgelism... To explain it, I would say "denial"

==========
Edit -

Apple hasnt done an official breakdown of quarterly reports by unit since the success of the i-pod and now only report revenue... some even deeper digging says the ipod revenue is probably lower and OSX tiger accounted for a fair chunk... estimate 15-20% and powerbooks (not desktops accounted for 25-30% leaving the i-pod line to account for still 45-55%

so many sources vary on breakdown per unit, but one thing they all have in common is that the i-pod is king and not the Macs

Backwards -

I concur. TeX is a PITA on a Windows system just because one has to be both a TeX guru and a Windows expert to get it installed and running, when one can actually just follow a standardised simple process to compile, make, install on a *nix system.

Why won't Windows work for astronomers? A very, very large amount of astronomical data is gathered and stored by systems that are known to be *NIX compatible - there's an actual standard called POSIX for the Operating System so that you /know/ that if any given *NIX is POSIX compliant that when you put your precious scientific data in one end of any of those systems, you get consistent results, system to system, from the other end of those systems. There is no such standard for Windows, no useful published APIs, and no guarantee that when you put your precious scientific data in one end of the numbercruncher, you get consistent results. Freyr mentioned Black Boxes - to a scientist, a Black Box in their system is an unknown variable and unknown variables tend to break the scientific process - where unknowns in data gathering, processing, interpretation, and storage are minimised. Windows is one giant Black Box.
Science also emphasises a consistency in methods of analysing and interpreting data. If you want to compare the statistical analyses of two independently gathered sets of data, then you want them to have come from the same telescope(s), the same arrays, have been gathered and stored on the same computing equipment, and processed with the same methods. For every unknown or every variable, you have to account for or eliminate possible sources of the introduction of error. Too many possible sources of error = data that's worth nothing.
Work for a decade on three projects and then watch them all get academically flushed because just one of the systems you used to interpret the data is shown to have a critical flaw that introduces serious error, and watch your entire funding and academic career get flushed too? Nein, gedanke.

Your article quotes a $300 price delta. That's a bit different than the $1500 you've been arguing.



Also, note that apparently he says that Apple is not larger because - wait for it - it's the choice of the intelligent and doesn't make friends easily.

FWIW, I have a Shuffle and think they're great. I know why they stopped producing them (not because of market demand.)

just posting a non-biast article i dont think i ever said 1500 price difference
and i think everyone should read it. [they didnt say intelligent]

oh i also had an MP3 playing watch that had 512megs of storage 1.5 yrs before the shuffle, though the shuffle is cool i got one for my sister for her b-day.

I spend about equal time on MAC, PC and various *nix's.

In a nutshell, I find my powerbook's sleep/awake speed *very* pleasing, switching networks is more trivial, battery life is decent... all in all a very handy portable 'portal' into the systems I access. It's also my photoshop and rendering platform of choice, as well as my development platform for database, web apps and such as I can port the code straight to my *nix servers.

My windows pc's are for email, some software and tools, gaming and SecondLife.

I don't use my mac for SL because the Opt/Alt/right-click interface differences drive me bonkers. I could get used to it, but... well... my gaming pc is tuned a bit more SL-friendly.

Yeah that's kind of my thinking on it too, computers are basicly tools and you use the best one for the job... Mac vs PC is like arguing philips vs flathead screwdrivers really

What I have been saying through a sleepless evening of posting is that STeve Jobs is gonna drop the ball again and sink too much effort into the i-pod line and let Mac slip. It would be nice if he doesn't do that, but all signs seem to be pointing that way...

Why do you say that? Apple certainly didn't slack off on the Intel transition. And it looks as if the company will be right on top of processor upgrades when Intel releases each new line.

Then there's the rumor of an ultra-portable in development. I really hope that one is true...that or a tablet...

Anyway, that last rumor aside, what makes you think Apple will ignore the computer side right when the company looks poised to make significant gains in market share?

see post 15 in this thread
/112/4a/130798/1.html#post1237282

also this regarding the precious i-pod
/112/a9/130794/3.html#post1237032

You just have to look at Apple's history and the fact that they've been mainly focusing on the Ipod to see why.

Now, should Apple get out of their proprietary mode like they've been in since the conception of the Macintosh, they might actually have something going, but they're probably going to keep trying their failed computer business model until their demise. It's amazing that they've not went under a long time ago, and the Ipod has been their saving grace.

Yes, their Intel move was a good one, now they just need to stop locking their OS to their hardware.

Ashen, you're comparing apples and oranges (pun intended )

You're using the example of Apple dropping one line of computers for another newer line of computers to make a prediction that Apple will neclect all of their computers to concentrate on mp3 players. That doesn't work. If you want to use the Apple II -> Macintosh example to predict something (bad) then you'd say something like Apple will wind up switching from Intel to AMD!

Recently, Apple's had success going from one model line to another...think G5 -> Intel. Also, iPod Mini -> iPod Nano...


I think there are some inaccuracies in what you're saying here.

"...they've been mainly focusing on the iPod..." So what was that whole deal with switching all of their machines to Intel processors? And they did it faster than most people thought they would. I would think that took a lot of focus.

"...but they're probably going to keep trying their failed computer business model until their demise..." Failed business model? Is that what selling double the expected number of Macbooks last quarter is called? Three friends who had been long-time Windows users recently bought Macs (two Macbooks and and iMac). There are more switchers now than when Apple was playing those explicit "I'm a switcher" ads.

"...now they just need to stop locking their OS to their hardware." So OS X can turn into another configuration nightmare like Windows and Linux because it has to be able to support a near infinite number of hardware combinations? Apple knows what OS X will do on any machine on which it is (legally) run. Stop locking it to the hardware and that will no longer be the case. The result for Apple will be that their ability to seriously innovate OS X (or any future OSes) will be severely hindered. That's part of what Microsoft's been running into for the past several years with Vista.