Macbook or... *Insert other computer here*

[tubbymac]

Everybody should drop the whole get OSX so you can also learn about the unix that runs underneath the covers. Most people who get OSX don't go anywhere close enough under the covers to learn anything about unix. Not to mention he could MORE EASILY just install Linux on a PC machine (with far less headaches) than getting Linux on an Apple if he wanted to learn about unix. You're living in a dreamworld if you think getting an Apple is better than getting a PC with Linux for "unix" stuff.

It comes down to basically OSX or Windows. I think for most high school kids OSX would be considerably more enjoyable to use. Garageband, Photobooth, and all the other iLife software is worth the price of admission if you can afford it - and apparently this kid can.

 

[drichards]

Linux != Unix.

Indeed. Linux is a mess. The software support is a joke, hardware support is terrible, and tech support? Fuhgedaboutit. MacOS Unix is decades ahead of Linux, any distribution. People would rather pirate XP than use Linux, on the by and large, in the developing world, and in the real world the best use for Linux is running a webserver, not running on your desktop. Its just not a realistic option.

 

[VPrime]

Everybody should drop the whole get OSX so you can also learn about the unix that runs underneath the covers. Most people who get OSX don't go anywhere close enough under the covers to learn anything about unix. Not to mention he could MORE EASILY just install Linux on a PC machine (with far less headaches) than getting Linux on an Apple if he wanted to learn about unix. You're living in a dreamworld if you think getting an Apple is better than getting a PC with Linux for "unix" stuff.

Personally I disagree... OSX is a unix environment out of the box... Every thing is there, really there is not much reason to go to a linux distro... Other than trying them out.
Just because you dont go underneath the covers does not mean it doesnt exist.
Same could be said about any linux distro, or windows.

 

[millerj123]

It's funny you say that- Apple seems to indicate otherwise:

http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/unix.html

OS X is actually based on Free BSD, which is a flavor of Linux. So, what exactly do you mean by "Not even close"?

Not really. FreeBSD is a unix-like OS. It is separate and distinct from Linux.

From: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/nutshell.html

FreeBSD is based on the 4.4BSD-Lite release from Computer Systems Research Group (CSRG) at the University of California at Berkeley, and carries on the distinguished tradition of BSD systems development. In addition to the fine work provided by CSRG, the FreeBSD Project has put in many thousands of hours in fine tuning the system for maximum performance and reliability in real-life load situations.

FreeBSD shares applications and ideas with Linux. It is closer to Net and OpenBSD.

 

[pirategenes]

Not really. FreeBSD is a unix-like OS. It is separate and distinct from Linux.

From: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/nutshell.html

FreeBSD is based on the 4.4BSD-Lite release from Computer Systems Research Group (CSRG) at the University of California at Berkeley, and carries on the distinguished tradition of BSD systems development. In addition to the fine work provided by CSRG, the FreeBSD Project has put in many thousands of hours in fine tuning the system for maximum performance and reliability in real-life load situations.

FreeBSD shares applications and ideas with Linux. It is closer to Net and OpenBSD.

For the second time, give me a break on the nit-picking.

The OP likely does not care about the exact relationship between UNIX, Linux, and FreeBSD. My main point is that OS X is a robust scientific computing platform because it is *similar* to all these other high-performance computing environments. I say this purely to debunk the myth propagated by another commenter that windows is a better platform for the sciences.

 

[268144]

i would personally suggest getting a Macbook, if not the newest aluminum one, the previous white model.

There awesome, the operating system, looks, everything. you will also love the battery life, you can easily get a good 5-6 hours out of your Macbook if your just word processing or on a spread sheet (in school or without internet). i would know because i take my Macbook with me everyday, do all my work on it, and on a full charge it lasts me all day (around 5 hours) and its usually almost dead at the end of the day.

people say macs have compatibility issues. but most software packages run fine, if not better on macs. (adobe cs4 etc). now i find it funny when people do say macs have compatibility issues..when PC's can't even run leopard, and macs can easily run windows.

 

[polaris20]

Everybody should drop the whole get OSX so you can also learn about the unix that runs underneath the covers. Most people who get OSX don't go anywhere close enough under the covers to learn anything about unix. Not to mention he could MORE EASILY just install Linux on a PC machine (with far less headaches) than getting Linux on an Apple if he wanted to learn about unix. You're living in a dreamworld if you think getting an Apple is better than getting a PC with Linux for "unix" stuff.

It comes down to basically OSX or Windows. I think for most high school kids OSX would be considerably more enjoyable to use. Garageband, Photobooth, and all the other iLife software is worth the price of admission if you can afford it - and apparently this kid can.

Seeing as how I'm running Linux 64-bit, 32-bit, and OS X, I'm curious; how is Linux better than OS X for learning a Unix environment?

Personally, the thing I like about interfacing with our Linux environment everyday is that I can do everything I do in Linux on the MBP, while not having to worry about an update killing X11, and not having to jump to another machine for Office, etc.

Indeed. Linux is a mess. The software support is a joke, hardware support is terrible, and tech support? Fuhgedaboutit. MacOS Unix is decades ahead of Linux, any distribution. People would rather pirate XP than use Linux, on the by and large, in the developing world, and in the real world the best use for Linux is running a webserver, not running on your desktop. Its just not a realistic option.

Not exactly. The commercially supported distros, such as Red Hat and Novell/SuSe have quite good support. The problem is that you're paying a lot of money for it, something to the tune of $1000 per server, per year, the last time I checked.

This is what Microsoft is referring to when they talk about TCO. Ubuntu so far has served us very well, reliability-wise, however it's not perfect either. Certainly not as turnkey as Windows or OS X.

 

[millerj123]

For the second time, give me a break on the nit-picking.

The OP likely does not care about the exact relationship between UNIX, Linux, and FreeBSD. My main point is that OS X is a robust scientific computing platform because it is *similar* to all these other high-performance computing environments. I say this purely to debunk the myth propagated by another commenter that windows is a better platform for the sciences.

Then, say that. It's funny that you are correcting someone else, but don't want your statements checked.

For the first time, where have I nit-picked you before?

 

[pirategenes]

Then, say that. It's funny that you are correcting someone else, but don't want your statements checked.

For the first time, where have I nit-picked you before?

By all means check my statements.

I'm not referring to you specifically when I said stop the nit-picking for the second time. If you look on the previous page someone else already said what you did almost verbatim. So, if you read the thread your comment is redundant.

 

[millerj123]

By all means check my statements.

I'm not referring to you specifically when I said stop the nit-picking for the second time. If you look on the previous page someone else already said what you did almost verbatim. So, if you read the thread your comment is redundant.

I will and yep. You did quote me when you said it. Perhaps that's why I thought it was directed at me.

Update: Amazing. I tired of the "Mac is Linux. FreeBSD is Linux." So, I include a link where the good folks on the FreeBSD project talk about what FreeBSD is. Somehow I thought including that would get us away from the Linux = FreeBSD. I guess added content, with links to facts is redundant?

For the OP: I do not have the statistics, but your dad is partially correct, business is heavily weighted towards Windows. Some businesses are Mac friendly, though. Being able to successfully navigate both platforms should only be considered a plus, if only from a personal perspective. The company I work for is almost completely Windows, but everything I do from home is on my mini.

From a school/science perspective, it depends on the field and department. At the University of Arizona, the Computer Science labs were 80% Macs, 20% Linux workstations back in about '94. The last time I was there, Microsoft had given them a boatload of money, and they had switched to at least half Windows workstations - I didn't count.

 

[palane]

Sorry, but wrong again. I've a PhD in physics, co-authored 100+ papers, and am an active researcher. There are specific programs that are Windows only (Origin comes to mind). I handle purchasing decisions for my laboratory and went with a PC in the lab. We have a substantial investment in hardware and software, especially LabView. However, for my personal computer, I've used a Mac continuously. When it comes to writing, data analysis and presentation, it's the superior option.

I guess I mean more hard sciences then that.

Any kind of chemistry, physics, math or biophysics/biochemistry major will most likely run into trouble. Also, did she do any kind of research? She most likely would have had some kind of trouble there as well if she did.

 

[poozer115]

I hate so much when people on forums do the whole "I'm a world renowned physicist that's written 100 books" or "I have twenty surgical practices named after me". Seriously...

a) 90% of the claims are completely false

b) the 10% that are true just sound arrogant

Just thought I'd get that out there =D. Oh, and get the macbook.

 

[Qinetic]

You said yourself that you have two dead PCs in your room so try something new and possibly more reliable for a change. Mine's in the mail!

 

[polaris20]

Sorry, but wrong again. I've a PhD in physics, co-authored 100+ papers, and am an active researcher. There are specific programs that are Windows only (Origin comes to mind). I handle purchasing decisions for my laboratory and went with a PC in the lab. We have a substantial investment in hardware and software, especially LabView. However, for my personal computer, I've used a Mac continuously. When it comes to writing, data analysis and presentation, it's the superior option.

I don't think he's wrong, his view just doesn't fit your particular case. There are guys at the LHC using MBPs, guys at Fermi Lab using MBPs, so clearly it applies to science in some way, just perhaps not your area.

 

[tubbymac]

Personally I disagree... OSX is a unix environment out of the box... Every thing is there, really there is not much reason to go to a linux distro... Other than trying them out.

Seeing as how I'm running Linux 64-bit, 32-bit, and OS X, I'm curious; how is Linux better than OS X for learning a Unix environment?

Without turning this to an epeen contest about whether OSX is a better unix thann Linux, you two are missing the point.

It's not that OSX doesn't have unix underneath. I'm not arguing that. It's not also about Macbooks being able to run Linux either. I'm not arguing that. Both of what you say is true, it's just besides the point.

It's about the original poster's needs and not yours. He's a kid asking what computer would be good to explore with. You'd be doing him a disservice telling him to learn unix on OSX. That's taking him back to the dark ages when unix was closed and commercialized. A kid wanting to explore should be exposed to well, OSX for one, as it has a lot of programs on it already that encourage creativity. A kid wanting to go beyond that, to learn about the inner workings of a machine should be exposed to Linux and on standard hardware with open source drivers. Sure you can put Linux on a Macbook, but most Linux gurus will tell you to stay far away from the closed source nature of things such as Broadcom wireless drivers IF your intention is to actually learn exactly how your machine works without limits and not to only learn what parts of the machine Apple, or Broadcom, or whatever company will let you look at.

 

[Eddyisgreat]

Macbook + Boot Camp + Windows XP License = Mac OS X Plus the capability to boot into a native running version of windows when need be.

Think Different.

 

[millerj123]

It's about the original poster's needs and not yours. He's a kid asking what computer would be good to explore with. You'd be doing him a disservice telling him to learn unix on OSX. That's taking him back to the dark ages when unix was closed and commercialized. A kid wanting to explore should be exposed to well, OSX for one, as it has a lot of programs on it already that encourage creativity. A kid wanting to go beyond that, to learn about the inner workings of a machine should be exposed to Linux and on standard hardware with open source drivers. Sure you can put Linux on a Macbook, but most Linux gurus will tell you to stay far away from the closed source nature of things such as Broadcom wireless drivers IF your intention is to actually learn exactly how your machine works without limits and not to only learn what parts of the machine Apple, or Broadcom, or whatever company will let you look at.

Sure, Linux guru's will tell you to work on Linux. In reality, though, how many Linux users ever get into device drivers? How many even run without the GUI in the first place?

Since OSX allows you to get 'right down to the wire', it's just as good a starting place to learn a unix variant.

If he does go with Linux, which one? They all have different strengths, but they all do some things just a little bit differently.

 

[amammad]

With the amount of money you are almost FORCED to spend on a mac, you could buy a new Dell when it starts getting slow, as you said. I have had to pay hundreds on top of an already overpriced machine in order to do what I normally did on a PC:

VMware Fusion or Windows for bootcamp (or both), a dongle for that useless mini displayport, had to buy office AGAIN, and now they are telling me I have to pay another $100 to get an updated iLife, and then another $100+ to get the new OSX? Give me a break. I am a poor med student, I am trouble affording just having my macbook.

Sounds like somebody failed to research which option would meet their needs before they went down the Apple route. A basic knowledge of computers would have told you that a Mac doesn't come with Windows and you'd have had to buy it. Likewise with Office.

The displayport adaptor... again, a simple question to an Applestore employee.

As for the new OSX and the new iLife. You don't NEED either. The new iLife isn't a requirement.

If you'd bought the Dell, would Microsoft have given you Windows 7 free of charge when it's released? No.

Stop blaming Apple and start taking responsibility for poor purchase research!

 

[iOrlando]

you want a mercedes or chevy?


for the most part, same parts...

accomplishes same thing...

yet so different in so many ways...




apple or *insert other computer*?

 

[tubbymac]

Since OSX allows you to get 'right down to the wire', it's just as good a starting place to learn a unix variant.

If he does go with Linux, which one? They all have different strengths, but they all do some things just a little bit differently.

Well somehow in my botched attempt to get the thread off talking about unix I think I made it worse and the OP probably thinks we're a bunch of crackpots by now.

Which flavor of unix is the best to get started learning on we're all gonna have to agree to disagree on. His original question though had nothing to do with unix. Back on track, shall we?

 

[millerj123]

Well somehow in my botched attempt to get the thread off talking about unix I think I made it worse and the OP probably thinks we're a bunch of crackpots by now.

Which flavor of unix is the best to get started learning on we're all gonna have to agree to disagree on. His original question though had nothing to do with unix. Back on track, shall we?

He'd be right about us being crackpots. However, we're being helpful crackpots. There is no right answer to his question, but a lot of different factors that matter to different people.

 

[lixuelai]

Indeed. Linux is a mess. The software support is a joke, hardware support is terrible, and tech support? Fuhgedaboutit. MacOS Unix is decades ahead of Linux, any distribution. People would rather pirate XP than use Linux, on the by and large, in the developing world, and in the real world the best use for Linux is running a webserver, not running on your desktop. Its just not a realistic option.

What a bunch of BS lol or you are living in the stone ages still. Linux distros like Ubuntu has much better hardware support than OSX. If you bothered to think you would have realized that. Linux like Windows is intended to install easily on any computer. OSX is intended to install on Apple computers. Of course Linux will need a much larger base of supported hardware. It may take more time to get some stuff working right, but at least there are more possibilities.

 

[Robby9279]

He'd be right about us being crackpots. However, we're being helpful crackpots. There is no right answer to his question, but a lot of different factors that matter to different people.

You're right, you guys are helpful crackpots
I don't mind your discussion, as long as it's at least related to a Mac Based system vs. a pc or, OSX vs an other operating system.

Although it would be helpful to see some answers less vague as to why buy a Mac. One such example would be from BluesTank, had a great post at the start of the thread and hope to see more similar to his.

Thanks for all the responses so far though, just remember, let's keep it a little less vague!

 

[palane]

This thread is stale, but I happened upon it while looking for something else. The previous poster made a comment along the lines of no scientist would use an MB. I don't consider myself world-renowned, but wanted to make the point that I'm active. Most of those papers went into conference proceedings and were never heard from again. So, I did want to make the point to any potential budding scientist that you'll do fine with a Mac.

I suppose that puts me in the 10%. As proof if you're interested, google Lane and ODMR.

BB

I hate so much when people on forums do the whole "I'm a world renowned physicist that's written 100 books" or "I have twenty surgical practices named after me". Seriously...

a) 90% of the claims are completely false

b) the 10% that are true just sound arrogant

Just thought I'd get that out there =D. Oh, and get the macbook.