Some scientific tools not available for M1

[pshufd]

My son's work-issued 2015 MacBook Pro 15 has a bulging battery and he's talking to his IT folks about his options. Replace the battery for $200, or go with an M1. A 2019 16 is probably also an option but he's aware of the heat issues with the 16. I told him that he could borrow one of my laptops as I just ordered a Mini M1 (16/500) and it should be here within two weeks. I have a 2014 MacBook Pro which he could just reformat and install. My 2015 is running Monterey as a desktop and I rather like it.

I suggested that he wait for the M1X if that's an option. I don't think that they would do a replacement now and then when the M1X comes out.

I would have purchased the Mini M1 a lot sooner if they had them in the stores. I do not understand why they don't carry the M1s with 16 GB of RAM in the stores. They carry MacBook Air and Pro models with 16 GB in the stores.

He's doing a survey of their tools (oncogenomics and pathology workflow systems) and things are in various states of compatibility. My guess is that he still needs an Intel Mac is he gets an M1 system.

Update: they told him that he has to stay on x64 because their tools have not been validated on Apple M1.

 

[velocityg4]

That's not unusual for scientific tools and instruments which rely on a computer to never be updated. There's labs stuck with the likes of Macintosh II era computers to run instruments. I wouldn't be surprised if there's still some lab with a CDC 6600 or other 60's era computer to run some very expensive piece of equipment. There's a reason why a need for COBOL programmers won't die.

Frankly, if they have equipment that requires an Intel Mac and always will. It should be hooked up to an Intel Mac of any kind permanently. Stuck at whatever OS it is validated for. If people are using newer computers for working they can remote into it. To look up results or run the equipment. But that's an issue his workplace is going to need to tackle sooner or later.

At any rate. There should be some option that doesn't require employees to plug in their computers to the equipment. Depending on their computer maintaining compatibility with legacy equipment. That just sounds inefficient. When there's all sorts of networking options to get data from one computer to another. I'm guessing there's something being left out of the situation to explain things better. As to why it isn't being done this way in the first place.

 

[pshufd]

That's not unusual for scientific tools and instruments which rely on a computer to never be updated. There's labs stuck with the likes of Macintosh II era computers to run instruments. I wouldn't be surprised if there's still some lab with a CDC 6600 or other 60's era computer to run some very expensive piece of equipment. There's a reason why a need for COBOL programmers won't die.

Frankly, if they have equipment that requires an Intel Mac and always will. It should be hooked up to an Intel Mac of any kind permanently. Stuck at whatever OS it is validated for. If people are using newer computers for working they can remote into it. To look up results or run the equipment. But that's an issue his workplace is going to need to tackle sooner or later.

At any rate. There should be some option that doesn't require employees to plug in their computers to the equipment. Depending on their computer maintaining compatibility with legacy equipment. That just sounds inefficient. When there's all sorts of networking options to get data from one computer to another. I'm guessing there's something being left out of the situation to explain things better. As to why it isn't being done this way in the first place.

I think that they tools that they use to develop and run stuff is on their work-issued systems and their production systems.

My guess is that they will have to validate all of their tools (development as well) on M1. He also has a personal 2014 MacBook Pro and a Intel gaming laptop so he'll have enough to get his job done.

 

[bunnspecial]

That's not unusual for scientific tools and instruments which rely on a computer to never be updated. There's labs stuck with the likes of Macintosh II era computers to run instruments. I wouldn't be surprised if there's still some lab with a CDC 6600 or other 60's era computer to run some very expensive piece of equipment. There's a reason why a need for COBOL programmers won't die.

Frankly, if they have equipment that requires an Intel Mac and always will. It should be hooked up to an Intel Mac of any kind permanently. Stuck at whatever OS it is validated for. If people are using newer computers for working they can remote into it. To look up results or run the equipment. But that's an issue his workplace is going to need to tackle sooner or later.

At any rate. There should be some option that doesn't require employees to plug in their computers to the equipment. Depending on their computer maintaining compatibility with legacy equipment. That just sounds inefficient. When there's all sorts of networking options to get data from one computer to another. I'm guessing there's something being left out of the situation to explain things better. As to why it isn't being done this way in the first place.

Not only that, but you often can't virtualize or emulate because of proprietary interfaces that need to communicate at a low enough level that the only real solution is running them on "real" hardware. Even pseudo standards like HPIB/GPIB can be a headache-as an example when operating Hewlett-Packard instruments you MUST use an HP/Agilent HPIB card(or now you can use the USB bridge) and not a National Instruments one. I've not found a way around this. Even at that, certain software versions are only compatible with certain generations of card(I have a pile of utterly useless to me HP 82335 HPIB cards in my office because they are DOS/Windows 3.11/Win 95/Win 98 only and I've switched entirely to WinNT versions of the software).

This stuff was my day job for 5 years, and even now I still work a lot with it even though it's not my primary responsibility. I should say it's not my primary responsibility, but it is my responsibility since no one else where I work has the knowledge and motivation to do it.

 

[pshufd]

Not only that, but you often can't virtualize or emulate because of proprietary interfaces that need to communicate at a low enough level that the only real solution is running them on "real" hardware. Even pseudo standards like HPIB/GPIB can be a headache-as an example when operating Hewlett-Packard instruments you MUST use an HP/Agilent HPIB card(or now you can use the USB bridge) and not a National Instruments one. I've not found a way around this. Even at that, certain software versions are only compatible with certain generations of card(I have a pile of utterly useless to me HP 82335 HPIB cards in my office because they are DOS/Windows 3.11/Win 95/Win 98 only and I've switched entirely to WinNT versions of the software).

This stuff was my day job for 5 years, and even now I still work a lot with it even though it's not my primary responsibility. I should say it's not my primary responsibility, but it is my responsibility since no one else where I work has the knowledge and motivation to do it.

Being able to run Linux and Windows is also an issue.

 

[CheesePuff]

He could replace it himself for $85:

Battery Replacement for MacBook Pro 15-Inch 2013 - 2015

Restore the battery of your late 2013 - mid 2015 MacBook Pro with Retina Display. Upgrade kit includes all tools needed for a safe installation.

eshop.macsales.com

 

[NT1440]

He could replace it himself for $85:

Battery Replacement for MacBook Pro 15-Inch 2013 - 2015

Restore the battery of your late 2013 - mid 2015 MacBook Pro with Retina Display. Upgrade kit includes all tools needed for a safe installation.

eshop.macsales.com

Normally I’d be all for replacing the battery DIY, but when it’s bulging? No way. Not a fan of runaway thermal events…

 

[pshufd]

He could replace it himself for $85:

Battery Replacement for MacBook Pro 15-Inch 2013 - 2015

Restore the battery of your late 2013 - mid 2015 MacBook Pro with Retina Display. Upgrade kit includes all tools needed for a safe installation.

eshop.macsales.com

It's work-issue. He's not paying for it.

Here's the plan:

1. Back up to my 8 TB Time Machine disk
2. Restore to my 2014 MacBook Pro 15
3. Test his work environment
4. If good, make Genius Bar appointment to replace battery
5. After it's fixed, backup the 2014 and restore to his work MacBook Pro

 

[EntropyQ3]

It's work-issue. He's not paying for it.

Here's the plan:

1. Back up to my 8 TB Time Machine disk
2. Restore to my 2014 MacBook Pro 15
3. Test his work environment
4. If good, make Genius Bar appointment to replace battery
5. After it's fixed, backup the 2014 and restore to his work MacBook Pro

Seems like a plan.
Go for it.

 

[pshufd]

Seems like a plan.
Go for it.

I Backed Up his system to Time Machine and Restored it to my 2014 MacBook Pro. A couple of messages popped up stating that he had updates available for some of his tools and I looked at RAM consumption, and it was over 11 GB. So his tools start up with the system and they use a lot of RAM. My recommendation to him will be to ask his workplace for a 2019 MacBook Pro 16 with 32 GB of RAM. I believe that he runs at least one Virtual Machine all the time and sometimes has to run others. At any rate, he can work now and we'll get his workplace 2015 repaired and he can work things out with his manager.

It is really nice to have a lot of spare hardware.

 

[leman]

Special-purpose scientific software (especially interfacing with scientific equipment) tends to be notoriously low quality and usually needs very specific hardware and software environment to operate. Most stuff we had to use even came with its own dedicated laptop set up by the equipment manufacturer.

 

[pi=e=3]

Special-purpose scientific software (especially interfacing with scientific equipment) tends to be notoriously low quality and usually needs very specific hardware and software environment to operate. Most stuff we had to use even came with its own dedicated laptop set up by the equipment manufacturer.

I still work with some equipment that uses XP, lol.

 

[jerryk]

I still work with some equipment that uses XP, lol.

I know a company that runs a main assembly line of medical product on XP. They have a store room full of replace Dell systems from 2001 or so since the controller boards are not guaranteed to work in later computers.

 

[pshufd]

Son is up and running with his workload. Dad's IT overnight service.

I had his laptop plugged in while backing it up but the battery percentage wasn't going up while charging so it's likely hosed or will only charge when the laptop is powered down. It only has 120 cycles on it too. It would be very nice if they sold it to him or gave it to him when they get a new system. It would make for a nice spare - for him. I get the feeling that he's not going to get an M1 system for a long time.

 

[pi=e=3]

I know a company that runs a main assembly line of medical product on XP. They have a store room full of replace Dell systems from 2001 or so since the controller boards are not guaranteed to work in later computers.

If it ain't broke don't fix it eh?

I also frequently work with ancient FORTRAN code written by some random engineer for some niche purpose 20-30 years ago. Which is uh... Fun. I laughed when they made me take FORTRAN in university, but now I see why.

Happy to hear you got it sorted OP, sorry for crapping up your thread.

 

[uller6]

That's not unusual for scientific tools and instruments which rely on a computer to never be updated. There's labs stuck with the likes of Macintosh II era computers to run instruments. I wouldn't be surprised if there's still some lab with a CDC 6600 or other 60's era computer to run some very expensive piece of equipment. There's a reason why a need for COBOL programmers won't die.

Frankly, if they have equipment that requires an Intel Mac and always will. It should be hooked up to an Intel Mac of any kind permanently. Stuck at whatever OS it is validated for. If people are using newer computers for working they can remote into it. To look up results or run the equipment. But that's an issue his workplace is going to need to tackle sooner or later.

At any rate. There should be some option that doesn't require employees to plug in their computers to the equipment. Depending on their computer maintaining compatibility with legacy equipment. That just sounds inefficient. When there's all sorts of networking options to get data from one computer to another. I'm guessing there's something being left out of the situation to explain things better. As to why it isn't being done this way in the first place.

Can confirm this. My university runs many many process and characterization tools from the win95, 486 and even earlier eras. The tools work, the tool software was designed and validated for that specific hardware, and a replacement tool can cost upwards of a million dollars each. All of these tools are air-gapped and do exactly what they were designed to do many years ago, and will (hopefully) continue to serve well for many more years.

 

[haralds]

Normally I’d be all for replacing the battery DIY, but when it’s bulging? No way. Not a fan of runaway thermal events…

Aging batteries bulge internally due to component issues. Normally replacing them removes the problem.

 

[pshufd]

It looks like they're going to replace his laptop. I canceled the Apple Store meeting today. I'm a bit surprised on this though. I'm curious as to how they will dispose of the old laptop. Some large companies wholesale them off to companies that refurbish and resell. I'd expect that it's fully depreciated by now. I recommended that he get the 16 with 32 GB of RAM. The other option would be the 13 but the large laptops typically have better thermals.

I'd guess that there are a lot of people that have similar issues. I wonder if Apple will continue to sell some Intel systems after their two-year transition. Companies often have contracts with vendors that require them to provide models years after they stop selling them to consumers.

 

[NT1440]

Aging batteries bulge internally due to component issues. Normally replacing them removes the problem.

Have you ever punctured a lithium battery? I ask as someone who did despite hundreds of successful replacements. It’s not something I’d ever advise a “newbie” (I don’t mean that in a derogatory way) to DIY if they don’t have the appropriate equipment to deal with a thermal event.

All I’m getting at is I think most people have the ability to replace a motherboard if they take their time and don’t give into the unfounded fear that they’re going to break it. When it comes to lithium based batteries however, let alone one that is already bulging, Id be hesitant to nonchalantly recommend DIY without a full safety rundown.

When that glue doesn’t release and you have to start inserting cards to give it a little encouragement on a bulging battery is where I personally get nervous, and again I’ve done it hundreds of times.