'Remember, Macs can’t do real work, they’re only for useless artsy stuff like landing on Mars.'

[onehandle]

The room at NASA was packed with Macs.

https://twitter.com/lhasapso/status/232353815003791360/photo/1



More:

[Mika]

1. Running Windoze.

[onehandle]

4. Wrong. nt

[CreekDog]

58. probably not, but even a Mac runs Windows better

than a PC.

[phleshdef]

2. I highly doubt the computers used to do the actual landing were running either operating system.

Either meaning OSX or Windows.

[2ndAmForComputers]

3. As we all know, that job would be impossible to do with PCs.

[CBGLuthier]

5. I would be willing to bet that the computers actually running things are neither Mac nor PC

But boy, they do have some purty graphics there.

[mazzarro]

16. Most likely super computers running on a variety of UNIX/Linux os -- n/t

[LiberalArkie]

21. Most do not realize that OS X is Berkley UNIX.. NEXT computer took the UNIX and made a desktop

among other things. HTTP and WWW was created on NEXT computers.

Unix can do a lot of things and Mac OS X is Unix

[formercia]

61. Rovers run a variant of BSD UNIX

although I don't know what the latest one has for an OS, but most likely the same.

[obxhead]

26. Here on earth that may be true, but

I'll bet a lot of the components on the rover are from the late 90's to early 00's.

The last 2 rovers to land were running 286 processors when the Pentium class chips were already in wide use. The NASA expert I was listening to about it said why would you send the latest technology to someplace nobody can get to if you need to work on it. You use the most thoroughly proven technology that will complete the job. the 286 chips at the time had nearly 2 decades of real life use and trouble shooting.

We all know how well those rovers worked!

[msongs]

6. spending twice as much taxpayer money for something not worth 2x as much lol nt

[Whisp]

9. viruses on Macs are almost non existent

so spending more for that little perk is well worth the extra. I'm betting that is why they use Macs

[RebelOne]

13. I have a Mac, but that claim has been disproved. n/t

[Whisp]

18. I think I've had 2, maybe 3 viruses in about 15 years

for the one at home here and when working with a room full of macs in the past, maybe a tad wee bit more incidents then.

I sometimes borrow Windows machines to get to play some games that are not available for Macs and those things was never clean. Plus it was cumbersome and funny feeling compared to mine. Mac is crispy and responsive.

[frylock]

29. i've had probably the same amount of viruses over the same time period..

currently have 5 windows computers on my home network.

[Angleae]

47. I've had about as much on my PC

and I'm convinced at least 2 are false positives

[Tunkamerica]

53. I've had no viruses in 15 years or so with windows. it just takes some common sense

and luck. As Macs gain market share expect your luck to fade without some extra precautions. My main prob. with apple is the cost and the walled garden approach to computing.

[slampoet]

37. The last Mac Virus I had ruined a floppy back in 1992. The last Win/Unix virus i had took out 500gb

last year.

[TlalocW]

15. Yeah, but it's not for the reason you think

TlalocW

[jmowreader]

45. People don't write Mac viruses because you can't write FUN Mac viruses

It is not possible to erase the disc partition a Mac started up from. In order to format that disc partition, you've got to start the Mac off another disc--a CD, DVD, external hard drive, whatever you've got--first.

Windows is a different story: not only can you erase the startup partition (do they still call it C:?) you can do it with a Word macro.

Add to that the simple fact that compared to coding for Windows, writing software for a Mac is a stone bitch.

So...you can either work really, really hard to cause a little temporary aggravation on a Mac, or work not-so-hard to cause utter devastation on a PC. Which would you choose?

[TlalocW]

64. I choose...

Buying you a sense of humor.

TlalocW

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. They are no more immune than linux, yet linux costs zero. n/t

[Initech]

35. Not true even slightly! Macs are just as vulnerable as the next PC.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/widespread-computer-virus-indicates-mac-users-no-longer-safe/

[Whisp]

36. guess Microsoft is behind that misinformation

because in my experience with many Macs over many years, viruses are not something to worry about whereas if you look at a PC the wrong way it will catch the flu. compared.

[Tunkamerica]

54. your anecdotal evidence has convinced the world that macs are impervious to harm.

congratulations.

[Whisp]

62. not impervious, just much less likely

Some people are getting their gotch in a knot over this and I'm not interested in stupid mac vs. pc wars. So goodnight and good luck.

[dballance]

7. Thank You. Sat there last night watching on my MacBook Pro

and typing this post on it right now. I used to be all Windows all the time. But now I'm a convert.

I guess it shouldn't be surprising they used a bunch of Macs. Look at all the animations and video/still pic feeds and graphs they were using and sharing. Those are all sweet spots for Macs.

[RebelOne]

14. I have had 3 PCs, but became a convert to Mac

when my office switched to the Mac Mini. My PC died and I bought a Mac Mini. It is the best computer I have ever owned.

[LiberalArkie]

22. YEA, I am on my second one, gave my 2009 model to my nephew.

[liberal N proud]

8. Overpriced limited use toys.

[GoneOffShore]

11. You forgot that sarcasm thingy.

[liberal N proud]

17. They are overpriced

Many business applications are not compatible and most of the ones that do are art related.

I can by 2 or 3 PC for the price of an apple.

Same goes for the iPad, iPhone, iPod, all have more affordable options.

[LiberalArkie]

23. Yep sure can. But for that price comes engineering in the USA, development work in the USA

and Chips from Intel plants in Arizona. Other brands not so.

[tinrobot]

41. Not all Apple engineering is done in the US...

...the Intel chips made in Arizona don't go exclusively to Apple, they go to everyone... and Apple outsourced manufacturing 15-20 years ago, just like everyone else did.

Not trying to bash Apple, just setting the record straight.

[AlbertCat]

33. I can by 2 or 3 PC for the price of an apple.

Yeah, but an Apple would have probably told you, you used the wrong word and forgot a plural.


And of course you pay more for better quality. (something your spelling and grammar show you don't seem too concerned about)


Seriously.... the Apple/PC debate is boring. But having had both, I'll take the Mac, thank you. It's good for serious stuff, like art. If you want to play shoot 'em up games, a PC will suffice.

[Egalitarian Thug]

52. And for really serious stuff, like shooting a ton of metal at another planet and landing it in

one piece, they don't use either.

[2on2u]

57. I replaced the screen/display on my Inspiron for a little over a hundred dollars, I have heard

that is is rather pricey to replace a screen on a PB.


http://www.mac-forums.com/forums/apple-notebooks/16646-replacement-screen-cost.html
Old 04-03-2005, 01:20 PM
Try closer to 1000 dollars

750 just for the screen itself and then around 200 bucks for the hinges and cables

[ChazII]

25. Still using the 'tangerine' and 'grape' in my

classroom. They are great for students who need extra drill and practice for math and reading. They also wonderful for keyboarding skills. While 'dinosaurs' they are internet friendly which is useful when working with 8 year-olds.

[Curtland1015]

10. Probably donated.

NASA is working in a budget, they'll take what they can get!

[originalpckelly]

12. If I remember correctly...

NASA has a lot of Java software, which at one time was a native programming language. Now, unfortunately, it's just Objective-C with Java being deprecated. But it still works...

[SomethingFishy]

20. So these guys do something fucking brilliant

and you use it to boost your favorite product...

[originalpckelly]

24. Hey, I have a Mac too...

I bought it so I could think different like everyone else.

[onehandle]

27. They boosted it.

Boosted it to... Mars Bitches!

[Pholus]

60. I guess you'll try a "Yo Mama" joke next?

Yawn.

[frylock]

28. and so are strawmen

[padruig]

30. they recycle too !

I was listening to an interview of the Lead Engineer for EDL (Entry, Descent and Landing) - he explained how they were using the same algorithms used during the Apollo and Shuttle programs to guide the vehicle through the upper atmosphere during the Entry and Descent phase.

The guidance algorithms were updated for air density and other quantitative factors.

[99Forever]

31. Yay for corporate brand loyalty!

Wooo hoooooo...


... my 'puter can beat up your 'puter!




Ahhh, bless your heart.

[Orrex]

32. At a quick tally, I'd guess that those Macs equal about 83% of NASA's annual operating budget

[Sgent]

34. Unix

most scientific tools (vs engineering) are built on Unix -- of which OS X is a variant. Its easy to use their 40 year old scientific applications on a unix machine, but it probably requires millions to port it to the NT kernel.

On top of which, if you've ever priced business class pc's with graphics capabilities, Macs are often cheaper.

[kentauros]

38. OR

it has nothing to do with the hardware, but everything to do with the talent (i.e., the humans and the task-specific software they wrote) operating said hardware.

If this mission had been operated solely on IBM supercomputers and smart workstations, would it have been turned into a thread for "discussion"? Personally, I think not. Although, I think I'll inject that point now.

After a little digging and trying to see what kind of supercomputers JPL uses, I found the following:

Dell Clusters Power Mars Landing Sequence

NASA JPL was able to successfully land the Curiosity rover on the surface of Mars yesterday with a little help from Dell HPC clusters. JPL’s Dell HPC clusters, Galaxy and Nebula, provided vital support to NASA’s Curiosity rover in analyzing the vast amounts of test data needed to correctly prepare the rover for entering the Martian atmosphere and landing it on the planet.

And this, which is rather astounding, given the tone of the OP:

What Powers the Mars Curiosity Rover?
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2408127,00.asp

Curiosity's computer chip also got a speed boost over its younger siblings. It clocks at up to 200 megahertz, 10 times the clock of the Spirit and Opportunity computers. There's also 256MB of RAM and 256KB of electrically erasable programmable read-only memory in Curiosity's calculating engine.

If those specs sound fairly pedestrian, consider that the aforementioned Macbook probably couldn't handle the radiation on Mars. Curiosity runs a BAE RAD 750 processor, a radiation-hardened version of the IBM PowerPC 750. According to BAE, the first RAD 750 processors were used in 2005 on Deep Impact, XSS-11, and Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter missions. They can function at temperatures between -55 degrees and 125 degrees Celsius; Mars temperatures can go as low as -153 and as high as 20 degrees, NASA said.

So, after reading all of that, it appears that the room that was "packed with Macs" was using them pretty much as smart monitors. Still, they did have to be able to talk to the PC computers, so they had their work cut out for them

[joshcryer]

44. Glorified monitors, indeed.

I saw one article that championed NASA making a Photoshop plugin so FITS could work with Macs.

Yet the other night guess what image program they were using on screen?

GIMP.

That's right. Open source GIMP.

[Pholus]

59. I guess *that's* my problem.

FITS = Flexible Image Transport System? An image format?

I remember thinking how cool my laptop was when it worked with FITS images at first as well.

Of course, I was running Linux and it was an IBM Thinkpad with a 133 MHz processor and 32 MB of RAM and the year was 1997 but it was a heady moment to be sure. I could image process at the coffee shop instead of my office!

My current generation of colleagues using Macs for software development are nervously scrutinizing Apple's moves right now. With the introduction of signed code requirements (as optional as they are at the moment) and the plans for a MacOSX App store (indicating a desire for a walled garden ecosystem) it will be interesting to see how it plays out. Your average apple geek loves being a member of an "exclusive" developer's club you have to pay to get into. Your average scientist? Not so much...

[joshcryer]

67. I'm a huge GIMP fan so I noticed they were using GIMP immediately.

GIMP has native support for FITS, but it's not clear that they were even using FITS on landing day. The article was just going out of its way to make some specious argument for Macs.

[Pholus]

70. I figured that panorama work is where GIMP would shine...

There are not too many good tools to do that quickly!

[Fumesucker]

63. FITS stands for Flexible Image Transport System

FITS is not a image processing program, it's a image file format, like JPEG or GIF but far more adaptable..

[joshcryer]

66. Erm, not sure how "Photoshop Plugin" equates "FITS = image processing program."

GIMP has native support for FITS. Photoshop needed a plugin. The article I read was all championing NASA making a Photoshop plugin for FITS... I don't know how what I said could be so fundamentally misunderstood.

NASA even wrote Photoshop plug-ins so images from the Hubble Space Telescope could be opened on both Macs and PCs.

Cute, except on landing day they were using GIMP which didn't even need a plugin and runs on both Macs and PCs. I suppose some users there could be using expensive photoshop and the plugin to view FITS images.

[D23MIURG23]

39. Fun story about computers in science...

I have some lab mates who use mac. They use the same text editing and presentation software I do (microsoft word and powerpoint), but my version of both allows me to edit chemical structures in program, while they have to redraw for each edit.

I like using quantum chemical calculations in my research, and I can do them on my computer. The mac people can't do that with the software the university provides (chemdraw, which has an extension that interfaces with GAMESS, if you have a PC). The mac people could use a naked version of GAMESS (a freeware q-chem program) but they have to produce atomic coordinates somehow and that can be a pain in the ass, and the basic program is much less user friendly.

No one in my chemistry dept. uses a mac to run an instrument that I know of. The instrument computers (including the hydra cluster) mostly run Linux. Earlier this year I had to change the computer that runs our impedence spec, and that required installing a GPIB card on the computer. Can you expand macs in that way? I don't know if there are macs with card slots available, but I've certainly never seen one.

So yes, you can use a mac as a scientist, if you like being at a disadvantage for a lot of important things. A lot of scientist use them, and I'm not sure why they do.

And really, if you call yourself a scientist or an engineer, shouldn't you be able to deal with troubleshooting your computer every now and again?

[calimary]

40. Hey, I just like all the photos of the nerds at work.

Just makes me happy, somehow!

[joshcryer]

42. I'm pretty sure that's not operations and those are just their personal computers.

Operations runs on Windows and *nix variants.



Eyes on Mars was running on some Macs, probably because the other *nix's don't have support for Unity 3D yet.

[WillyT]

43. So Somebody Had To Introduce Acrimony Into A Moment Of Harmony By Bringing MAC v. PC Into It...

Ok... whatever...

I wonder if the actual codes written involved either.

Peace.

[Egalitarian Thug]

46. You don't really believe that Mac OS(whatever) is used on any of the systems that

actually do the work, do you?

[Bonobo]

48. No, but I see lots of rocket scientists buy macs.

That means something. Take it however you want, but given the overall ratio of macs vs. pcs in the marketplace, this preponderance of macs among very intelligent people is significant.

[Egalitarian Thug]

51. The same thing can be said about the Democratic Party and for the same reason.

A computer running Mac's OS does suck less than the same system running a M$ OS. And the fact that price has far less significance for rocket scientists than most is also a factor.

[Tunkamerica]

55. my brother is a rocket scientist and has a pc desktop an ipad for fun stuff.

[Tunkamerica]

56. I think his wife has a mac laptop

[canEHdian]

49. I wish I had a Mac

After two PCs, I was ready for one. Then, my life (and bank account) went into the toilet.

[RebelOne]

69. If and when you get a Mac, get a Mac Mini.

That's what I have and I love it. It is a little box that takes up only a few inches on your desktop. A lot of people now have laptops. But I love my little Mac Mini with its 22-inch flat screen monitor.

[KansDem]

50. Of course! "Macs" is "Mars" spelled with a "c" instead of an "r"!!

See? It's logical!...

[Romulox]

65. The screenie you show is of either a web browser or a PDF viewer. Any phone could do that. nt

[yawnmaster]

68. They are just tools, people. The real work...

came from the brains and hands of those people you see there.

Don't get caught up in the zealous furor regarding tools.
They create nothing important.
It is that thing between the ears that creates, in this case.

[hunter]

71. Academic discounts...

... my wife can get them.

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/findyourschool

Additionally the underlying operating system of macs is a unix derivative, a familiar place for "rocket scientists." (My grandfather the rocket scientist used a slide rule, fancy graph papers, and tables. He was never comfortable with computers.)

I use linux because it's similar to unix, the first modern operating system I learned, back in the 'seventies.

These days the underlying macintosh hardware is the same x86 architecture as the P.C..

The x86 architecture is an abomination. Satan, Bill Gates, and IBM engaged in unholy intercourse and here we are in hell using x86 macs and pee-cees.