RE: mr on Apple web site

   Howard is correct about working directly with the hardware.	We have come
a long way since Tiny BASIC.  Unfortunately during this development, we lost
Peak and Poke and their equivalents.  In the case of Windows XP, one can no
longer write directly to the registers on a board.  It seems that this
restriction also extends to the Microsoft operating system, Windows XP
Embedded, that is supposed to be appropriate for systems such as flow
cytometers and digital microscopes.
   Bob Leif
   -----Original Message-----
From: Howard Shapiro [mailto:hms@shapirolab.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 4:16 PM
To: cyto-inbox
Subject: Re: mr on Apple web site
   Robin Barclay wrote:
   >Well .... some of us PC afficianados hate Macs just as much - personally
I
   >have hated them since they first made it difficult to access their DOS
and
   >write programs in any language (especially for accessing/controlling lab
   >apparatus) - back in the '70's when there were several different options
-
   >not just PC's.  I am glad that the "PC" became a standard (there were
too
   >many diferent systems) and that IBM did not hang on to it the way Apple
kept
   >the Mac in house (you get more for your money with a PC because many
   >different people make them).  You don't often get PC people knocking
Macs
   >the way that the Mac people knock PCs - there seems to be a lot of
Microsoft
   >paranoia.  In my opinion PCs are much more common and versatile in labs
than
   >Macs - especially outside the USA - and will eventually become the
standard
   >for interfacing with lab equipment..... and they can "look cool" if you
shop
   >around for the right case if that's important to you.
   I can't pass up the opportunity to get into the PC/Mac battle - I hate
them 
   both, but there aren't really alternatives (yes, I know, there's Linux,
but 
   it's probably even harder to hook up a Linux system to hardware than it
is 
   to hook a Mac up to hardware).
   Of course, what started this thread was the assertion in the piece about 
   Mario on Apple's web site that there were 15,000 to 20,000 Mac-based flow

   cytometers out there. The best estimates I had from industry people in 
   early 2003 when I was finishing up the 4th Edition of PFC was that the 
   total number of systems from all manufacturers in use was under 20,000.
If 
   that's correct, BD would need a 75% market share to account for the low
end 
   estimate of 15,000 Mac-based machines. I'd be interested to know where
the 
   15,000 to 20,000 figure came from.
   The old (68000 series and possibly early PowerPC) Macs were difficult,
but 
   not impossible to connect to hardware; it was easier to work with the
PC's 
   ISA bus, which, while slow, was perfectly adequate to do most flow 
   cytometric data acquisition and analysis. There were decent versions of 
   Forth, which was one of the first and best languages designed for 
   controlling hardware from mini- and microcomputers, for both PC (DOS) and

   the Mac (Forth was the first Mac programming language made commercially 
   available, at a time when the only other option was buying the very 
   expensive Lisa from Apple on which to develop Mac software). I found 
   MacForth easier to program with than the Windows Forths (or other Windows

   languages, e.g., Delphi), but my old Macs used to crash all the time.
   So what makes me unhappy with both Windows [and Windows machines] and the

   Mac in their current incarnations? It is now significantly harder for
mere 
   mortals to write software to get hardware to communicate with either PCs
or 
   Macs; the gain in complexity associated with the PCI bus, USB/USB2, 
   FireWire(IEEE 1394), etc. is greater than the gain in speed and 
   convenience. Also, in making the operating systems more stable (and Win
XP, 
   despite its security issues, is almost as stable as Mac's Unix-based OS
X), 
   both Microsoft and Apple elected to eliminate the ability of their
computer 
   hardware to respond rapidly to interrupts (latencies are now in the tens
of 
   thousands of instruction cycles), meaning that any really fast hardware 
   attachment for either a PC or a Mac now needs to have a DSP in it,
whereas 
   if the fast interrupt response had been preserved, the hardware
attachments 
   could have been made much simpler and cheaper. Linux also takes fast 
   interrupt response off the table, so it doesn't represent a viable 
   alternative. If you go to Apple's web site and look at what data 
   acquisition hardware is available for Macs, particularly for Macs running

   OS X, there isn't much, and many of the companies that supported the Mac
in 
   that area have dropped Mac support for their newer products. That is 
   undoubtedly one big reason why BD's newer digital pulse processing 
   cytometers are running on the PC platform.
   That doesn't stop anybody from analyzing FCS files on Macs. FlowJo is 
   well-conceived flow cytometry software; one reason it is as good as it is

   is that it was written by people who do a lot of flow cytometry, and 
   cutting edge flow cytometry at that. But there are other people who do a 
   lot of good flow cytometry who have written good software, for PCs as
well 
   as for Macs.
   For the record, I have a G4 PowerBook, which I use mostly for the iLife 
   applications, which are slick. It doesn't crash more than once every
couple 
   of months, but the same is true of my Windows 2000 and XP systems. OS X
can 
   be as infuriating as Windows when one or another aspect of it goes
counter 
   to your intuition or to what you have gotten used to. Macs, while
somewhat 
   more expensive, are much better made than many PCs, and they are
certainly 
   aesthetically pleasing. If there were a reasonable alternative to 
   Microsoft's Office applications for the Mac, I might consider switching. 
   The 12.1" PowerBook is a nice portable, but it's over a pound heavier
than 
   the Fujitsu laptop I now use, which has pretty much the same speed,
memory, 
   and drive capabilities (OK, not DVD-R, but I don't burn a lot of DVDs).
   However, I really wish Apple had stuck with the plan they had a few years

   back of writing a Mac operating system for Intel hardware. I think that 
   died when Microsoft bailed Apple out with a few hundred mil. If it were 
   possible to run OS X and XP mano a mano on the same hardware, there'd be
a 
   more rational basis for comparison. But, as may be the case for the 
   November election, minds, once made up, are not easily changed.
   -Howard