Why good platforms ignore mac?

hedron said:
Because Macs suck. No, seriously. They are way overpriced. The EULA is ten times as restrictive as MSFT's. .
More...

This allegedly restrictive EULA hasn't prevented me from compiling and running all the open source software I want on my Mac, just as one would on any Linux or other UNIX-like system.

Regarding price, if you configure a PC with similar specs to a high end Mac, you will find that the PC is often more expensive.

There's absolutely no benefit to using a Mac other than one being driven by marketing hype..
More...

I consider having a polished UNIX workstation which just works, without any hassles, to be a benefit.

And as you have pointed out, there's no software. And the software it does have gets outdated everytime a new OSX comes out..
More...

I am successfully running a program last updated in 1992 on the latest version of Mac OS X.

Then you need to buy a whole new piece of hardware just to update flash player.
More...

The latest version of Flash Player runs on Macs released in January 2006 and later, which is to say, on any Intel based Mac.

The solution is simple. Buy a PC. It's a better reason than buying a new Mac because you need to update flash player.
More...

If you prefer Windows PCs, by all means use them. Some of us prefer to use other platforms and are quite happy with them.
 
green.green said:
A comparable mac will run windows faster than a pc. It is because the Mac OS is built on top of unix rather than DOS.
More...

UNIX on it's worst day is miles ahead of Windows on it's best day. Any UNIX based OS going to be tried-and true, rock-solid, and secure right off the bat, and anybody who's had exposure to both windows and UNIX/Linux will tell you the same thing. That's what happens when one operating system has 20+ years head start before the other.
 
green.green said:
A comparable mac will run windows faster than a pc. It is because the Mac OS is built on top of unix rather than DOS. I'm not saying its worth the markup but the guy already has a mac so...
More...

You don't really know what UNIX is, do you?

bawr said:
I consider having a polished UNIX workstation which just works, without any hassles, to be a benefit.

I am successfully running a program last updated in 1992 on the latest version of Mac OS X.

The latest version of Flash Player runs on Macs released in January 2006 and later, which is to say, on any Intel based Mac.
More...

eh... Mac OSX 10.5 was released in 2007, which isn't compatible with Flash Player, according to adobe's website. My aunt had 10.5 and I thought she just didn't know what she was doing until I tried to update her flash player, and yes it's intel. They purposely outdate software to force you to upgrade. I was just using flash player as one example. It's even worse if you own an iPhone.

And EULA's don't prevent you from doing things. It's corporate policy. It's not law. There's a difference. MSFT's EULA hasn't prevented anyone from pirating their software, but people do it anyway. I would be breaking Apple's EULA by installing it on my PC. But I am not breaking Microsoft's EULA by installing Windows on this same PC. That's not to say that I can't put OSX on it. I'd just be violating the EULA.

And Windows works without any hassles either. It's just that there's a far wider array of software for it. That's why it's practical to use.
 
hedron said:
eh... Mac OSX 10.5 was released in 2007, which isn't compatible with Flash Player, according to adobe's website. My aunt had 10.5 and I thought she just didn't know what she was doing until I tried to update her flash player, and yes it's intel. They purposely outdate software to force you to upgrade. I was just using flash player as one example.
More...

Your aunt's Intel based Mac can be upgraded to Mac OS X 10.6 in order to run the latest version of Flash Player. There would be no need to buy new hardware, as you claimed earlier in the thread.

It's even worse if you own an iPhone.
More...

We are discussing Macs, not iPhones, but there isn't a smartphone maker that supports the latest version of the relevant operating system on its hardware for a longer period than Apple does on iPhones and iPads. Many smartphones don't even support the latest version of their operating system when they are released.

And EULA's don't prevent you from doing things. It's corporate policy. It's not law. There's a difference. MSFT's EULA hasn't prevented anyone from pirating their software, but people do it anyway. I would be breaking Apple's EULA by installing it on my PC. But I am not breaking Microsoft's EULA by installing Windows on this same PC. That's not to say that I can't put OSX on it. I'd just be violating the EULA.
More...

So you are upset that you cannot install Mac OS X on a generic PC?!

And Windows works without any hassles either. It's just that there's a far wider array of software for it. That's why it's practical to use.
More...

In my experience, Windows is nothing but hassle. If you like it, use it, but please don't spread disinformation about other platforms.
 
I have used windows since version 1 in 1993.Then Win95,Win NT, Vista and Win 7.

I upgraded to an iMac in 2012. I run Windows 7 using Parallels while concurrently running Mavericks. Works like a dream. Runs Windows much better then any PC I have ever owned. Never crashes,slows down or any compatibility issues.

The Windows apps I use are:
1. I.B TWS ( my Broker)
2. Multicharts using a Tradestation data feed
3. Tradestation 9.1
4. Matlab
5.Sierra Charts

All at the same time. I have never had a software crash or any issue with these applications.

I would never use a PC again by choice. Just run Windows on the mac.

There is I.B TWS and Matlab for OSx. Sierra Charts plans to release a OSx version this year.

You just dont know what you just dont know.

OSx highly recommended.
 
I think we should keep the discussion honest. It is not about what is popular or cool or hip , but the question was about which platform is more useful and why software developers often ignore Mac.

I have to agree with hedron that a PC is way more versatile and useful than any Mac for the following reasons:

* Someone claimed building/buying a PC with similar specs than a Mac would be more expensive. I think that is simply wrong. Take the top of the line Mac (I think it retails for 12-16k USD and you can easily build a PC with similar specs for the half the price. PC -> price advantage

* You can completely customize a PC which you can hardly do with a Mac. Virtually EVERY piece of hardware is exchangeable. Can you, for example, run monitors through USB 3.0 port (USB monitors or via adapter USB -> HDMI/DVI on Mac? Hardly any adapter is available that runs on Macs. I am just listing one out of uncountable use cases. Anyone who claims that a Mac can be FULLY customized is not even aware that he/she already ended up with a PC with an Apple logo printed on it. In many ways the two groups are merging more and more, and at some point even Apple realizes that all it has left in terms of the computer business is an Operating System.

* Windows OS definitely does not run faster on a Mac than on a similar spec PC. Why would it? There is no technical reason why that should be the case. Nor does a Windows OS run more stable on a Mac than on a PC. Complete bollocks of anyone who claims such. (Please cite SPECIFIC reasons if you refute this)

* Windows Instability? Well, guess what, if I want to moan about Windows 7 (which never crashed for me, nor have I had a single intrusion, malware, or other attack) then I can just run a Linux version on my PC. What most Mac prophets ignore when they complain about Win OS instability is that the 10-20 software programs that run on a typical Mac are far outpaced by the about 50-100 installed programs on a typical PC. Which brings me to the last point...

* Software compatibility. Not only do most Mac users have to wait way longer for the newest releases (wait, Office for Mac newest version 2011? Lol. Oh, I get it, you can use the Windows Office version, which makes you have Windows OS as well, which makes me wonder why you would have a Mac in the first place ;-) Games (not that I play at all) for Mac? Pacman? Oh, need Windows OS again? Funny. But hey, you can at least rely on all the Java based apps, and web apps.

* And let's not forget, if you run On OS X and want to run Windows software it takes WAY LONGER on the Mac to start up the application than starting it natively on the PC. Sure, if you already run the virtualization and have it started then it is essentially as fast as on a PC. But then you would be running 2 OSs in parallel, doubling system resource take-up (or at least greatly increasing the resource footprint).

* Last but not least, keep in mind that Safari is one of the least supported browser of all when it comes to web applications and web services. There are uncountable online web services and applications that are optimized for Google Chrome and IE. On the other hand, there is hardly any web app out there that I would know of that Chrome or IE cannot handle. But I am sure Facebook renders just fine on Safari ;-) (sorry my being ironic)

Now, do not get me wrong, I think the design of Macs is slick (though the OS looks ridiculously basic and outdated) and yes, sure, if you run your 10-20 apps (and never surf porn) then it is most likely pretty stable. But what other benefit does a Mac really have? I run systematic trading applications on Windows servers for over 10 years now and guess what, hardly ever have I had issues that originated with the OS itself. I also need to concede that there are specific niche use cases that lend themselves to using Linux. If you operate high frequency trading algorithms then Win OS is a huge no go. Having said that for the mainstream case I do not see the point why anyone would want to purchase a Mac in 2014

P.S. I think I have sufficient insight into both platforms as I started with an Apple 2e when I was in my low teens, coded Turbo Pascal, C++, Assembler on this machine and later Macs and have until recently followed the newest Mac releases (seriously considered a 12 core version). I was not convinced mostly for software incompatibility reasons.
 
Let's step back for a moment and consider the primary market for Apple computers: Moms and Dads who only want to perform basic tasks (email, internet), school children whose schools have been fed the Apple BS, and some older graphics design folks who still prefer the older style interface. As a share of the overall personal computing market Apple claim a very small share, perhaps 10% tops. (Can someone provide a real market-share number please?)

Most actual businesses choose the run Windows for a variety of reasons, typically compatibility, ease of IT support and performance in the main, because also they are not tied to whatever conditions that Apple decide to impose on them in terms of hardware, plus by far the bulk of serious applications are written for the Windows platform.

Virtually all trading applications of any real note are written for Windows. Sure, there are a few basic ones that will work on a Mac but try getting anything at the CTA level that works on a Mac - ain't gonna happen.

Yes, you can run Win OS with Parallels or Wine or whatever over the Apple OS but why in God's name would you bother? All that does is cripple any performance that might have been there, and the Mac will still be a pain with other hardware. OTOH if you have no need for performance then this will work, but why would anyone bother? Seriously now.

Summary: Mac is a nice toy but it is not designed for serious number-crunching work. Now that Mac's run the same Intel CPU family that PC's run they are still slower generally and from personal experience they are a total pain to interface with non-Apple hardware.
 
I think the title for this thread should have been along the lines of why Linux/Unix environments are ignored, instead of Macs. In any case, as indicated in other posts, the reason is that a lot of trading software is developed either for retail traders, and the majority of retail traders are running Windows instead of Linux, Unix, etc. (or at least have dual-boot machines, multiple computers, etc.), or for businesses, where compatibility with other software is needed, as well as ease of IT support, etc. (as was also mentioned). If they targeted Linux/Unix users, they would alienate many others.

As for serious number crunching work though, most is done in Linux/Unix. Go to any top university and look at what the grad students or postdocs in the hard sciences are using, or look what OS is run on their local cluster, or even look at what OS supercomputers use (e.g., Titan). I know of very few such people (well, none off the top of my head) that use Windows as their primary OS.

This message was typed with a Mac (my next laptop is back to PC+Linux though)...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top