The perfect computer for a Biochemistry program?

[Coconutman39]

Hey all,

I am just finishing up my undergrad and will be attending a PhD program next year for biochemistry. Recently, I dropped my Mac and have a huge crack in the screen, so I am looking into buying a new computer. Does anybody have an opinion on the choice between PC and Mac? In the end, I imagine it won't matter (this is a personal computer, so it probably won't be running lab programs) and comes down to personal preference. I just wanted to check in and see if there is a distinct advantage to either.

Thanks in advanced!

[Eigen]

Find out what platform your PI/Research Group/New Department use. That's what system the software will be available for, you'll be writing drafts in, and past members data will be stored in. Even on a personal computer, you'll be amazed at how often you end up using it for work, or want to be able to pull things up on it. And free software is always a good thing.

Can you get along on a different system? Sure. But it's much easier, if you have the chance, if your stuff syncs up well with everyone elses.

If you had to pick ahead of time, I'd go with a Mac, mostly because you can dual boot OSX and Win on one, whereas you can't boot OSX (easily) on a PC. Hence, a Mac gives you the best range of options.

Edited April 30, 2012 by Eigen

[Chronos]

PC. Everything in science is run on PCs, not to mention you get a better bang for your buck in performance.

If I had a dime for every lecturer who had problems connecting to a projector with a Mac, I'd be rich. Not rich enough to pay for a Mac though.

[Eigen]

All of our theory groups use Macs, as do half of the other groups in my department, just as an observation.

All our computations are run on a supercomputer, so all you need is a nix terminal, which interfaces great with Mac.

Edited April 30, 2012 by Eigen

[aberrant]

I worked in two labs and majority of the computers were PC (I'd say most of them have Windows, one or two are linux). Only one of my former PI uses a Mac laptop and desktop, for his personal uses.

[prolixity]

PC. Everything in science is run on PCs, not to mention you get a better bang for your buck in performance.

If I had a dime for every lecturer who had problems connecting to a projector with a Mac, I'd be rich. Not rich enough to pay for a Mac though.

All of my instruments run in a unix environment. My simulations are conducted on a unix computing cluster. Everyone in my group, besides the European post-docs owns a mac as does nearly everyone else in my program.

Unless your boss requires you to use Sigmaplot or OriginPro, you have no reason to purchase a PC. Macs can SSH and SFTP directly into your cluster without fumbling around. Macs can run Igor, Matlab, Mathematica, R faster than comparable PCs.

Also, Preview is probably the most convenient program I've ever used for copying images from papers and saving them as .jpgs for inclusion in presentations. If you can learn how to use GIMP, you'll never need to pay for photoshop. Oh yeah, and MacPorts is probably the easiest way to install the software you're going to ever need.

If you need to run a windows program, just use WINE. Most programs run well in that environment.

[Eigen]

Prolixity summed it up quite well.

Our department has a subscription to OriginPro, but those with macs just use a VM to run it. Thankfully, plotting software is not a huge resource hog and runs very well in a VM.

Which, of course, brings me back to the point about being able to run Windows on a Mac, but not OSX on a PC (for all practical purposes).