Computer analogy for neurology

Post Reply New Topic

I thought of this after having set up my new Mac at home today:

Neurotypicals are like PCs. They're generally made to be compatible with Windows - the most ubiquitous operating system, and also the most lucrative. Windows is generalistic (made to run on a wide variety of computers) and user-friendly, and a bunch of PCs running Windows can easily network with each other, but Windows machines are easy to exploit through malicious software (sociopolitical spin). Some of them can also run Linux, which is a bit less user-friendly but not prone to all the hijacking. (The Linux machines would be the less mainstream NTs.) The software and hardware are not really custom-made for each other, and this can detract from their efficiency, but the generalism, cross-compatibility, and ease of finding software make PC machines worthwhile for many. They can generally get the job done, at least the better-built ones. Also, there's anti-malicious-code software to help make up for some of the PC's weakness to hijacking, so that all is not lost for them, although this can slow them down further...but they tend to have specs that make up for their inefficiency.

Aspies are like Macs. They're extremely efficient for their specs and have a customized operating system that, differing from the mainstream, are far less susceptible to the more common malicious codes that would hijack them. The problem is that their software isn't as ubiquitous, so they don't always mix well in the PC world. They can also cost a bit more, but be worth it.

Each has its advantages, and can be powerful if used right and taken care of, or a pain in the ass if you don't make the most of it and keep it in good shape.

From the little that I know about computer systems, that makes sense. Heh, I always wondered if there was a specific reason why I enjoy Macs rather than PCs.

I've only thought of it as NTs running windows and Aspies running linux. Windows is compatable to most software. It does the job its user friendly. Its not overly great at any thing it does execpt for compatablity. Its also easy to set up. If it runs into any thing it doesn't like it sjust crashes(ignores).

Linux is more like a aspie OS. Its insain to try and set up. It takes alot of effort. It has some things that its really good at while other things it takes alot of effort to do. Like compatablity. Most applications that are on windows (NTs) don't run nativly in linux. So you have to use emulators or other tools like emulators to try and run the software. There are so many differen't distros that alot of the time its even hard just to make one application that works on more than one distro. Linux takes effort and time to do alot of things windows does naturally.

Definitely see the analogy. Though I'd see Linux and Macs as both Aspish (Linux being the more literal side and Mac representing those who are more artistic).

yes. but those of you who think windows is user friendly are forgetting that the NT world runs on deception. and i bet you've never had to fix the blue screen of death...

NTs when some thing is wrong ask some one else. They will know how to fix it.

Fixing the bluescreen of death is still very easy compared to dealing with Linux. Worst case senario you have to back up important files and format C and reinstall. Linux just getting the prick to run your hard ware can require you learning to recompile the kernal and all sorts of stuff. To a NT I don't care why its not working fix it.

Correction: never been ABLE to fix the blue screen of death, because when you get it, it usually means your hard drive is history.

Im guessing you don't run windows? and have never run windows? The blue screen of death doesn't mean the hard drives fryed. I don't know where you got that idea from. The blue screen of death is just some thing that happens on a regular bases (in windows 95, 98, ME and 2000 daily). If windows users had to buy a new hard drive every time there was a blue screen of death then they would move to mac or linux.

Fixing the blue screen of death is easy. Reboot.

The most recent cause of the blue screen of death on a Windows machine that I've experienced was a dying hard drive in a two-year-old Compaq that was roasting its own innards as its kind had been known to do. My sister's boyfriend had fixed it temporarily, and partitioned the hard drive so that the parts that had died were not being used, but after a little more fiddling with it the hard drive committed suicide. The blue screen of death had fixed itself a few times through rebooting before that...but it was a symptom of much worse things to come.

That wasn't the OS then was it? It was the hard drive. I've had Linux stop working before and tell me some thing about hardware failure. Still have not not sure whats failed on the Machine that it was on but its either the mobo or the processor but some things stoping it from working.

This is very true.



Um. You can do the same in Linux. Back up files, and restore later.



Sure can , if you do things the hard way (manual set up). I still do things like this. Most of the time it is not so bad though - the setup's autodetect can handle most things.

Fixing the BSOD is not easy. Rebooting gets rid of it, but it can come back. Making it go away for good is hard - trying to figure out which of a hundred software changes, hardware updates, is causing the problem. Not fun. Linux has similar problems but it actually makes diagnosis such things easier.

Worse are the crashes that are so bad that you don't even get a BSOD. I also heard that Windows 9x has some "features" that cause a BSOD, which can't be fixed. This last part I am not certain is factual, though.