I've gone off computers completely after finding that if I stare hard
enough at my diffraction pattern I can sketch the density by hand :-)!
Actually it's OSX for me because I view myself as a scientist who uses
computers rather than a computer expert who uses science. Linux is
just that bit too complicated and windows still lacks function.
Simon
On 18 Nov 2008, at 16:09, Warren DeLano wrote:
They're all great!
- Linux offers limitless possibility with its concomitant complexity
and chaos.
- Mac OS X offers the design integrity, consistency, and efficiency
of centralized control.
- Windows guarantees lowest common denominator functionality for a
rock bottom price.
So why not buy hardware & software that can run all three?
...with native-like performance.
...simultaneously.
-----Original Message-----
From: CCP4 bulletin board on behalf of William G. Scott
Sent: Tue 11/18/2008 7:37 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Crystallographic computing platform
recommendations?
On Nov 18, 2008, at 7:01 AM, Mischa Machius wrote:
> For linux, I would recommend a commercial solution,
For linux, I actually ditched the commercial solution for Ubuntu,
because it was vastly easier as a non-expert to maintain.
Having said that, like you, I have found running Mac OS X to be the
most cost-effective in terms of time and utility.
Bill
