Mac OSX because of Time Machine, Illustrator and crystallographic
software in one happy box. XP on a Virtual Box for emergencies (SAXS,
AUC and ITC programs).
Though with Microsoft and Apple both pushing towards gestures, fingertip
interaction and tablets, Linux will be the only option for laptops in
two/three years' time.
Mind that if you buy a MacBook, there's only one (hefty 15") model
without a mirror-coated screen.
Andreas
On 09/08/2012 3:58, Nat Echols wrote:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Jacob Keller
<j-kell...@fsm.northwestern.edu> wrote:
one. Are there any really reasonable arguments for preferring Mac over
windows (or linux) with regard to crystallography? What can Mac/Linux do
that windows cannot (especially considering that there is Cygwin)? What
wonderful features am I missing?
Mac vs. Linux: mostly a matter of personal preference, but I agree
with Graeme. Most programs run equally well on either - with Coot a
partial exception, apparently due to problems with the X11
implementation (but once you get used to these, it's not a big deal).
Windows, on the other hand, simply doesn't support the full range of
modern crystallography software. And in my experience, it has
crippling flaws that mean some programs will always work better on
Mac/Linux. I wouldn't ever endorse trying to use Windows for serious
scientific computing unless you need to run an application that won't
work on any other OS, and as far as I know there isn't a single
(macromolecular) crystallography program that falls into this
category.
-Nat
