As Warren pointed out, dual-boot is so 20th century it's surprising people still bother with it. For me, dual boot (never mind it was on a fantastic Thinkpad) was the major reason to go for OSX. I was simply too sick of it.. It might sound like heresy to true Macolytes but I feel I have now the advantages of Linux (shell, fink, scientific programs) and XP (commercial programs) in one box, and I can't see why anyone would prefer to do science any other way.
Andreas On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Christopher Bahl <ccp4.b...@gmail.com>wrote: > I'm surprised that dual booting hasn't been brought up yet. A dual boot > machine has two (or more if you like) operating systems installed to > different hard drive partitions, and switching between them is as simple as > restarting. All major distributions of linux nowadays come with the option > to set up dual boot during installation, so it's very easy to get going. > This way you are able to get the graphical benefits of a host platform over > a virtual machine without the necessity of a dedicated computer for each > operating system. > > -Chris > > > > Warren DeLano wrote: > >> My advice: >> Embrace virtualization for all tasks except interactive 3D visualization. >> >> If you're not yet familiar with VMware, Parallels, or open-source >> work-alikes, then it is high time you joined the revolution --- the rest of >> us have been running Mac OS X, Linux, and Windows on the same hardware >> *simultaneously* for years now. >> So long as you can dedicate at least 1-2 GB of RAM per running OS, it >> works great, and you get many other benefits from breaking the link between >> OS and hardware (e.g. easy backup & restore, better security, snapshots, >> test before you upgrade, trivial migration to new hardware, never reinstall, >> never have to buy new software, etc). >> >> Unfortunately, however, for interactive 3D visualization, you must still >> choose the host OS platform which runs your favorite visualization tools >> best, since effective virtualization of OpenGL remains an elusive goal. >> >> Personally, I prefer Mac hardware and typically use Mac OS X as the host >> operating system. But, as I write this, I am also simultaneously running >> Windows for Excel & PowerPoint and GNU/Linux for open-source software >> development. >> >> Of course, there are good reasons for running other host OS platform >> instead, such as to obtain native 3D graphics support under Linux or ActiveX >> Controls under Windows. >> The point is, you don't have to choose just one OS anymore. This survey >> seems to suffer from an outdated assumption. >> Cheers, >> Warren >> ________________________________________ >> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:ccp...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of >> Roger Rowlett >> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 8:04 AM >> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK >> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Computer hardware and OS "survey" >> >> Well, Coot, O, Pymol, CNS, and CCP4i, as well as Open-EPMR all have >> Windows versions. The main issues with a Windows workflow are (1) jobs will >> run significantly slower than in Linux, and (2) the DOS command shell is not >> as powerful as Linux, although it can be extended by installing DOS versions >> of Linux commands and utilities. You will also lose access to a number of >> Linux(Unix)-only XRD tools, but those are getting fewer each year. It's also >> easier, more stable, and more secure to set up a laboratory data server in >> Linux than in Windows. You will also find that you can get excellent >> computing performance out of fairly modest hardware in Linux compared to >> Windows. >> >> I'm not sure there is much "institutional support" required for Linux if >> you know how to install your own OS and software. All I need from my >> networking people is a hole in the firewall for my MAC address and SSH port. >> After that, there is not much for IT to do for me other than stay out of the >> way. Ubuntu has made it a lot easier than it has been to maintain your own >> Linux systems, but I'm still currently wedded to Fedora. The main Linux >> headache is hardware support, especially printers and graphics drivers for >> Nvidia cards, but even that is relatively painless now. >> >> Cheers, >> ________________________________________ >> Roger S. Rowlett >> Professor >> Colgate University Presidential Scholar >> Department of Chemistry >> Colgate University >> 13 Oak Drive >> Hamilton, NY 13346 >> >> tel: (315)-228-7245 >> ofc: (315)-228-7395 >> fax: (315)-228-7935 >> email: rrowl...@mail.colgate.edu >> >> Link,Todd M wrote: My home institution, in effort to cut costs, is making >> an effort to push those of us on Macs onto PCs. Up till now they have been >> very generous via a lease program for computer hardware, but that is >> changing given the current economics. The institution currently does not >> support Linux so we are limited to Mac and Windows OS. >> We certainly make use of William Scotts crystallography on OS X (thanks >> so much!) so our main argument is that we would have far more support "out >> there" for crystallography on the Mac than we would have for on Windows. >> But to be fair (and hopefully bolster our argument) I should find out if >> that is true. I did not find an equal web support page for Windows. >> >> A volunteer survey will be distorted (probably by Mac fanboys like me) so >> I am asking for peoples best guesstimate as to what % use of Mac, Windows, >> or Linux is out there for data processing and model building. Our core >> programs are coot, o, pymol, cns, and ccp4 but we certainly make occasional >> use of other crystallography programs out there (solve, epmr...) >> >> Also what are the relative crystallography support for Mac vs. Windows. >> >> Thanks in advance. >> >> Todd >> >> >> >> >
