On May 3, 2009, at 12:03, Nicholas M Glykos wrote:
Everything generally just works from the installers so I would say
you
are more likely to be able to just get on with your structure-related
science on this OS that Linux.
I tried to recall when was the last time that we determined a
structure
without having to write a single line of code, or without having to
modify
sources (and recompile). Guess what: never happened (and, hopefully,
never
will ;-)
Nichola - you are a lucky man to have such fun with your structures.
I am having a hard time trying to recall the last time I had to write
a single
line of code to solve a structure and I can most certainly ensure you
that I have
not compiled anything else than ARP/wARP (and this only in OSX) for
the last
8-12 years. Most (if not all) structures we solve happen through GUIs
and command lines.
I am not a Windows fun and I do not even like Windows. However, the
inhabitants
of this planet seem to be quite fond of this OS, so this fact - right
or wrong - cannot
be ignored. There is no fundamental reason that crystallography cannot
be done in
Windows. I seem to recall - and please correct me if I am wrong - that
Ralf has
once posted that some phenix modules run faster in Windows than other
systems.
I was configuring yesterday a 399 Euro machine from "Plaisio" (I am on
"vacation" in greece)
for my niece and I installed PyMol on it - and - hey: it actually
look very much Ok.
And to be honest Vista is not as bad as most OSX forums think they are.
Will I change my Mac then? No. Will I scrap the FC10 workstations at
the lab
and install Windows 7 or Vista? No. Does this mean that Windows is a
useless OS? No.
I guess this email was not very helpful and from this discussion I
will keep
the coconut shells trick that Bill reminded us ... ;-)
Best -
Tassos
