Re: [ccp4bb] Crystallographic computing platform recommendations?

- Protein crystallography

Main steps:

- Protein purification
- Crystallisation

Special:

- Programs for crystallography
- X-ray detectors

Basic tutorials:

   - Chemistry
   - Protein
   - Peptide
   - Amino Acids

Xtal community:

- CCP4BB

CCP4bb navigation

CCP4bb <-- 1999 <-- November 1999 <-- 30 November 1999

Previous message:
Subject: Re: Crystallographic computing platform recommendations?
From: Peter Keller pkeller {- at -} GLOBALPHASING {- dot -} COM
Date: 2008-11-18

Next message:
Subject: Re: Crystallographic computing platform recommendations?
From: Juergen Bosch jbosch {- at -} U {- dot -} WASHINGTON {- dot -} EDU
Date: 2008-11-18

Subject: Re: Crystallographic computing platform recommendations?
From: Jeff Speir speir {- at -} SCRIPPS {- dot -} EDU
Date: 2008-11-18

We also use OSX almost exclusively for our virus crystallography
projects, for the same reasons given by Bill and Anastassis. Every
now and then we have to spend time re-compiling some programs with
larger parameters or up to 64-bit, so don't want the added hassle of
tinkering with the hardware. More expensive, yes, but cost savings
in other areas, namely time and maintenance. Also provides wide
software compatibility between productivity/office and command line
applications on a single machine. The Macs have good 64-bit hardware
and OSX 10.5 runs 64-bit on the command line - the 32-bit and 64-bit
programs run together transparently. Currently having fun with an 8-
core Mac Pro using 64-bit multi-threaded CNS v1.21. We can now run a
capsid refinement in just under 50 minutes (uses all 8 cores and 3Gb
of RAM), a remarkable speed increase. Many thanks to the CNS authors
and contributors, and all the other software authors for OSX
compatibility and support . Linux would work fine as well, but for
the reasons given OSX on the Macs has been a highly productive
solution for our needs.

Cheers,

Jeff

On Nov 18, 2008, at 7:42 AM, Anastassis Perrakis wrote:

> On Nov 18, 2008, at 16:26, William G. Scott wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Same here. Lets also say that I have seen many people in the lab
> switch from Linux and Windows to OSX, but nobody from OSX back to
> Windows or Linux. That must be saying something.
>
> We still use btw Linux workstations for stereo and I am happy with
> them as well.
>
> As Harry says, choose what you are most comfortable with(*).
>
> A.
>
> (*) If thats Windows Vista though, take a break and meditate,
> think of the bigger picture of life,
> donate to the Bill Gates foundation which is what Bill Gates should
> be remembered for,
> and find the nearest MacStore. ;-)
>
>> Bill
>

CCP4bb navigation

CCP4bb <-- 1999 <-- November 1999 <-- 30 November 1999

Previous message:
Subject: Re: Crystallographic computing platform recommendations?
From: Peter Keller pkeller {- at -} GLOBALPHASING {- dot -} COM
Date: 2008-11-18

Next message:
Subject: Re: Crystallographic computing platform recommendations?
From: Juergen Bosch jbosch {- at -} U {- dot -} WASHINGTON {- dot -} EDU
Date: 2008-11-18