VLADIMIR@wehi.dn.mu.oz (02/19/91)
Hello Bionetters,
I have a great pleasure reading this newsgroup. Some interesting
issues have been tackled here. However I have feeling that in a way
we are loosing an important point.
What about the opinion of end users - scientists, biologists, doctors ...
My impression is that for an average user the best system is the one that
i) produces results
ii) (s)he knows how to use it
Molecular biology software covers a broad field, including bits of
everything. Some projects require PC-s, some require supercomputers.
Which of these are better?
I would like to hear more (both positive and negative) criticism from
the end users about their software and platforms, then we can decide
more easily what is "the best" at this moment.
Vladimir Brusic
The Walter And Eliza Hall
Institute of Medical Research
Melbourne, Australiardkeys@CCVR1.CC.NCSU.EDU (Bob Keys) (02/21/91)
My 0.02 pfennigs worth..... I use a pc for everything that will run comfortably on a pc. I use unix boxes for everything that will not run comfortably on a pc. PC's and unix boxes are converging in their power, and potential, so that the differences are becoming minor, and mainly in the user interface/os interface. If you want to do complex 3-d graphics, you are currently and for perhaps the next 5 years, stuck with a workstation. Thats's life....... now why don't we get back to the molecular biology..... R.D. Keys, rdkeys@ccvr1.cc.ncsu.edu