But data is usually not, and chances are that the crash will take
with it irreplaceable data which was acquired just after the
last backup. :-)
Interestingly, we have a PE-SCIEX mass spec which uses a Mac for
control/data processing). Very stable - almost never have to re-boot
(and when I do, usually due to Netscape). Probably re-boot about twice as
often as the SGI's on the NMR..which is not often. There are a few burps which
I would not have with a UNIX system though.
But then again, NMR control/process is a bit more complex than MS.
>If ease of use is the issue a macintosh operating system would obviously
>be the
(heh heh!)
I can see it now - the announcement from <favorite_NMR_Company> in 1999
that due to the fact that PowerPC is clearly faster than the Intel offerings,
and Windows is too unstable to do any serious work (yow!)
and since Apple has moved to a UNIX-based
Rhapsody/Carbon/OS-X/Whatever_we're_calling_our_OS_today,
all new spectrometers will ship with G4/500 Macs running OS-XI !
(the preceding was a joke, just in case it's not apparent...>)
> Most present 'serious' NMR processing programs are for
>various flavours of unix.
Thank you for the opening.
I present to you this Interesting Link:
http://www.mackido.com/Dojo/UnixNMac.html
Read and be enlightened. ;-)
>Stability and flexibility are the main issues! If someone can prove that
>an NT
>system is significantly more stable, and flexible, than a unix/linux
>operating
>environment I could be willing to go with the clunky NT interface. I would
>hate
>to see a weeklong 43Ca experiment, or triple nucleus nD experiment, or an
>hour
>long human csi experiment, go down the drain because of an 'illegal
>operation'...
Thats the Bottom Line.
I prefer whichever system/product enhances productivity.
No excuses.
Period.