I've found that many of my undergraduates like the stereo capability, although I personally rarely use it. So I guess it's worth the pain of getting the stereo hardware to play nice with the OS and specialized applications. We put the cheapest stereo-ready cards available at the time(Quadro 980XGL) in our Linux workstations, along with NuVision 60GX glasses, and none of the workstations cost more than $2000 to build. If you don't need stereo, clearly almost any reasonable PC will do. Even the lowliest of Nvidia or ATI graphics cards are more than ample for running O, Coot, Pymol, etc.
Cheers, ___________________________________________ Roger S. Rowlett Professor Department of Chemistry Colgate University 13 Oak Drive Hamilton, NY 13346 tel: (315)-228-7245 ofc: (315)-228-7395 fax: (315)-228-7935 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Santarsiero, Bernard D. Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 1:24 PM To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Popularity of Stereo graphics in crystallography I agree with Kevin. We have stereo on about half of our workstations, and no one has used them in about three years. We typically use "O". Also, we have three large servers which are relatively fast. So the main purpose of a workstation is building, not computing here. That way you can easily work on multiple structures on a workstation at the same time, while you're refining and building them. We have a few people that use PC's and Coot as well. Bernie On Wed, June 20, 2007 11:45 am, P Hubbard wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the e-mail. The current results of the survey would > certainly put you in the minority! Stereo graphics are not dead after > all. > > I have used systems with and without stereo graphics. I personally > prefer them, and think they are great for helping newbies refine, and > for non-structural biologists and students to look at molecular > architecture. It seems a lot of other people, for whatever reason, > like them too. > > Paul > > >>From: Kevin Cowtan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Reply-To: Kevin Cowtan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK >>Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Survey on computer usage in crystallography >>Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:27:04 +0100 >> >>More likely the issue is that some of us do not find stereo to be >>necessary of beneficial for crystallographic model building. >> >>In which case, given the power of modern PCs and graphics cards, a >>basic off-the-shelf PC costing $1000/£500 is completely adaquate for >>typical structure solution and model building problems. >> >>I use coot a lot and I haven't even bothered installing the graphics >>drivers for my graphics card. All the 3D stuff gets gone in software, >>and most of the graphics hardware sits around doing nothing. If I >>needed the performance, it would be a 5 minute job to install the >>drivers, but I haven't needed it. >> >>Kevin >> >>P Hubbard wrote: >>>I am sorry you are unhappy with the questions, David. >>> >>>As I am sure you know, I half-decent system with stereo graphics >>>doesn't come cheap, and if you price things together to make >>>something that performs well I doubt you'll get much change out of >>>$2000. >>> >>>I am aware of other 3D systems (such as those listed on >>>www.stereo3d.com). However, the price of peripherals like a 3D LCD >>>monitor are prohibitively >>>expensive (and the quality of the images is supposed to be poor). Do you >>>know of a relatively inexpensive way of displaying 3D images on PCs? >>> >>>Any other comments would be greatly appreciated. >>> >>>Paul > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get a preview of Live Earth, the hottest event this summer - only on > MSN http://liveearth.msn.com?source=msntaglineliveearthhm >
