I used to have a Mosflm executable running under Cygwin. It ran just like it does on other platforms (as far as I can recall). So did the CCP4 I built. But the bash it (Cygwin) came with seemed to be incomplete, and the tcsh (that I prefer to use) also didn't seem to be implemented terribly well. The shell stuff seemed pretty clunky - usable, but not very pleasant.
So it was a solution for people who wanted to run Mosflm on Windows in the days before I discovered the MinGW cross-compilers, but I haven't looked at it in years. It would probably still work, but unless you need X-windows I think building executables with the MinGW offerings is a better option (if you buy & use a commercial compiler that could be better still, but in my experience not much). > I have found that cygwin works quite well for doing unix-type things on > windows--one can use whatever shell one likes, run perl scripts, etc. Have > people had problems with cygwin? I used to run CNS on it all the time. > > Jacob > > ******************************************* > Jacob Pearson Keller > Northwestern University > Medical Scientist Training Program > Dallos Laboratory > F. Searle 1-240 > 2240 Campus Drive > Evanston IL 60208 > lab: 847.491.2438 > cel: 773.608.9185 > email: j-kell...@northwestern.edu > ******************************************* > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <ha...@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk> > To: <CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 10:23 AM > Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Computer hardware and OS "survey" > > >> Hi >> >> Most of the software for macromolecular crystallography data analysis >> will >> run happily on Linux, OS X or Windows. However, Windows is much more >> GUI-based and much less open to shell scripting than UNIX based systems >> like Linux or OS X (DOS-Shell is very inflexible, even compared to sh or >> csh, let alone tcsh, zsh or bash). Even Python scripts are often not >> 100% >> portable (some of the older scripting languages like Tcl are better >> inthis >> respect, in my experience). >> >> Having said that, nearly half the downloads of Mosflm are for the >> Windows >> version - but I have no figures on how many people actually use it, >> having >> got hold of a copy! In my hands, it works as well as on the other >> platforms. YMMV. >> >> If your home institution really wants you to drop Macs, then I think you >> have to insist on Linux with proper support - but that costs salaries! >> >> Just my two ha'porth. >> >>> My home institution, in effort to cut costs, is making an effort to >>> push >>> those of us on Macs onto PCs. Up till now they have been very generous >>> via a lease program for computer hardware, but that is changing given >>> the >>> current economics. The institution currently does not support Linux so >>> we >>> are limited to Mac and Windows OS. >>> >>> We certainly make use of William Scotts crystallography on OS X >>> (thanks >>> so much!) so our main argument is that we would have far more support >>> "out there" for crystallography on the Mac than we would have for on >>> Windows. But to be fair (and hopefully bolster our argument) I should >>> find out if that is true. I did not find an equal web support page for >>> Windows. >>> >>> A volunteer survey will be distorted (probably by Mac fanboys like me) >>> so >>> I am asking for peoples best guesstimate as to what % use of Mac, >>> Windows, or Linux is out there for data processing and model building. >>> Our core programs are coot, o, pymol, cns, and ccp4 but we certainly >>> make >>> occasional use of other crystallography programs out there (solve, >>> epmr...) >>> >>> Also what are the relative crystallography support for Mac vs. Windows. >>> >>> Thanks in advance. >>> >>> Todd >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Todd M. Link >>> Assistant Professor >>> MD Anderson Cancer Center >>> Univ. of Texas >>> >>> (713) 834-6394 >>> >>> >> >
