Tim,
it's a bit unfair to compare a MacBook with a ThinkPad. Obviously they
don't play in the same league. The MacBood rivals the Vaio for
flashiest lifestyle machine whereas the ThinkPad is a serious worker.
All three of them do crystallography just fine.
Andreas
Tim Gruene wrote:
Hi
Hi,
you should be able to run the programs you mention on any of the
mainstream Linux distributions, especially when you are not scared
installing some extra bits and pieces. One of the main nuisances I met
recently is the requirement of libg2c for Fortran programs compiled with
g77 and dynam
Agreed, the Macbook is a good price (plus I overlooked the Core2Duo
processor - thanks) but I was thinking of getting something with more
screen real estate after being spoiled looking at cinema displays all
day. For some reason the Pro just seems poorly priced when you compare
it on features
Stephen,
Its not my intention to woo you to buy an apple product.
I bought an ibook (NOT the macbook pro) more than 5 years ago (1.2 GHz,
upgraded to
1.25 GB RAM and 160 GB hard drive). Still as fast as many new pc based laptops
(I have
two of these in my home but rarely use them). I have every
You don't need a MacBook Pro. The bottom of the line MacBook will work
fine for crystallography ($999).
On the other hand, my experience with Ubuntu is that it is also fine
for crystallography software. The only real issues are hardware
drivers (especially video, sound, & wireless). But if
Dear BBers,
I would like to treat myself to a new laptop which will be my
primary use machine (i.e I want to run all the usual crystallography
packages, hopefully write a few papers, watch Lost online and pay the
bills when needs be). Although I am an ardent Apple fan I find it
difficult t
