Mac OSX because of Time Machine, Illustrator and crystallographic
software in one happy box. XP on a Virtual Box for emergencies (SAXS,
AUC and ITC programs).
Though with Microsoft and Apple both pushing towards gestures, fingertip
interaction and tablets, Linux will be the only option for laptops in
two/three years' time.
Mind that if you buy a MacBook, there's only one (hefty 15") model
without a mirror-coated screen.
On 09/08/2012 3:58, Nat Echols wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Jacob Keller
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> one. Are there any really reasonable arguments for preferring Mac over
>> windows (or linux) with regard to crystallography? What can Mac/Linux do
>> that windows cannot (especially considering that there is Cygwin)? What
>> wonderful features am I missing?
> Mac vs. Linux: mostly a matter of personal preference, but I agree
> with Graeme. Most programs run equally well on either - with Coot a
> partial exception, apparently due to problems with the X11
> implementation (but once you get used to these, it's not a big deal).
> Windows, on the other hand, simply doesn't support the full range of
> modern crystallography software. And in my experience, it has
> crippling flaws that mean some programs will always work better on
> Mac/Linux. I wouldn't ever endorse trying to use Windows for serious
> scientific computing unless you need to run an application that won't
> work on any other OS, and as far as I know there isn't a single
> (macromolecular) crystallography program that falls into this