You must mean me, Dave -- one of my jobs is with Hitachi Software,
maker of MacDNASIS. Quite apart from my duties there I've used four
of the big commercial programs (MacVector, Geneworks, MacDNASIS, GCG) in
my own research -- they all have their points. GCG is strong for jobs
like structural predictions and multi-alignments that make use of the
power computing potential of the UNIX platform. It's weak, as I have
said, in its accessibility to the occasional user, and the graphics output
is for the birds.
I didn't and don't think the context of this discussion required
me to identify myself as a Hitachian. A week or so ago someone said she
was thinking about buying Geneworks and asked for opinion and advice; in
my reply then I did so identify myself.
But don't get me started on Geneworks.
On 18 Feb 1993, David Kristofferson wrote:
> Because of my affiliation with IntelliGenetics I tend to stay out of
> discussions regarding commercial products. However, one of the people
> who responded negatively regarding GCG software may have a possible
> commercial affiliation with another company (not GCG or IG) which
> writes competing software. I am not completely certain about this
> point and apologize if my suspicions are incorrect, but I want to
> remind everyone that it is common network policy to disclose any
> potential conflicts of interest openly when posting statements
> regarding commercial products.
>> Sincerely,
>> Dave Kristofferson
> BIOSCI/bionet Manager
>>kristoff at net.bio.net>>
