GCG substitutes

Tim Cutts tjrc1 at mole.bio.cam.ac.uk
Wed Jun 17 07:10:25 EST 1998

In article <alouka-1706981303520001 at>,
Andrew S. Louka <alouka at writeme.com> wrote:
>I was sent a demo of Sequencher (http://www.genecodes.com), and was
>thinking seriously about "defecting" from GCG to Sequencher, but haven't
>seen it mentioned in this thread.  Haven't people heard of Sequencher, or
>are there other reasons?  New software of this calibre is rather
>expensive, so I value feedback from other experienced users.

My impression was that Sequencher was good value for smaller groups;
GCG becomes much better value when you are talking about large numbers
of researchers; this machine has one licence for GCG, but nearly 1,500
users.  This equates to just a few tens of dollars per user per year
(including paying my salary to run the machine and provide support,
and paying for the machine itself, which is a lot faster than a
desktop machine would be).

So for larger scale companies and universities, GCG starts to look
very cheap compared to desktop-machine based tools.

Having said that, there are still free alternatives to most of the
component parts of GCG, but you lose the integration and consistency
of user interface (which in my opinion is the single most important
point in GCG's favour)

Dr T J R Cutts                                        Tel: +44 1223 333596
Dept. of Biochemistry, 80 Tennis Court Rd.
Cambridge, CB2 1GA, UK

More information about the Info-gcg mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net