DoH! you are right - that's what comes from posting in a thoughtless hurry
while doing several other things! Although we do seem to have very few
Win2000 or ME users - mostly Win95/98/NT and a large group of Mac users.
As an aside, while we do support SeqWeb, I actually try to discourage users
away from it and towards SeqLab (if you're using GCG a lot, eXceed, Xten,
eXodus or whatever, is not a huge research expense to bear). The
limitations of file saving and importing in SeqWeb are annoying at least.
The advantages of list files (once users have become familiar with working
with them), the ability to simply save results and load them into further
analyses (even if not within GCG), makes SeqLab my preferred interface. The
new GCG database format introduced with 10.2 makes the use of list files
even better (no more lost entries when a new release of GenBank shuffles
division entries). Many of my users tend to start out on SeqWeb, but after
awhile, find it too limiting and tend to move over to SeqLab, and with a
little instruction and time, come to generally favor it over the web
Univ. of Virginia
Rick Westerman wrote:
> Are you saying that all of your SeqWeb users use the SGIs for their web
>browsing? If so why don't they all use SeqLab instead of SeqWeb since they
>would be familair and comfortable with X-windows?
>> I suspect that this is not what you mean. Rather I suspect that you, like
>most of us, have a plethora of different machines and OSes that the users
>utilize to access SeqWeb. In which case, if you have users that run their web
>browsers on Win2000/ME then SeqWeb support on these machines is an issue.
>> My SeqWeb server runs on a Sun. This isn't the support issue. Rather it
>is the client OS support that is important. Why SeqWeb is so restrictive as to
>what client OS and browser it requires is a mystery to me. Most other web
>pages aren't that restrictive. But as long as SeqWeb is supported in some
>Win2000 browser then we can live with the restrictions.