2) iNMR has one big flaw: there is no way to use external 1D plots as projections in 2D spectra.ĭear pacifyer, you have ruined your own post. I still have and use their last version (2.5). Unfortunately, they apparently disappeared, maybe because of low sales. I have only two things to say: 1) There was yet another good NMR program for MacOS X: 'NMR Notebook'.
To manipulate NMR data on a Mac, iNMR is the only serious choice. There are enough technical issues, however, that everyybody should agree there's no competition.
#MESTRENOVA SERIAL NUMBER MAC#
To tell the truth, I also prefer the iNMR look and feel (it's exactly what a long time Mac user would expect from a Mac app) which is a matter of tastes. On the Mac, instead, no alternative is available (to the best of my knowledge) to simulate a spin system.
The performance of Mestrenova is excellent on Windows, and the lack of simulation features is felt less (you can use Spinworks, gNMR or WinDNMR). I say that Mestrenova is flawed because the drawing routines are uncomfortably slow, they are literally put to shame by iNMR. I know that Mestrenova contains a multiplet analyzer too, but it's limited to first-order multiplets, while the J manager of iNMR has a larger scope. INMR not only contains all the above things, but also a Spotlight-based search module, a Chessboard-like plot mode, and some nice managers (like the Overlays manager and the J-manager). I say unfinished because many important things are missing: simulation of spin systems, simulation of chemical exchange, peak deconvolution, 3-D NMR.
I had compared the two products and I think there's no competition. It's more than 1 year old nothing seems to have changed, however. I have found this post while searching with Google. Only to avoid viruses or to sport the Apple logo on the desk? At, Anonymous said. If you really dislike simplicity, why don't you switch to Windows? I can't understand people that buy a Mac to run Windows-biased applications. I feel to be more expert now that I am using the Mac than during the 80s (when I was using the DOS). The more experience I accumulate, the more I prefer simplicity. I cannot accept your sentence: 'those with limited experience prefer simplicity'. Did I mention that MNova does not run on Leopard? I also prefer iNMR because spectra are more visible (more screen estate is dedicated to them) while I can't bear the '10 green handles 10' of MNova. I agree that there is no clear winner in the above categories (robustness and features), while iNMR is unarguably faster and better integrated into the OS. Examples of iNMR-exclusive features: Dynamic NMR, Spotlight support (Spectroscopic Database), Reference Deconvolution, generation of pictures, higher number of formats that are imported, Overlay Manager, Batch Processing, 2D ChessBoard-like plot, Synchronization between 2 Windows, more options in the Line-Fitting module, 3D NMR, Apple Scripts, etc. The basic MNova) they do not match, but apparently is iNMR the richest one, at this writing moment. Examining the lists of features (iNMR vs. From your post it seems that MNova offers more power because it offers more buttons. Please demonstrate your opinion with facts. Both programs have good records of stability. While it's clear that MNova contains (too many) more buttons, I can't agree on the 'robustness'.
#MESTRENOVA SERIAL NUMBER SOFTWARE#
Mestrenova Crack MacĮssentially, I would most likely recommend either software package to individuals based on their computer experience. I've since noticed that generally individuals with good computer skills prefer 'lots of buttons and configuration options' (MNova) whereas those with limited computer experience prefer simplicity (iNMR). I switched over to MNova and have been happy ever since. It also impared my efficiency which I am very picky about. It was nice for a first impression however, after figuring out the majority of the features within a very short time span, I found it lacking in robustness. Although chemistry is my profession, I have been using computers for a decent amount of time (DOS 3, freebsd 2, etc).
0 kommentar(er)
