From ndaisy@cobra.ordata.com Fri Apr 21 01:16:50 1995 Received: from ordata.com for ndaisy@cobra.ordata.com by www.ccl.net (8.6.10/930601.1506) id BAA27499; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 01:07:33 -0400 Received: by ordata.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #2) id m0s2AtW-0002fyC; Thu, 20 Apr 95 22:04 PDT Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 22:04:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Nick K Daisy To: "J.P. Northrop" cc: chemistry@ccl.net Subject: Re: CCL:virus alert (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII All antivirus programs must read the virus code to detect the virus. There is no harm in reading virus code, ascii or binary, to the system with the exception of "mail bombs" which activate undesirable screen attributes - though no permanent damage is done. The virus must be 'executable' to cause damage to the system. Read all the virus code you like. NKD From bouyer@ext.jussieu.fr Fri Apr 21 03:46:53 1995 Received: from shiva.jussieu.fr for bouyer@ext.jussieu.fr by www.ccl.net (8.6.10/930601.1506) id DAA28901; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 03:45:13 -0400 Received: from idf.ext.jussieu.fr (idf.ext.jussieu.fr [134.157.81.129]) by shiva.jussieu.fr (8.6.10/jtpda-5.1) with ESMTP id JAA08166 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 09:45:04 +0200 Received: from [134.157.11.12] by idf.ext.jussieu.fr (8.6.10/jtpda-4.0) with SMTP; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 09:45:01 +0200 X-Sender: bouyer@idf.ext.jussieu.fr Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 08:55:42 +0100 To: chemistry@ccl.net From: bouyer@ext.jussieu.fr (Frederic BOUYER) Subject: Differences between MNDO and AM1 Hi Netters, Would someone please provide me some informations (or a brief description, differences) about MNDO and AM1 hamiltonians of MOPAC (v.6)? Thank you in advance. Frederic Bouyer Lab. Electrochimie, ENSCP, Paris bouyer@ext.jussieu.fr http://alcyone.enscp.jussieu.fr/ From friedric@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE Fri Apr 21 04:01:53 1995 Received: from techfac.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE for friedric@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE by www.ccl.net (8.6.10/930601.1506) id DAA28934; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 03:48:26 -0400 Received: from puccini.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE by techfac.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE id AA24114; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 09:47:37 +0200 Received: by puccini.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (5.65/tp.29.08.90) id AA00974; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 09:47:36 +0200 Message-Id: <9504210747.AA00974@puccini.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> Subject: molecular surfaces To: chemistry@ccl.net Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 09:47:36 +0200 (MET DST) From: Friedrich Ackermann X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 4040 Dear Netters! ============= I would like to invitate all those of you, that are working on the fields of protein-protein-docking, molecular surfaces, energy evaluation, electrostatic interactions in proteins etc. to a little comparison of some results. Especially I would like to compare the shape (geometry) of m o l e c u l a r a c c e s s i b l e s u r f a c e s (MS) with each other. In addition, values of the electrostatic potential on the MS should be compared. It is n o t intended to decide about the correctness of underlying theoretical models, but rather to give all participants a hint, how their results compare empirically with those of others. My background: ============== I am working on the problem of protein-protein-docking. The main idea of our project is to integrate geometrical and chemical surface features in the evalutation of complementarity in an easy and fast manner. To this end I am developing a class library (C++) to calculate and manipulate protein features and features of the molecular surfaces. One of this features is the electrostatic potential on the surface. Now, the question arises: Am I computing the right values? The comparison: =============== Assume you can calculate the MS of a protein and possibly the electrostatic potential on it, i.e. you should be able to write down a file similar to this: x1 y1 z1 e1 x2 y2 z2 e2 x3 y3 z3 e3 x4 y4 z4 e4 ... xN yN zN eN Hereby, xi, yi, zi, and ei are floats. xi, yi, and zi are the coordinates (in Aengstroem, given in the coordinate system of the PDB - entry) of a surface point and ei is the electrostatic potential that you computed at this particular surface point. Since we compare only relative values, it is not important in which unit ei is given. Your MS will be sampled in a 3D grid (isotropic lattice constants 0.5, 0.8, and 1.2 Aengstroem will be used) and by counting hits and missing voxels we will compare the shape (geometry) of the different MSs. In a similar way we will compare by correlation on the grid the values for the electrostatic potential on the MS. You want to make one of the party? ================================== Then please send me a note (friedric@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de) (Name, institution, type of program you use, additional hints for the comparison, references). First all participants will be informed about the IDs of the others and will receive a detailed description of the procedures used for comparison. Then the PDB-IDs of some proteins I suggest to use for comparison and a description of possible file formats will be sent. Afterwords you will calculate the MS and eventually the potential on it and you will send it to me. The comparisons will be performed, and the results will be posted to all participants as a set of upper triangular matrices, containing cross correlations and similar values of every MS with each other. In addition the results will be compiled to a technical report, that will be made electronically available on our ftp server. Schedule: ========= 5.5.1995 Deadline for note on intended participation. 10.5.1995 Posting of PDB-Ids and format descriptions. (Meanwhile eventually changes in procedure of comparisons, depending on hints of participants.) 24.5.1995 Deadline for submission of MS 31.5.1995 Posting of results I would be glad to here from you! Friedrich Ackermann THIS NOTE WAS POSTED BY ME ORIGINALLY TO THE FOLLOWING NEWSGROUPS: bionet.biology.computational bionet.molbio.proteins bionet.software bionet.announce PLEASE FORWARD IT TO POSSIBLY INTERESTED PERSONS, THAT DON'T READ THESE NEWSGROUPS! PLEASE INFORM ME ABOUT OTHER NEWSGROUPS, INTO WHICH I SHOULD POST THIS NOTE! IN ADDITION IT WAS POSTED TO chemistry@ccl.net (hint from Max Vasquez) ------------------------------------------- Friedrich Ackermann Applied Computer Science Bielefeld University P.O. 100131 D-33501 Bielefeld Phone: +49 521 106 2938 Fax: +49 521 106 2992 email: friedric@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de ------------------------------------------- From Patrick.Bultinck@rug.ac.be Fri Apr 21 05:46:54 1995 Received: from mserv.rug.ac.be for Patrick.Bultinck@rug.ac.be by www.ccl.net (8.6.10/930601.1506) id FAA29709; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 05:31:42 -0400 Received: from allserv.rug.ac.be by mserv.rug.ac.be with SMTP id AA04653 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Fri, 21 Apr 1995 11:30:23 +0200 Received: by allserv.rug.ac.be (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA04030; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 11:31:24 +0200 Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 11:31:24 +0200 (MET DST) From: Patrick Bultinck To: "comp. chem. list" Subject: GAMESS and xlf3.0* on RS6k Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Dear, My compilation of GAMESS v. 59 on RS6k and xlf3.01 works, but examples show very significant differences depending on the compiler used. I have looked up the compilation scripts in detail and tried to alter the comp. flags, but e.g. in exam01 I find lower energies (not too much lower though) in a smaller number of iterations. For exam06 however I get a ton of errors of files being opened already but with another status, and results differing significantly from the ones given in the example. Do you know of someone having succeeded in compiling GAMESS with xlf3.0.* ? Or do you have some useful advice ? Thank you very much, Patrick From mmadrid@gardel.psc.edu Fri Apr 21 10:31:58 1995 Received: from gardel.psc.edu for mmadrid@gardel.psc.edu by www.ccl.net (8.6.10/930601.1506) id KAA03520; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 10:27:43 -0400 Received: by gardel.psc.edu (931110.SGI/930416.SGI.AUTO) for chemistry@ccl.net id AA15043; Fri, 21 Apr 95 10:27:40 -0400 From: "Marcela Madrid" Message-Id: <9504211027.ZM15041@gardel.psc.edu> Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 10:27:31 -0400 X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.1.0 22feb94 MediaMail) To: chemistry@ccl.net Subject: CCL: SEQUENCE ANALYSIS WORKSHOP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 NUCLEIC ACID AND PROTEIN SEQUENCE ANALYSIS WORKSHOP FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCHERS Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania June 4-9, 1995 Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center (PSC) is again offering a five-day workshop on "Nucleic Acid and Protein Sequence Analysis," June 4-9, 1995. It is funded by a grant from the National Center for Human Genome Research of the National Institutes of Health. The workshop will familiarize biomedical researchers in applying supercomputing resources to problems of concern in macromolecular sequence analysis. Emphasis will be on alignment of and pattern extraction from multiple sequences. Participants will gain practical experience on PSC's Cray C-90 and T3D in (1) comparing and aligning sequences, (2) identifying informative patterns in a set of sequences; and (3) using extracted informative patterns to identify related sequences. Researchers will also learn several approaches to database searching and multiple sequence alignment, how to use profile analysis effectively, and how to identify patterns in their sequences. Participants are encouraged to bring sequence analysis problems from their current research. Extensive documentation will be given at the outset on the PSC computing environment as well as on the specific programs to be employed in the workshop. No prior supercomputing experience is required. Workshop leaders are Dr. Gary Churchill, Cornell University, Dr. Michael Gribskov, San Diego Supercomputing Center, and Dr. Hugh Nicholas, PSC. A limited number of grants to cover travel and hotel accommodations are available for U.S. academic participants. ALL PARTICIPANTS ARE REQUIRED TO PAY A $135 REGISTRATION FEE, IN ADVANCE, UPON ACCEPTANCE INTO THE WORKSHOP. DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTING APPLICATIONS IS FRIDAY, APRIL 21, 1995. Enrollment is lmited to 20 participants. Additional information about this workshop can be found in http://pscinfo.psc.edu/biomed/workshops95.html * * * * * PITTSBURGH SUPERCOMPUTING CENTER NUCLEIC ACID AND PROTEIN SEQUENCE ANALYSIS WORKSHOP FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCHERS June 4-9, 1995 APPLICATION Name: ________________________________________________________________ Affiliation: ________________________________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________________________________ (Business) ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ (Home) ________________________________________________________________ Telephone: ____________________________ ______________________________ (Business) (Home) *Social Security Number: _______-_____-_______ Citizenship:___________________ Electronic Mail Address:_______________________________________________________ Status: ___Graduate ___Post-doctoral Fellow ___Faculty ___Other (specify) In order to attend the workshop, will you need funds for travel?___ lodging?___ Please indicate specifically any special housing, transportation or dietary arrangements you will need: __________________________________________ How did you learn about this workshop:_________________________________________ REQUIREMENTS: Applicants must submit a completed application form and a cover letter. The letter should describe, in one or two paragraphs, the sequence analysis problems encountered in your research, and how participating in the workshop will enhance this research. Please include a brief statement describing your level of experience with computers. Faculty members, staff and post-docs should provide a curriculum vita. Graduate students must have a letter of recommendation from a faculty member. If you have requested travel funds, please include the cost of roundtrip air fare from your home to Pittsburgh and indicate the amount of travel funds you will need. ALL PARTICIPANTS WILL BE REQUIRED TO PAY A $135 ADVANCE REGISTRATION FEE UPON ACCEPTANCE INTO THE WORKSHOP. Please return all application materials by APRIL 21, 1995 to: Biomedical Workshop Applications Committee Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center 4400 Fifth Avenue, Suite 230C Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Direct inquiries to: Nancy Blankenstein, blankens@psc.edu or 412/268-4960. *Disclosure of Social Security Number is voluntary. PSC does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, creed, national or ethnic origin, or handicap. From jacque@isadora.albany.edu Fri Apr 21 11:31:59 1995 Received: from UACSC2.ALBANY.EDU for jacque@isadora.albany.edu by www.ccl.net (8.6.10/930601.1506) id LAA04635; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 11:24:42 -0400 Received: from isadora.albany.edu by UACSC2.ALBANY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP; Fri, 21 Apr 95 11:22:04 EDT Received: by isadora.albany.edu (931110.SGI/930416.SGI) for @uacsc2.albany.edu:chemistry@ccl.net id AA14895; Fri, 21 Apr 95 11:22:16 -0400 From: jacque@isadora.albany.edu (Jacque Fetrow) Message-Id: <9504211522.AA14895@isadora.albany.edu> Subject: Albany Conference-Computational Biology To: chemistry@ccl.net Date: Fri, 21 Apr 95 11:22:15 EDT X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] > 3rd Albany Conference on Computational Biology > "Phylogenetic & Structural Relationships Among Proteins" > > September 28-October 1, 1995 > > Rensselaerville Conference Center, Rensselaerville, NY > > > This interdisciplinary meeting will be the third in our series of Albany > Conferences on Computational Biology, and will be held September 28 - > October 1, 1995 in Rensselaerville near Albany, New York. Like the two > predecessors ("Converging Approaches in Computational Biology" in 1990 > and "Patterns of Biological Organization" in 1992), the aim of this > conference is to explore the computational tools and approaches being > developed in diverse fields within biology, with emphasis this year on > phylogeny as apparent in relationships on the molecular level. > > The conference will be designed to provide an environment for a frank and > informal exchange among scientists and mathematicians that is not normally > possible within the constraints of topical, single-discipline meetings. The > theme of the conference, "Phylogenetic and Structural Relationships Among > Proteins", will be developed in five sessions: 3-D Structural Relationships > Among Proteins, Sequence-Structure Interface, Data Bases, and > Phylogenetic Methods and Protein Trees (I,II). Leading specialists in the > various disciplines have been invited, with the degree of involvement in > novel computational approaches as one of the most important criteria of > selection. Speakers will include: > > Steven Benner: ETH, Zurich, Switzerland > Stephen Bryant: NIH, Computational Biology Branch > Cyrus Chothia: MRC, Cambridge, England > G. Brian Golding: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario > David Hillis: University of Texas, Austin, TX > Charles Lawrence: Wadsworth Center, Albany, NY > Peter Munson: NIH, Analytical Biostatistics Section > Caro-Beth Stewart: University at Albany > Arlin Stoltzfus: Dalhousie Univ, Halifax, Nova Scotia > Joel Sussman: Brookhaven National Lab, Protein Data Bank > David Swofford: Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC > Shoshana Wodak: Univ Libre de Bruxelles Brussels, Belgium > > For further details, see the WWW document > http://www.cs.albany.edu/albany_conference95 > > > Registration information also can be obtained by directly contacting the > conference coordinator: > > Carole A. Keith > Center for Molecular Genetics & 1995 Albany Conference > BIO 126 > University at Albany > 1400 Washington Avenue Phone: 518/442-4327 > Albany, NY 12222 USA FAX: 518/442-4354 > Email: carole@cnsibm.albany.edu > > Information about the meeting sessions and format can be obtained from > the following members of the organizing committee: > > Joachim Frank (co-chair), Wadsworth Center > 518-474-7002 > joachim@orkney.ph.albany.edu > > Carmen Mannella (co-chair), Wadsworth Center > 518-474-2462 > carmen@orkney.ph.albany.edu > > Jacquelyn Fetrow > 518-442-4389 > jacque@isadora.albany.edu > > Charles Lawrence, Wadsworth Center > 518-473-3382 > lawrence@wadsworth.ph.albany.edu > > Caro-Beth Stewart, University at Albany > 518-442-4342 > cs812@csc.albany.edu From alper@moldyn.com Fri Apr 21 16:32:03 1995 Received: from netcomsv.netcom.com for alper@moldyn.com by www.ccl.net (8.6.10/930601.1506) id QAA09622; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 16:29:17 -0400 Received: from moldyn.com by netcomsv.netcom.com with UUCP (8.6.9/SMI-4.1) id NAA08953; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 13:22:07 -0700 Received: by bart.moldyn.com (931110.SGI/921111.SGI.AUTO) for netcomsv!ccl.net!chemistry id AA12826; Fri, 21 Apr 95 12:20:23 -0400 From: moldyn.com!alper@moldyn.com (Howard Alper) Message-Id: <9504211620.AA12826@bart.moldyn.com> Subject: phosphate solvation energies To: chemistry@ccl.net Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 12:20:18 -0500 (EDT) Reply-To: moldyn.com!alper@moldyn.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1252 Dr. Zhou, I was involved in lipid simulation research. In particular, the group I was in performed simulations of hydrated DMPC lipid monolayers and bilayers. Among other quantities that we calculated was the solvation of the phosphate and choline portion of the lipid headgroups. The results are highly dependent on the potential/force cutoffs used, since phosphate is charged, but using cutoffs of effectively 30angstroms we obtained a solvation energy of -83.49 kcal/mole. Computational requirements prevented using larger cutoffs, but the infinite-cutoff result is most likely near the value quoted above. One must also keep in mind that the phosphate group is not isolated, but is part of the lipid headgroup, along side other lipid molecules. But -83.49 should give you at least a reasonable starting estimate. For more information you might want to consult the following references: H. E. Alper, D. Bassolino, and T. R. Stouch., J. Chem. Phys. 98, 9798 (1993). H. E. Alper, D. Bassolino, and T. R. Stouch., J. Chem. Phys. 99, 5547 (1993). Howard Alper -- Dr. Howard Alper Moldyn Inc. 1033 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 617-354-3124 x19 - helping molecules find happiness for over a 10th of a century. From mwtcc@chem.nwu.edu Fri Apr 21 17:02:04 1995 Received: from mercury.chem.nwu.edu for mwtcc@chem.nwu.edu by www.ccl.net (8.6.10/930601.1506) id QAA10102; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 16:54:47 -0400 Received: by mercury.chem.nwu.edu (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA24916; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 15:54:57 -0500 From: mwtcc@chem.nwu.edu (Midwest Theoretical Chemistry Conference) Message-Id: <9504212054.AA24916@mercury.chem.nwu.edu> Subject: MWTCC !! (VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION) To: chemistry@ccl.net Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 15:54:56 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23alpha2] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1021 This note is intended for people interested in the 28th Midwest Theoretical Chemistry Conference. Sorry to the rest of you. Dear MWTCC people; This note is IMPORTANT to those of you who sent abstracts or registration forms to mwtcc@chem.nwu.edu during FRIDAY, APRIL 21th, BEFORE 3PM only. Due to an unfortunate computer and human error (fingers faster than brain) we have lost all your abstract and registration information. If you submitted something during that period, please send it again. IF YOU KNOW OF ANYONE IN THIS SITUATION, PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO THEM. We appreciate your cooperation and understanding on this matter. Best regards Dr. Adrian Roitberg ============================================================================ For Information About the Midwest Theoretical Chemistry Conference please contact Prof. George Schatz (708-491-5657) or Prof. Mark Ratner (708-491-5652) or just e-mail to this address. =========================================================================== From aholder@CCTR.UMKC.EDU Fri Apr 21 17:32:12 1995 Received: from axp1.umkc.edu for aholder@CCTR.UMKC.EDU by www.ccl.net (8.6.10/930601.1506) id RAA10497; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 17:23:24 -0400 From: Received: by CCTR.UMKC.EDU (MX V4.1 AXP) id 791; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 16:23:22 CST Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 16:23:22 CST To: CHEMISTRY@ccl.net Message-ID: <0098F38C.AF3637C9.791@CCTR.UMKC.EDU> Subject: MNDO vs. AM1 Netters, A question was recently posted as to the difference between MNDO and AM1. I'll be happy to give my take on this. 1. The basic difference between the two methods is the addition of Gaussian functions to some of the core repulsion functions (CRFs) for certain elements. These functions have a position, a width, and an intensity, all of which can be taken as parameters. They were initially intended to adjust the SHAPE of the CRF so that it would more closely correspond to "reality", whatever that is. In essence, they were used as patches for specific types of systems that could not be handled in general parameterization without disrupting other chemically important items. In my experience, the Gaussians were added one at a time and with great deliberation, and only after the other parameters were pretty much settled on. This is because they could potentially have such a large effect on the chemistry of the elements. An example of this are the Al-Cl systems for AM1. When I was finishing parameters for Al in AM1, these systems would simply not come out correctly. A carefully placed Gaussian solved the problem. Another example of a "problem" Gaussian function is the one found at about 3.0 angstroms in the phosphorous parameters for AM1. This Gaussian can cause extensive problems when there are TWO P atoms at about this distance in a compound. All in all, Gaussians MUST be used with extreme care and anytime one is added to repair a problem, it will almost certainly cause another. As with all things, it is a matter of trade-offs. The above discussion has led to my conclusion (tongue firmly in cheek) that Gaussians are "evil." I think I would amend that to be a "neccessary evil." 2. Another difference that must be mentioned is additional flex- ibility in the parameters for the lighter elements in the case of AM1. For instance, for most of the lighter elements (rows 1 and 2) only one zeta value (exponent of the slater orbitals) and one beta value (resonance) was used for both s and p orbitals in the valence shell within MNDO. This approximation was abandoned for the heavier elements in MNDO and completely for AM1. This assumption was made in the case of MNDO for computational efficiency. 3. The third difference is the added computational power available for parameterization searches when AM1 was parameterized. Much more extensive grid searches and trial parameter examination could be carried out more quickly as timne went by. Most of the AM1 parameter sets are substantially different than the MNDO ones indicating that definitely different parameter minima were located. All in all, the methods are basically the same in theory differing only in the details. The same can be said about PM3, in that it was a different parameterization method, not a different theory. For most cases, the performance of AM1 is considered to be generally superior to MNDO. Regards, Andy Holder -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- UUUU UUU MMM MMKK KKKK CCCC | ANDREW J. HOLDER UU U MM MMK K CC CC | Asst. Prof. of Comp./Org. Chemistry UU U MMM M MK KK CCC | Dept. of Chemistry UU U M MM MK KK CC CC | University of Missouri-Kansas City UUUUU MMM M MMKK KK CCCC | Kansas City, MO 64110 KK | aholder@cctr.umkc.edu K | (816) 235-2293, FAX (816) 235-5502 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From leoh@maple.lemoyne.edu Fri Apr 21 17:47:03 1995 Received: from maple.lemoyne.edu for leoh@maple.lemoyne.edu by www.ccl.net (8.6.10/930601.1506) id RAA10927; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 17:43:56 -0400 Received: by maple.lemoyne.edu (MX V4.1 VAX) id 11; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 17:42:41 EST Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 17:42:37 EST From: "Leo, Howard" To: chemistry@ccl.net Message-ID: <0098F397.C17FA900.11@maple.lemoyne.edu> Subject: Solaris on a PC question Is anyone running Sun Solaris on a PC? If so, could you tell me 1) how well does it execute DOS programs? 2) will it support additional terminals on one CPU? 3) will it run GAMESS or MOPAC? Thanks! Howard Leo Leoh@LeMoyne.edu