<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New review: CLC Workbench, free edition, and more</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blindscientist.genedrift.org/2007/04/30/new-review-clc-workbench-free-edition-and-more/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blindscientist.genedrift.org/2007/04/30/new-review-clc-workbench-free-edition-and-more/</link>
	<description>Bits of science</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 25 Jul 2010 17:24:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1-alpha</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paulo Nuin</title>
		<link>http://blindscientist.genedrift.org/2007/04/30/new-review-clc-workbench-free-edition-and-more/comment-page-1/#comment-1432</link>
		<dc:creator>Paulo Nuin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:00:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blindscientist.genedrift.org/2007/04/30/new-review-clc-workbench-free-edition-and-more/#comment-1432</guid>
		<description>Hi Antonio

I am not sure, but I think you might just include the company&#039;s URL and the software name, like a regular website citation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Antonio</p>
<p>I am not sure, but I think you might just include the company&#8217;s URL and the software name, like a regular website citation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Antonio</title>
		<link>http://blindscientist.genedrift.org/2007/04/30/new-review-clc-workbench-free-edition-and-more/comment-page-1/#comment-1431</link>
		<dc:creator>Antonio</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:14:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blindscientist.genedrift.org/2007/04/30/new-review-clc-workbench-free-edition-and-more/#comment-1431</guid>
		<description>How can I do to mention that program in a bibliographical revision? Is there any article that report this software(CLC Workbench)?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How can I do to mention that program in a bibliographical revision? Is there any article that report this software(CLC Workbench)?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pablo</title>
		<link>http://blindscientist.genedrift.org/2007/04/30/new-review-clc-workbench-free-edition-and-more/comment-page-1/#comment-1182</link>
		<dc:creator>pablo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:05:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blindscientist.genedrift.org/2007/04/30/new-review-clc-workbench-free-edition-and-more/#comment-1182</guid>
		<description>Geneious, as you have the same “feel” when running the program. There is no innovative GUI or analytical features on CLC Workbench, it is basically the same thing you see in other free packages. Basically you can align sequences, create extremely simple trees, analyse your DNA and protein and</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Geneious, as you have the same “feel” when running the program. There is no innovative GUI or analytical features on CLC Workbench, it is basically the same thing you see in other free packages. Basically you can align sequences, create extremely simple trees, analyse your DNA and protein and</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pablo</title>
		<link>http://blindscientist.genedrift.org/2007/04/30/new-review-clc-workbench-free-edition-and-more/comment-page-1/#comment-1181</link>
		<dc:creator>pablo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:04:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blindscientist.genedrift.org/2007/04/30/new-review-clc-workbench-free-edition-and-more/#comment-1181</guid>
		<description>then moved back to my XP box and run the program. The same message greeted me and the this the download went smoothly. The interface is very similar on Linux and Windows, and the program’s approach is very similar to Geneious, as you have the same “feel” when running the program. There is no innovative GUI or analytical features on CLC Workbench, it is basically the same thing you see in other free packages. Basically you can align sequences, create extremely simple trees, analyse your DNA and protein and so on. 

Most of its features overlaps with Geneious or BioEdit, and the late biOpen. Some random impressions on CLC Workbench:

alignment procedure extremely slow 
interface is sometimes difficult to understand 
it is hard to get used to double click on the left hand side toolbox 
font size is large and clean 
database search is fast and results are cleaner (visually) than Geneious 
Based on the list above I would say that Geneious is better to the zero dollars you have to pay. It is good to see competition to Geneious, which I believe is gaining more ground in the market, especially due to its nice price for the registered version. I will test the paid versions of the other CLC’s software packages and post some reviews here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>then moved back to my XP box and run the program. The same message greeted me and the this the download went smoothly. The interface is very similar on Linux and Windows, and the program’s approach is very similar to Geneious, as you have the same “feel” when running the program. There is no innovative GUI or analytical features on CLC Workbench, it is basically the same thing you see in other free packages. Basically you can align sequences, create extremely simple trees, analyse your DNA and protein and so on. </p>
<p>Most of its features overlaps with Geneious or BioEdit, and the late biOpen. Some random impressions on CLC Workbench:</p>
<p>alignment procedure extremely slow<br />
interface is sometimes difficult to understand<br />
it is hard to get used to double click on the left hand side toolbox<br />
font size is large and clean<br />
database search is fast and results are cleaner (visually) than Geneious<br />
Based on the list above I would say that Geneious is better to the zero dollars you have to pay. It is good to see competition to Geneious, which I believe is gaining more ground in the market, especially due to its nice price for the registered version. I will test the paid versions of the other CLC’s software packages and post some reviews here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
