Hi Bill,
Yeah, that was my next try, since I naively thought sander shouldn't have
changed too much that present day libraries may work? Though I've had
little luck in finding any one with the source code or much documentation
from that far back- I knew it was a very, very long stretch, given how far
back I'm digging.
Best,
Kenneth
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 11:20 PM Bill Ross <ross.cgl.ucsf.edu> wrote:
> I'd find a copy of the source and compile it. Probably sander/cpu
> wouldn't be a lot of work to do. A binary from then might expect old
> libs to be in place.
>
> Bill
>
> On 12/15/20 2:37 PM, Kenneth Huang wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > A very strange question- does anyone happen to have, or know anyone who
> has
> > the old binaries for Amber 4 gathering dust on a hard disk?
> >
> > I'm having something of a debate about whether the minimization procedure
> > in what was shipped in Amber 4 (assuming done in sander?) would be
> > comperable to minimization in contemporary Amber (specifically sander in
> > Amber 16,18, 20) builds given the same setup, parameters, etc. Given
> sander
> > is one of the older parts of Amber, my thought is that it shouldn't have
> > changed much?
> >
> > Barring the unlikely chance anyone has still code that old around still,
> > would there be any good way to test to see if the minization changed in a
> > signficant way? My first thought was to find a minimized test structure
> in
> > the source code that might date back from that time, but I haven't had
> much
> > luck in sifting through the test folder so far.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Kenneth
> >
> --
> Phobrain.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER mailing list
> AMBER.ambermd.org
> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
>
--
Ask yourselves, all of you, what power would hell have if those imprisoned
here could not dream of heaven?
_______________________________________________
AMBER mailing list
AMBER.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
Received on Tue Dec 15 2020 - 22:00:02 PST