by
unmgvar » Thu May 17, 2012 7:04 pm
there are several points that are needed to take into account when thinking of a CDS characteristics
i think that the best software concept is that of a data based CDS.
this simply leaves empower and CM
the others that are file based might have an easy to use set up in order to run the system, but they will always lack the all too important integration, reporting and calculations features that can only be achieved using a data base. these are the features that will really allow you to cut down the true time of analyses required in your work flow, per batch.
personally, with it's mirror like excel tools, charting tools and dynamic connection between runs, chromatograms, compounds and results, CM simply does the stuff better and nicer than empower.
ease of learning, training and using
here it depends how you look at it. if you only want to run a system and see pictures, then the filed based softwares are less complex. chemstation and clarity are really the easiest to set up and run.
but a CDS these days is really a lot more than that i think.
for the 2 good ones, empower and CM, i actually learned empower first. and it was a pain. it has always been easier for me to train new users on CM as opposed to empower.
one interesting thing that i can say about both CDSs is that you actually always need to learn new stuff because both are being improved all the time
if you want to get inside big enterprises and labs you will need to think also of the capabilities of setting up a good client server for your instruments when you have more than 5 hplc in a company.
an already data based CDS is easier to implement from stand alone to client server CDS, it is also easier to go from the different possible set ups of client servers, to decide with or without citirix and such.
here again, from my experience CM is better, because it allows you to choose the data base. empower is simply millenium, and that means you can only use oracle. Oracle is good, but expensive to purchase and complex to maintain. also empower has only recently made the effort to move to citrix. CM has been there for at least a decade
empower set up is too much embedded into the oracle tables, and empower data is in there also. so big labs actually waste time re-allocating table space to the different projects as they get filled. it was how things were done in millenium 20 years ago when data size was very small and waters did not think it would matter and now they are not bothered to fix it and make it user friendly to their customers. Lazy big brother know it all attitude in my mind. this also mean they lack flexibility.
pharma and regulated customers require GLP and CFR 21 part 11 features.
now i know how to cheat on every CDS. you can always find ways to do some stuff. today it is not easy and very time consuming and really hard to conceal. all softwares provide what the the EP and FDA require that it would be hard to do.
what actually matters here is how friendly it is to work in a restrained GLP environment. historically cerity was the worst ever, and agilent have with openlab chemstation recycled some of those bad features. ezchrom is the simplest to cheat if you know it enough.
again we are back to empower and CM. and here there is a certain difference that makes me prefer CM again. I hope they keep this attitude now that they are Thermo. they fixed annoying bugs.
the most annoying bug ever from millenium to empower is the password login window.
for every single opened window you need to retype the password, just because. they could fix it, but Waters with its all too knows best attitudes does nothing about it. the work around is to do "cancel" on the second window to clear them all, but you still wasted the time for that second mouse click.
CM team made sure this would not even occur. and we have seen them fix GLP annoying related bugs like these so that the user life would be kept simpler and less annoyingly time consuming.
