Agilent chemstation

[gcguy]

Thought I would ask...

Is anybody using the new version B of Chemstation? Has anybody found any problems or had issues with it. We have changed one 1100 HPLC over and are having a few issues with it.


GCguy

[khw]

One point we are seeing here is addressing the HP1100. We have two network cards in our PC (running W2K), one for the internal network and one for communication with the HPLC. From time to time the bootp program tries to find the HPLC over the wrong network card, i.e. in our company network and then the HPLC appears to be offline.

It is a little bit irritating that the methods are stored three times in the the different containers and you have to take care, where to do your changes.

[gcguy]

I have also just found that the methods are indeed stored in three places with potentially three versions and yes that can be very annoying.

KHW, did you have any trouble getting your methods to convert over to 32 bit? The first one I have tried on an 1100 did not work properly for reprocessing.

GCguy

[Rolandas Plausinaitis]

Hi,

We have some stupid error messages when starting Chemstation B (conected with Cemstore/Security pack). When we click trough it works ok (but crashes once in a while anyway). Authorised dealer could not get rid of these.

regarding compatibility with A series - data files from B Cemstation are not readable by A Chestation.

[philippem]

HI RP
Assuming Chemstation B is the upgrade from Chemstation A, it seems logic to me that A does not takes the data from B.
Chemstation A data can be checked/viewed /analysed with Chemstation B. We have checked that last fall during upgrade validation work for Chemstation B and Chemstore/security pack)

greetz

philippe

[khw]

...
KHW, did you have any trouble getting your methods to convert over to 32 bit? The first one I have tried on an 1100 did not work properly for reprocessing.

This was no problem for us. However, we converted in a "big bang". We upgraded both Software and PC and worked in the new environment. Even my macros worked nearly instantaneously, only very few modifications needed, mainly for file locations.

[leadazide]

Hi,

We don't use the B version ourselves, but a fellow technican from an other institute called me for help because they were having MAJOR issues with their new B chemstation.. They had problems with getting it to report correctly and the Agilent guy that came to help was arogant and it turned out he couldn't do it either as it was a software problem.

On top of this there were several other smaller bugs that annoyed them... and still do!

This experince is a major cause to why we have chosen NOT to look at a new GC from Agilent... at least until they have fixed the problems at the other institute!

[kkassan]

We are using B.02.01 Service release 2 and it has been a bit of a learning curve. We upgraded to 32-bit without any problems prior to the revision B upgrade.

We had had some things that didn't work or became corrupted such as some custom report styles.

And if you modify a sequence or data file version of the method in Data Analysis you have to back to Method & Run Control to be able to print your revised method (plus it is tedious to find).

And we are still getting error messages from running Agilent's Installation Verification, it states 'installed with errors' and gives a list of files that have been changed. I am still going back and forth with tech support.

But it is great to be able to load your sequence, see all of your data files and then open each one just by clicking on them. No more File, Load and scrolling down or typing the data files.

[gcguy]

Just spent a day discovering that version B2.01 SR1 does not allow reprocessing using a partial sequence. Spent another day figuring out a work around for our QC dept. Spent a good few hours swearing loudly when I found out that our IT guy forgot to upgrade the instrument I was using to SR2.

All working well now.

[Jackus]

This experince is a major cause to why we have chosen NOT to look at a new GC from Agilent... at least until they have fixed the problems at the other institute!

Hi leadazide
At first I have to swear I'm not payed by Agilent .
I think that Agilent GC hardware is still one of the best you can find on market and when you have another one installed, it is better to use the same vendor (due to repair parts, ...). On the other side, there are other software solutions you can select.
Regards

[leadazide]

Hi Sadilek

Up until 1½ year ago I had the same opinion as you regarding to Agilent GC and also their HPLC's.. And I loved Chemstation. It was easy to use and could all the stuff I ever wanted my software to do.

But 1½ ago I started working with other systems after being instructed and understood the logic in their design I found they were at least just as easy as chemstation and they allowed be to control my equipment to a degree I havn't got in Chemstation (or at least had a hard time finding i Chemstation). I will admit that Chemstation is still one of the easiest software to use as a new user, but with a short introduction to other softwares Chemstation is left behind in userfriendlieness and usefulness.

Regards to ease of having one vendor I also disagree. My local Agilent vendor at least as NOT lived up to my expectations. And again after working with other vendors equipment I must admit Agilent again loses. Userfreindlieness and ease of use beats Agilent hands down.

In my honest oppinion, I believe Agilent are living off their old reknown and name. Many other vendors can deliver just as good if not better GC's and HPLC and are slowly eating away at Agilents dominance on the marked. I think many costumers only keep using Agilent because they know the equipment, have validateded methods on agilent equipment and are "scared" of trying something new.

But again this is only my own personnal oppinion. I don't have statestics or salenumbers to base this on.

[Bruce Hamilton]

Agilent are obviously aware of the limitations of Chemstation, look at the range of data systems they offer, Chemstation, Chemstore, Cerity, EZChrom.

Chemstation stilll delivers, but like Microsoft, the legacy compatibility issues probably restricts the range of premissible changes.

However, when they've sold so many GCs and HPLCs, there are some things they must be doing right. Initially, it was value for money ( 5890 -~800,000 sold? ) combined with the diverse selection of configurations. Then it was support, and they could put GCs into diverse industrial labs. As their sale grew, others ( such as OI ) proviced niche products.

The HPLCs ( 1050, then 1100 ) followed, with the convenience of a common interface for staff switching from GC to HPLC, and one vendor support costs. Small labs liked the reliability, support, and reduced training.

Mainstream Agilent GCs or HPLCs were never really innovative ( the IR detector on their GCs, and similar niche products, were typical marketeer-driven cul-de-sacs ).

Customers willingly paid for reliability and convenience, however now there are new factors, as many labs are often driven by annual budgets, with managers who want regulatory compliance, high throughput, low capex, and cheap operating/support costs.

The reason for keeping Agilent equipment in labs moved from GCs to HPLCs in the 1990s, and the 1200 seems to be a quick, but tepid ( repackaged 1100 with higher-pressure, higher sampling rate ), response to the UPLC and similar.

It will be interesting to see if a Series II appears that is more purpose built, along with new versions of data systems that offer a simple inferface with flexibility for both research and regulatory compliance, as well as recognition that labs again want to be muti-vendor environments. Given some recent science scandals, even research data systems may have to have more anti-tampering security features.

It will also be interesting to see if the new 7890 GC rekindles the desire for Agilent as labs retire their 5890s.

Bruce Hamilton

[zokitano]

I'm using the Agilent ChemStation B, and i can confirm some of the posts.
Namely, I have problems with the reprocessing of the chromatograms (runs) within the same sequence (after the sequence is done). ChemStation A works perfectly when the command <reprocessing> of the sequence is initiated.
With ChemStation B I have to select all of the runs and make the integration or calibration. This is boring and time consuming process, and it makes me nervous
Also, when the acquisition is running (during the run), I cannot enter the Data Analysis in the online mode. I have to open the Offline program and to view or process the chromatograms.
I haven't this kind of problems with the ChemStation A

[Jackus]

...And we are still getting error messages from running Agilent's Installation Verification, it states 'installed with errors' and gives a list of files that have been changed. I am still going back and forth with tech support.

If you have problem with Chemstation verification and you are sure that all files are OK you can modify the checksum of controlled files (*.dlc, *.dll, *.drv, *.enu, *.exe, *.hlp, *.ini, *.mac, *.mcx).

For example execute the Agilent Installation Verification utility with the following options:

Code: Select all

c:\hpchem\sys\hpveri00.exe -f yourref.ref

To automatically run IQ test using your new reference modify the shortcut properties to:

Code: Select all

hpveri00.exe -r yourref.ref

(for detailed help try c:\hpchem\sys\hpveri.hlp)