7 Comments: At, Anonymous said. Although chemistry is my profession, I have been using computers for a decent amount of time (DOS 3, freebsd 2, etc).

The first NMR software I used was iNMR. It was nice for a first impression; however, after figuring out the majority of the features within a very short time span, I found it lacking in robustness. It also impared my efficiency which I am very picky about. I switched over to MNova and have been happy ever since. I've since noticed that generally individuals with good computer skills prefer 'lots of buttons and configuration options' (MNova) whereas those with limited computer experience prefer simplicity (iNMR).

Go to this link to download the appropriate software for your computer (on a Windows PC the. Mestrelabs SL folder will be about 285 MB, on a Mac about 364 MB; use version 8.1.1 only): Click on the “EXE” and save to your Downloads folder. Aug 30, 2016. Instructions for Download, License and Use of MestReNova Software (8/30/16). Note: MestReNova is now loaded on all of the public access computers in the science library. Note: These instructions are for the Windows operating system (Windows 7). Linux operating systems are also supported.

Essentially, I would most likely recommend either software package to individuals based on their computer experience. Tony Hawk American Wasteland there. While it's clear that MNova contains (too many) more buttons, I can't agree on the 'robustness'. Both programs have good records of stability. Please demonstrate your opinion with facts. Dhcpexim Exe Download 2000 Toyota.

From your post it seems that MNova offers more power because it offers more buttons. Examining the lists of features (iNMR vs. The basic MNova) they do not match, but apparently is iNMR the richest one, at this writing moment. Examples of iNMR-exclusive features: Dynamic NMR, Spotlight support (Spectroscopic Database), Reference Deconvolution, generation of pictures, higher number of formats that are imported, Overlay Manager, Batch Processing, 2D ChessBoard-like plot, Synchronization between 2 Windows, more options in the Line-Fitting module, 3D NMR, Apple Scripts, etc. I agree that there is no clear winner in the above categories (robustness and features), while iNMR is unarguably faster and better integrated into the OS. I also prefer iNMR because spectra are more visible (more screen estate is dedicated to them) while I can't bear the '10 green handles 10' of MNova.

Did I mention that MNova does not run on Leopard? I cannot accept your sentence: 'those with limited experience prefer simplicity'. The more experience I accumulate, the more I prefer simplicity.

I feel to be more expert now that I am using the Mac than during the 80s (when I was using the DOS). If you really dislike simplicity, why don't you switch to Windows? I can't understand people that buy a Mac to run Windows-biased applications.

Only to avoid viruses or to sport the Apple logo on the desk? At, Anonymous said. I have found this post while searching with Google. It's more than 1 year old; nothing seems to have changed, however. I had compared the two products and I think there's no competition. Mestrenova is unfinished and flawed.

I say unfinished because many important things are missing: simulation of spin systems, simulation of chemical exchange, peak deconvolution, 3-D NMR. INMR not only contains all the above things, but also a Spotlight-based search module, a Chessboard-like plot mode, and some nice managers (like the Overlays manager and the J-manager). I know that Mestrenova contains a multiplet analyzer too, but it's limited to first-order multiplets, while the J manager of iNMR has a larger scope. I say that Mestrenova is flawed because the drawing routines are uncomfortably slow, they are literally put to shame by iNMR.

The performance of Mestrenova is excellent on Windows, and the lack of simulation features is felt less (you can use Spinworks, gNMR or WinDNMR). On the Mac, instead, no alternative is available (to the best of my knowledge) to simulate a spin system. To tell the truth, I also prefer the iNMR look and feel (it's exactly what a long time Mac user would expect from a Mac app) which is a matter of tastes.

There are enough technical issues, however, that everyybody should agree there's no competition. To manipulate NMR data on a Mac, iNMR is the only serious choice. I have only two things to say: 1) There was yet another good NMR program for MacOS X: 'NMR Notebook'. Unfortunately, they apparently disappeared, maybe because of low sales. I still have and use their last version (2.5). 2) iNMR has one big flaw: there is no way to use external 1D plots as projections in 2D spectra. Dear pacifyer, you have ruined your own post.

You had important news to share regarding the notebook program. Unfortunately you have added a huge lie. It has always been possible to add an external projection in iNMR: and internal projections too: Ever heard about Google? I have another question for you. What does it mean that the makers of the notebook disappeared? They have revamped their web site, which still displays the street address and the phone number.

At, Anonymous said. I was a (happy) MestreNova user. As the license was paid by my former boss I just have to decide now if I'm sticking with MestreNOva or go for iNMR (paying myself.) I noticed that some people are quite fan of iNMR, so: is there a possibility to export like a peak picking list (as in MestreNova)? And is iNMR really that simple to go? Thanks At, said. A good thing about iNMR is that you can download and use it without paying and they don't even ask for your email address.

A click on the home page is enough to download a demo that never expires. The answer to your first question is: yes, you can export the list of peaks with the command Edit>Copy>List of Peaks. The answer to the second question is: download iNMR and try to repeat the tutorials you find on the web site.