Re: Comparison of current DFT codes?



 [ Stuff deleted ]
 > Are there more capable, publicly-available packages available (perhaps not
 > with such completely integrated graphics as DMol), particularly suited for
 > TM-complexes?
 >
 > To set the ball rolling, which is better value: Dmol or DGauss or Dxxxx???
 >
 > Please reply to the list rather than by email to me.  I may be wrong, but I
 > suspect that other readers would be interested in this information.
 > ----
 > Alan Arnold                          |  e-mail: apa &$at$&
 pop.cc.adfa.oz.au
 > Chem. Department,University College  |  voice : +61 6 268 8080
 > Australian Defence Force Academy     |  fax   : +61 6 268 8002
 > CANBERRA  ACT 2601 Australia         |
 >
 >
 Probably many readers of this list have already received the mailing from
 Gaussian, Inc. announcing the availability for a number of machines of
 Gaussian 92 with DFT, Gaussian 92/DFT. I am neither a user nor a chemist,
 but looking at the brochure, it seems to be a decent package, with a modest
 range of computational options, such as LDA, and various non-local
 corrections to LDA, available at a moderate price to educational
 institutions. More info can be had from "info &$at$& gaussian.com".
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Donald Frederick       |      Office of Academic Computing
         frederik &$at$& uci.edu       |      University of California, Irvine
              asc &$at$& uci.edu       |      Irvine, CA  92717
         (714) 725-3200         |      FAX (714) 725-2069
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------