We are on the looks for a new liquid handler and I would like to ask about the software.
For any of you who worked with both Venus 4 and Evoware I would appreciate any feedback about the ease of software use: writing protocols, teaching other lab members how to use or any other thing that comes to your mind about them (bugs? freezes? other issues?)
I am currently running the OT-2 so I don’t have a problem learning a new software, but from a brief look at the UI and some advanced scripts, Evoware looks much more friendly. Is Venus 6 better in that aspect?
Extremely equivalent. I find it easier to get methods written from scratch and ready for testing in Evoware, but I like VENUS better for final quality. Basic user prompts are pretty similar at base level, but you can dive into XAML and go crazy in both if you really wanted that polished final product. They are both very functional and you’d have no issue getting your lab running on either system.
One important thing to note is that VENUS does not have an undo button so weigh that against your development team. However, Hamilton also has a much stronger presence on this forum and likes to provide quick and immediate assistance where it seems most of the Tecan support comes from 3rd party and experienced users rather than direct from the mfr.
Grain of salt, mileage may vary and all that. I’ve used Venus 4.5 but not 6.0 so can’t speak for the newest software out there. This will be a fun thread to watch.
Hi, I program both Evoware and Venus (and some other ones too).
I would say that Venus architecture is similar in many ways to C programming and so if you have a computer science background that will help in programming. Typically I find there are more lines of code required as you handle some of the details at a lower level - there are arrays, aligning data such as volume data to the sequences, etc. For Hamilton if you want to run less than the whole program, typically this is done by disabling sections of code that you do not want to run (and then re-enabling them when you want them on as part of the next run). On Evoware, there is a “Run direct” that will let you run just the highlighted portion. On both platforms, you need to setup your program in a way that keeps partial runs in mind such that the necessary upstream dependencies are set. For Evoware, setting up variable numbers of samples, once you know how to do it using the built-in SAMPLE_CNT variable, is fairly straightforward - it’s good to learn some of the built-in special variables like SAMPLE_CNT and WELL_OFFSET. On Venus setting up the variable number of samples comes down to setting the start and stop positions of the sequences.
The other aspect to Venus is just managing the sequences, ensuring you have the sequences incrementing when you want them to and starting back at the beginning in the cases where you need them to. One of the things to watch out for on Venus is that not all of the commands are shown in the menu upon initial install so you will want to go into the command list and enable most anything you are likely to use. And there are a number of libraries that will help making the programming easy, which may need to be manually added.
Like any software, there is a learning curve to either platform. I think generally the Tecan program will require fewer lines of code than an equivalent Hamilton program. Tecan has an optional package for creating operator-friendly interfaces called TouchTools. It is an overlay program to Evoware. Hamilton has similar ability to make customized screens, more along the lines of Visual Basic GUIs where you can put multiple graphics, buttons, file selectors, etc., generally more customizable (and somewhat more work to program) than Tecan’s TouchTools.
One quirk of Evoware is if you decide to change the type of labware late in the script-writing process. If the plate is used in the script (and it almost certainly will be or why would you have put it there!), and then you want to change the plate type, the software won’t let you delete it unless you remove it from use in any lines of script referring to it. That’s a lot of trouble so the better workaround that I commonly use, is to just highlight my entire script, copy and then delete the whole thing, change the plate (and make sure the new plate has the same label as the old plate) and then paste the script back. So again I’d say it comes back to the learning curve with the nuance of any software. Another quirk is that it wants the text of the group to be unique (if you manually type it - which you can work around even with something like a space character), but if you Copy-Paste, then you can get it to be an exact duplicate!
The STAR I intend on purchasing is from the COVID era, meaning it was under heavy use. Would you guys have any concerns about it in terms maintenance and/or performance? of course a service pack will be purchased for any errors that may be introduced.
Thank you @mueller68@evwolfson
Pretty sure a STAR could survive a drop down a flight of stairs, and I’ve seen EVO’s in use so long that they were still on like version 1.0 of the software where only one guy in Tecan remembered how to run service tests. All the internals worked fine!
Where are you located? Likely only the midwest would have spotty or delayed service. If you’re in any major city you’re likely well covered by service engineers.
It depends on where you are. Hamilton in some areas obligates buyers of used devices to a check by an FSE (which you have to pay for) on whether the device can enter a contract. Then you get a rejuvination process, which you pay for again. But then it’s like any other device.
A sidenote re. COVID systems: Some of them were also cleaned incorrectly with strong detergents during the height of the pandemic. Both Hamilton and Tecan know of a number of devices they will not include in a service contract because of this, now matter the obvious condition of the device.
Do you know of what the equivalent of this would be in Biomek/SAMI software for Beckman? Trying to set up an error recovery process but not easy with what I have.