We are working with Waters - and Agilent HPLC systems. Now we have started a project to became Part 11 compliance and it would be easier to work with only one software. Does it make sense to control the Agilent HP1100 systems with the waters software ? Does anyone have expirience ?

This one has been discussed a few times before on the forum. Do a "search by keyword", from the menu in the left hand column, using "cross control", ensuring the dates to search is "no time limit" and you'll find them. If these don't help, post again and you'll be sure to get some mixed opinions.

Tim

I personally have used/validated both systems with Millennium software. In earlier versions of the software, a BUS/LACE box was used to collect the data from the Agilent (HP) instruments. The software would only collect but would not control the instruments. I've recently set up a new lab with Millennium 4.0 with both Agilent and Waters equipment. Setting it up was no fun but now that it is it works great. Millennium controls and collects from both types of instruments now so there are no issues. I've used various versions of Millennium for the past five years and it is, in my opinion, the best chromatographic software to use if you have both brands of instruments. I'm not sure but I don't think Chemstation will control Waters equipment. There was such an outcry for Millennium to control Agilent equipment, the two companies finally got together and made it work. I was one of those people. I've always preferred the Agilent equipment to the Waters but know the power of the Millennium software so this was a perfect fix for people like me. Hope this helps.

If your Agilent HPLCs are 1100 and your Waters HPLCs are Alliance and you want only one software, you have the choice between Agilent Cerity software (new product, not ChemStation) and Waters Millenium/Empower, as there is a mutual agreement to cross control these instruments in both ways.
there are some restrictions in supported detectors, see discussion "Agilent fluorescence detector/Waters software" a few days ago.

Your choices are not limited to the data systems offered by Agilent and Waters. Dionex and at least one other CDS vendor also offer software that controls Agilent and Waters LCs. The Chromeleon CDS from Dionex offers support of many Agilent and Waters detectors, including full-spectrum (3D data) support for the Agilent 1100 PDA and Waters 996 PDA.

To pre-empt some questions that are sure to follow: Sometimes people express concern that we do not have formal agreements to exchange protocols with Waters and Agilent. They wonder about reliability, and about impacts that some future change in instrument firmware might have.

The reality is that controlling the instruments is not rocket science. Even without the formal documentation, we were able to develop, validate, and release full support for the 1100 years ago (well ahead of Waters, who had the protocols in hand). Many satisfied customers are successfully operating 1100s and Alliances with Chromeleon, including many in regulated laboratories.

Regarding the concern about firmware changes, it's a weak argument. Instrument vendors have a vested interest in keeping their protocols stable and compatible -- any change that would break communications would cause headaches for all software vendors, including the instrument vendor. Any laboratory with reasonable change control policies does not allow new firmware to be deployed unless the release is properly documented and qualified.

Even if a disruptive firmware change were to find its way into the lab, the real issue is not whether a software vendor has documentation about the change, but rather how effectively they respond to the change. We're very quick to provide solutions to any issues that come up due to model changes or firmware changes, which is why we have been successful at selling software for third-party instrument control.

In summary, you have a range of viable software choices available, and need not limit your evaluation to the software products offered by your instrument vendors.

Is this a response, or a sales pitch?

The moderator of this forum has been clear about guidelines for manufacturer postings that some people might interpret as sales pitches. In his words:


The rules regarding "sales info" on the forum are based on common sense:

1. If a "vendor" has a product that solves a problem or answers a question posted on the forum, he is entitled to talk about it. However:

2. If he does, he should clearly identify himself as a manufacturer/supplier/vendor/whatever so as to not mislead readers, and

3. He should also not "bad-mouth" a competitor's product.

-- Tom Jupille


In this thread, several postings had given the misleading impression that there were only two available solutions. It's in the best interest of forum visitors to know that there are other solutions available (note that I mentioned that another CDS provider also offers an alternative). I followed forum guidelines, I didn't go into detail about what we offer, and I concluded by stating that you have a range of choices available. Given all that, I think it's fair to conclude that my prior posting was contributing to the discussion, and not just a sales pitch.

Most of the major players (Waters, Agilent, Thermo Finnigan, etc.) claim to be able to control their competitors LC instrumentation. Our experience is that such claims need to be taken with several grains of salt. At best, you may lose some functionality on one or more modules. Of course, it is possible that everything will work as advertised.

We've been using Dionex's Chromleon with almost thirty channels of Agilent 1100's, 1050's. Waters 2690 / 2695 + 996 / 2996 and 2487 systems, along with Agilent 5890 and PE Autosystem GC's for quite a while now, with no complaints from users. We're also about to bin our Milenium system that used to run a alliance PDA setup for our Mass Spec in favour of Chromeleon control.

I suppose another question about how well the control is done is related to what level of commitment is provided. If Waters and Agilent have a formal cross-control agreement, I suppose one assumes a long-term commitment. If another vendor develops the control code independently, the degree of success would presumably dictate the degree of effort in having stable control and updates.
Another question, I suppose, is whether the system mentioned above (or others w/o cross control agreements) is a product of reverse engineering of code which, if prohibited by the owner, would make using "opportunisitic" systems problematic in our corporate no-bootlegs world. Does anyone know how that is handled in a validated lab or in corporate software audits?

Chromeleon control of Agilent 1100 LC was not reversed engineered, as stated above by Mike. if that what he was implying.