I run Rosetta on my iBook G4 (933MHz) and on an old Pentium III (733 MHz). Usually both tend to deliver roughly the same output on other projects. However, the Rosetta app seems to be much slower on the Mac than the Linux client on the Pentium. This difference in speed is disguised by the possibility to choose the runtime of work units. Yet, I get much less credit for mac units, with much less decoys calculated.

Is this a common situation for PPC Mac users? Then I would like to switch my Mac to other projects to be more efficient. But thanks for supporting PPC Macs these days, anyway.

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/apps.php

Note: the Mac OS X (PPC) application is not optimized and will not fully utilize the PPC processor.

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/apps.php

Note: the Mac OS X (PPC) application is not optimized and will not fully utilize the PPC processor.

Thanks for that hint! I never saw this note. I'll move my iBook to Einstein@Home entirely then.

Thanks for that hint! I never saw this note. I'll move my iBook to Einstein@Home entirely then.

If you really want to squeeze the most work (and also credits) out of your PPC mac, switch to SETI@home with alexkan's optimized application. There is a reason macs dominate the Top Computers on SETI.

I have all my macs running SETI and all my other machines running everything else. Maximizes the utilization of the resources that way.

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/apps.php

Note: the Mac OS X (PPC) application is not optimized and will not fully utilize the PPC processor.

I wonder if they mean it is not optimised just at the moment or it never will be?

I run mainly SETI and Einstein but Rosetta seems a worthy cause (in terms of the science, not the lowly credit granted) and I would like to contribute more crunch time -- if only the app wasn't inefficient.

---

I wonder if they mean it is not optimised just at the moment or it never will be?

I run mainly SETI and Einstein but Rosetta seems a worthy cause (in terms of the science, not the lowly credit granted) and I would like to contribute more crunch time -- if only the app wasn't inefficient.

My cynical opinion: Our share is too small, and they think that we should feel lucky they have they resources to give us the crap apps as it is. They just don't have the resources to do any more.

My other opinion: They don't do any processor and/or OS optimization. PPC Macs just seem to suck (more) at their generic applications.

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

I wonder if they mean it is not optimised just at the moment or it never will be

My impression is that because of the move to Intel processors, it isn't really worth the expenditure of resources for them to optimise for PPC.

Regardless, my machines are staying here.

---

I wonder if they mean it is not optimised just at the moment or it never will be

My impression is that because of the move to Intel processors, it isn't really worth the expenditure of resources for them to optimise for PPC.

Regardless, my machines are staying here.

There are a lot of SMP PPC Macs out there. I think it would be very worth their while to optimize for Altivec. Besides, I run my PPC Macs on Rosetta because I believe in the cause...I just wish I was getting the most out of them. It's a crying shame when a 400Mhz celeron running Linux outperforms a DP 1Ghz G4.

abc

---

I wonder if they mean it is not optimised just at the moment or it never will be

My impression is that because of the move to Intel processors, it isn't really worth the expenditure of resources for them to optimise for PPC.

Regardless, my machines are staying here.

There are a lot of SMP PPC Macs out there. I think it would be very worth their while to optimize for Altivec. Besides, I run my PPC Macs on Rosetta because I believe in the cause...I just wish I was getting the most out of them. It's a crying shame when a 400Mhz celeron running Linux outperforms a DP 1Ghz G4.

abc

Someone mentioned that Team MacNN where looking at the source to see what could be done, if you know of anyone that could help then tell them.
One of the Daivd Kim (probably since he runs Mac's) mentioned it was because Apple are moving forward with x86 processors so it was not worth the time looking into it. Remember they are scientests and are looking at keeping it stable and improving what it actually does.

---

Team mauisun.org

I had another project running on 2 of my Macs but moved over to RH, since the completion time was taking 5-15 days. Seems the Powerbook G4 and MDD run RH a little slower but still completing WU's without errors.

---

Seems the Powerbook G4 and MDD run RH a little slower but still completing WU's without errors.

Right. The only errors I've ever had on my iBook have come from me screwing around with things too much. The constant stream of errors reported on the boards is totally foreign to me. This might be a matter of my generally hands-off approach to running BOINC, but I'm certainly happy with Rosetta even if it isn't quite on my machines as on some others.