You will get flamed for that ;)

But I really like to know why some people so vehemently resist the implementation of a level playingfield for the past. Why don't they want to see what they really did, and not just some fluffed numbers.

edit:
At least they could insist on fluffing everybodies numbers, thus tripling or quadrupling mine (stock under Linux;)

There are two different issues:

a) backdating credits
b) making sure the new credit system obeys boinc project parity

I agree.
The disparity is not only between Rosetta and the rest, but also within Rosetta. Most people will use the stock client, as they don't read all this here and just want to join the science or whatever. Some use the overclaiming clients. Both got granted and the stats don't reflect the highly uneven playing field.
To get e real overview who did what in regard of scientific input (i.e. more calculations), a backwards correction would be fine. Whether the outcome would be to triple the credits of stock client crunchers, or to delete credits from the overclaiming crunchers is from the inner-project POV irrelevant, not of course from the BOINC POV.

I think it would have been best to keep the cat in the bag, so nobody would have asked for it, as it's imho quite unusual to have such a long backlog of detailed individual result data. But now the possibility is common knowledge, and imho should be done to get real stats.

...

Would my machine earn the same amount of points across all the Boinc projects ?

"Optimized" Crunch3r 5.5.0 versus stock client, usually 5.4.9 or 5.4.11 now.
Dev clients also have the 5.5.x in it, but they don't inflate the benchmarks.

There was a time coincidence between the not discouraging of this client and the need for more crunchers because of CASP7. Some (including me) saw a connection between this at that time. Dr. Baker has even stated that he still has no problems with the inflated credits, but it won't be an issue any more in the future thanks to the new credit system. I only hope the credit/hour ratio will be adjusted according to the normal client, not the inflated one.

Hi there,

I seem to have come upon something really annoying in the 5.4.11 client/Rosetta 5.25:

When I have the graphics switched on, the client repeatedly forces my machine into 800*600, 16 bits from a resolution of 1280*1024, 32 bits.
First, the machine is unresponsive for about 3-5 seconds, then *WHAM*, its resolution gets changed to 800*600.

As soon as I switch off the graphics, the changing of resolutions goes away.

I've searched the forum (also the "Errors in Rosetta 5.25-thread), but noone seems to have stumbled upon this problem.

How does this happen, and more importantly, how can I stop this behaviour?

[machine is an Athlon 64 3200+, ATI X800Pro graphics, 1 G of RAM; The screensaver option of Rosetta/BOINC is switched off]

...I think everyone understands.

I'm a bit unsure about that, as some still claim the 5.5 did "level the playing field", while it did the opposite.

What the client did or didn't do isn't relevant, nor are the motives of those who used it. It wasn't forbidden by the lab and the science results were valid and helped the research. I only wish to stop this line of posting since it doesn't help where were at now after Dr. Baker has stated that there will be no back-crediting.

The whole discussion is about this.
I understand you don't want to discuss it.
But as you so vehemently insist of not discussing it (and it still is an issue), I must suspect you have something to hide as the project: You didn't say somethimg against the use of 5.5, because it gave you an advantage over the other BOINC projects.
I definitely hope that's untrue, but strangling the discussion will only add to the suspicion.

I believe that this is one of the first times that Angus and I have agreed on anything.

|THUD| I can die happy now :)

I'm sorry to have created even more problems in efforts to calm things down!!

Everybody who crunches for rosetta is making an important contribution.

The point I was trying to make is that percieved insults on these boards should not be reasons to leave
the project. What is said back and forth does not represent the opinions of the project team, and we have no way to control it, other than enlist as many moderators as possible. People interested in moderating should contact us.

Again, I want to emphasize, the project respects and is greatful for the contribution of all contributors!

The following is from Kevint:

I'm sorry to have created even more problems in efforts to calm things down!!

Everybody who crunches for rosetta is making an important contribution.

The point I was trying to make is that percieved insults on these boards should not be reasons to leave
the project. What is said back and forth does not represent the opinions of the project team, and we have no way to control it, other than enlist as many moderators as possible. People interested in moderating should contact us.

Again, I want to emphasize, the project respects and is greatful for the contribution of all contributors!

I understand your efforts in trying to calm things down and personally see nothing wrong with what you have done.
The project Dev's have any right to post anything they want on any open message board.

Rosetta is a great project and I will be back crunching once the credit issues are worked out, and our SIMAP race is completed.

As a member of another big team, I really dont care what websites the rosetta staff frequents. After all, they run the project.

...

PS. This thread will be deleted because of violation near in future lol

Is a .pdb file available for download for the 5.24 version of the Rosetta application? I’m only able to find an older version posted online.