Can everyone agree that 'optomizers' are not, and were not 'cheaters'?

This new credit system does'nt reflect the actual work done either. We have a situation now where lower end machines are getting higher credits than they would otherwise have got and higher end machines are getting lower credits than they would otherwise have got. In other words, the higher end machines are dragging the lower end machines up and the lower end machines are dragging the higher end ones down.

This new credit system seems fair to all participants in that it places everyone on the same playing field.

It does not. See David Kims comments/dialogue about Power Mac users.

An unoptimized benchmark is incapable of correctly measuring the potential of a CPU. IF you are going to measure a cpu, you need to measure its entire potential to be fair, not its castrated potential. This is at the BOINC level, as it it not in their control whether a project optimizes their code. What use is taking a measurement you know isn't fully accurate?

The old Crunch3r BOINC clients were fine, as are the Trux optimised clients. They do take into account the increase in throughput that can be attributed to extra instructions as found in SSE etc. But 5.5.0 just seems to make numbers up. They are physically impossible.

Physically impossible as throughput, as stated above, yet not as a comparison. If the numbers were made up, I doubt the rosy staff would have allowed its use.

Try being a dial up user. I was, the best you can do is set to display "most recent post first" and then hit the stop button on the browser to avoid waiting 3 minutes for all the old (already read) posts to load.

This thread is a continuation of the dicussion of the new credit system. All prior posts can be found here.

The only usefull info would be in actual work done, or FLOPS returned. Unless the FLOPS were measured from the benchmarks.. then they mean as much as the credits.

Well, there it is afterall. A drop of about 13% of credits so far.

SIMAP is a boinc project, it uses phpBB

I`m at WCG which like most operates a quorum (how many I know not). My points are all over the place, here maybe a reason.

1) There is no attempt made to wait for a task to finish other than waiting for the next checkpoint. So, if things are running normally, and there is no checkpoint between the re-schedule and the end of the task, it does wait.

So I think the labelling should be changed, as it's also possible that a result is really invalid, for example when the hardware is faulty and delivers no useful results.

Now that ralph is here, the incidents of failed wus is very low, and I hope they stop that practice.

Do I understand this right: In the old system you even got credit for invalid results? Why should this be?

Feet1st: I have BOINC set to run 24/7 (which it does, my PC is up 24/7), the unit is set to be removed from memory when it switches to another project. Interval is 1 hour, then it moves to the next project and so on.

I'm having the same problems with Rosetta@Home "hanging" (it shows "running" but the CPU is at 0%).