If you want fully optimized clients, which perform simple and easy to optimize tasks go to Seti.

I don't see the logic why someone should claim that a 386 should get the same credit as a Core 2 Dual.

At the moment it seems there is a (short-term) loss but not as great as some would have expected (or wish to would have happened).

XtremSystem is unfortunatly (though fortunatly to Rosetta) a small amount of the work contributed (about 10% in old credits, so max 5% in new credits).

You take one team, please take the whole complete top30

We will see, I'll take a look to the outputstats of the top10 (33% in old credits, 15 in new ?) and all teams are going down to almost zero, I don't looked at the teams beneath them, but I think you see this trend in almost the complete top30.

So rosetta lost say 20% of their CPUpower, just to keep a few people satisfied.
Even a scientist must see that he was betting on the wrong horse.

I have nothing against the reasons for why they want to leave (since I agree with most of them :-)) but I can get over it and hope bakerlabs will learn from it.


I don't like the fact they told team members to leave there team, go to other teams trying to rally support and leave Rosetta etc..
Oh and I only replied to that post.


(33% in old credits, 15 in new ?)
Not sure really, Crunch3rs was usualy 300% over the norm (well that what I generally got across a range of CPU's) so I would assume they move to an average somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of their total.

XtremSystem is unfortunatly (though fortunatly to Rosetta) a small amount of the work contributed (about 10% in old credits, so max 5% in new credits).

As to the communication issue, you need a manager and I'm available for a reasonable salary. ( you can stop laughing now)
Movieman

And that's when cherry picking starts, people dump the 370 and try until they get 362's

Hopefully this is just a blip of the transition over to the newer system. Given used two different system the use Ralph for the credit value (older ones) & the use Rosetta for the credit value (newer ones)

The new system is Lotto. My last 2 results:
CPU-time: 10,061.41 GC: 68.19
CPU-time: 9,951.78 GC: 105.76

Sorry guys, i cant accept that someone will decide how much work my PC has done, this IS the computing power i contribute and i expect to receive credit based on that, not based on what some other computer estimates, then that computer can do my WUs instead and see how much that will benefit the project.

Seems to me that people care more about their stats than MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD.

So it's not "Same work, same credits", at least for the early birds.

That's how I read it too. And Mod.DE's statement about different BOINC clients not making any difference is incorrect, especially as far as early reporters go. Anyone using a modified client to overclaim will increase the average that's used to grant them credit - and the earlier they report, the greater the impact they'll have on the average.

Two work units to go on my last computer and I am done.

It's was fun,

Dave

The project team is quite fast in hiding whole threads for some posts, that are declared flames and/or flamebait. It's thus very easy to destroy any discussion by simply start flaming, and soon all previous posts, even those with reasonable content and polite wording, are gone.

At the same time it seems to be a policy to strictly forbid any discussion of what's fair and how to measure it. The simple mentioning of the "optimized" clients in this regard seems to be Verboten.

The new system isn't live yet. . . it's still using the old credits.

Edit: I was incorrect in this post, I hadn't checked my email. My apologies.

Maybe if the powers that be would give more warning to all of us, this wouldn't happen. Seems pretty pathetic that even the staff didn't know it was going live. What a great day for communications skills.

I think I fixed the prefs issue. Give it a try now.

On this WU you get almost twice the normal credit: http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=33986546

The only reason those anomalies "pop" out is because of the short WU run time - in one case you probably got a particulary complex model, and the other one aborted early because it didn't lead anywhere.

Some models will give you above-average credit while others give below-average on the same system (not every model takes the exact same amount of time)... it's supposed to even out over time.