> Just like everybody knows that the pending credit feature will be turned on
> again. Eventually. But, like I said before, it's not a priority. It doesn't
> make sense to repaint the boat while it's sinking. Let's patch the holes
> first before we start looking at the cosmetic stuff.

Thats the same as I think about it.

Don´t hit the Gas to hard when the Engine isn´t running well.
So let the Time work and we will see what happens to the pending credits.
And a BIG compliment to the Boys from Berkeley, I think they did a Great Job, so far.





TEAMLESS??
Drop by ours and have a look SETI Synergy

>It doesn't make sense to repaint the boat while it's sinking. Let's patch the >holes first before we start looking at the cosmetic stuff.
>

> Don´t hit the Gas to hard when the Engine isn´t running well.
>
>

Loved the quote's. Thanks for making me smlile :-)
And of course, I definately agree. We have been running way to smooth the past couple of weeks to stress the hardware just yet. Credits will come when they come. ;-)
----------



Join the Overclockers.com SETI Team!

After reading this thread for a while, I know I should probably just keep my big mouth shut, but.... honestly, that's not in my nature. ;)

First off, I have to say that I see legitimate points in both the "newer" folks that want to see pending credit on (and proper credit given) and the "older" folks that have already seen many ups and downs in S@H BOINC and are sure that things will get sorted out eventually.

The newer guys are frustrated because they thought they were walking into a project that was close to fully functioning, yet they see problems left, right, up and down. The S@H people have been a bit misleading about BOINC, since some things you read on the various sites would give you the idea that BOINC is the new alternative to S@H Classic, while they actually consider it to be in beta testing now. In addition, while they think of it as 'beta', you have to admit, overall the project is behaving more like what most would consider 'alpha' testing if it was a piece of application software. (i.e. frequent problems, minimal functionality and most functionality currently disabled) So go easy on 'em guys.... I know you're frustrated at seeing the same questions being asked over and over and the same complaints made over and over, but to the newer folks, they seem like new problems and they probably weren't expecting them.

Secondly, on the subject of credit... I'd be lying if I said I wasn't bothered a bit about this as well. Despite having about 75%-80% of my processing power dedicated to S@H and the remainder going to CPDN and Predictor, I still have far more credit in Predictor than S@H and CPDN is swiftly catching up with S@H too. I KNOW it's about the science and not the credit, but to most folks, the credit IS the tangible measurement that you're contributing to the science! Especially now that our work is checked for validity so much more thoroughly. Credit = a good and useful contribution to SETI (which is what we're all ultimately going for). I have, myself, started to worry how much of my work is just disappearing into the ether because I just don't see much tangible evidence that S@H even is aware of more than roughly 1/3rd of it. :( From my experience with Prodictor and CPDN, I KNOW that pending credit is MUCH MORE than just cosmetic. Many, many problems with the clients were discovered by users spotting unusual feedback in pending credit and bringing it to the attention of the developers.

Finally, a response to all of the folks making analogies to us putting too much 'workload' or 'pressure' on the S@H BOINC system.... They're good points! (The boat and engine analogies were really good and I got a good smile out of them! :D ) However, what does that tell us as contributors to the project? It make me think, for sure. By putting lots and lots of processing power into S@H BOINC, aren't we stepping on the gas hard and trying to make this ship of holes cruise 30kts flat out? I've started considering whether or not it wouldn't be better for me and S@H both if I backed my resources off to about 10% for S@H to LIGHTEN their load while they get the engine tuned up and the holes patched. Obviously, I'd like to hear what others feel about the same.

I've tried to keep this post as fire retardent as possible, but if you must.... in the words of Johnny from the Fantastic Four (was his name Richards also? I can't remember), 'Flame on!' ;)

> After reading this thread for a while, I know I should probably just keep my
> big mouth shut, but.... honestly, that's not in my nature. ;)
>
> First off, I have to say that I see legitimate points in both the "newer"
> folks that want to see pending credit on (and proper credit given) and the
> "older" folks that have already seen many ups and downs in S@H BOINC and are
> sure that things will get sorted out eventually.
>
> The newer guys are frustrated because they thought they were walking into a
> project that was close to fully functioning, yet they see problems left,
> right, up and down. The S@H people have been a bit misleading about BOINC,
> since some things you read on the various sites would give you the idea that
> BOINC is the new alternative to S@H Classic, while they actually consider it
> to be in beta testing now. In addition, while they think of it as 'beta', you
> have to admit, overall the project is behaving more like what most would
> consider 'alpha' testing if it was a piece of application software. (i.e.
> frequent problems, minimal functionality and most functionality currently
> disabled) So go easy on 'em guys.... I know you're frustrated at seeing the
> same questions being asked over and over and the same complaints made over and
> over, but to the newer folks, they seem like new problems and they probably
> weren't expecting them.
>
> Secondly, on the subject of credit... I'd be lying if I said I wasn't
> bothered a bit about this as well. Despite having about 75%-80% of my
> processing power dedicated to S@H and the remainder going to CPDN and
> Predictor, I still have far more credit in Predictor than S@H and CPDN is
> swiftly catching up with S@H too. I KNOW it's about the science and not the
> credit, but to most folks, the credit IS the tangible measurement that you're
> contributing to the science! Especially now that our work is checked for
> validity so much more thoroughly. Credit = a good and useful contribution to
> SETI (which is what we're all ultimately going for). I have, myself, started
> to worry how much of my work is just disappearing into the ether because I
> just don't see much tangible evidence that S@H even is aware of more than
> roughly 1/3rd of it. :( From my experience with Prodictor and CPDN, I KNOW
> that pending credit is MUCH MORE than just cosmetic. Many, many problems with
> the clients were discovered by users spotting unusual feedback in pending
> credit and bringing it to the attention of the developers.
>
> Finally, a response to all of the folks making analogies to us putting too
> much 'workload' or 'pressure' on the S@H BOINC system.... They're good
> points! (The boat and engine analogies were really good and I got a good smile
> out of them! :D ) However, what does that tell us as contributors to the
> project? It make me think, for sure. By putting lots and lots of processing
> power into S@H BOINC, aren't we stepping on the gas hard and trying to make
> this ship of holes cruise 30kts flat out? I've started considering whether or
> not it wouldn't be better for me and S@H both if I backed my resources off to
> about 10% for S@H to LIGHTEN their load while they get the engine tuned up and
> the holes patched. Obviously, I'd like to hear what others feel about the
> same.
>
> I've tried to keep this post as fire retardent as possible, but if you
> must.... in the words of Johnny from the Fantastic Four (was his name Richards
> also? I can't remember), 'Flame on!' ;)
>
>

Well said!

It seems to me that the problem coming from Classic to BOINC is that Classic gave "instant credit" while BOINC can take some time.

If you're used to instant credit __and__ you put this process under a microscope, you are going to be disappointed.

It isn't because the project is broken, but because the expectations are wrong.

So, Andrew here will pull out, and a few days later, his credits will start showing up.

As far as pending credits -- I've seen the function at LHC, and it's very extensive. I think what we need is a "Pending Credits Lite" that just reports the total pending, not the detail. Of course, users may gripe that their provisional credit didn't match what was ultimately given...

> Well I've just decided to change from doing the Classic Seti, found that most
> of the WU don't come with me, and it doesn't look too rosy in here. Time to
> get the bicycle out Seti. I'll finish what I've downloaded and then I'm off!

One important thing about Credit I would like to emphasize :

It also shows what machine caused hicups for what reasons.

Seeing it come in only at random (as soon as other Clients finish their work) is not suffient, as it doesn't give the warm fuzzy feeling everything is working right.
It would take more than 2 weeks to find out if a single machine of a Network is definitely producing junk, justifying an investigation into the cause.

Also (which was an entirely new experience, afforded by LHC@Home), seeing who participates in the same Workunit practically live, gives the whole process of science an entirely new Dimension and a sense of being a community working hand in hand.
All of a sudden, plain numbers (WorkUnits) have a name and a host to it.

That alone is an extremely cool feature, nice & transparent, and if Results are submitted quick enough (it actually gives a sense of responsibility not to let your fellow crunchers wait too long), even feels a bit like 'realtime science'.

Pending Credits and Detailled Results lookup is definitely a must-have "Killer feature" of BOINC; saw it in action with the other Projects and immediately got attracted to its possibilities and how it transforms cold numbers into something with a personality :o)
___________________________________________
<p>Scientific Network : 36200 MHz «» 8204 MB «» 815.0 GB </p>

> The newer guys are frustrated because they thought they were walking into a
> project that was close to fully functioning, yet they see problems left,
> right, up and down. The S@H people have been a bit misleading about BOINC,
> since some things you read on the various sites would give you the idea that
> BOINC is the new alternative to S@H Classic, while they actually consider it
> to be in beta testing now. In addition, while they think of it as 'beta', you
> have to admit, overall the project is behaving more like what most would
> consider 'alpha' testing if it was a piece of application software. (i.e.
> frequent problems, minimal functionality and most functionality currently
> disabled) So go easy on 'em guys.... I know you're frustrated at seeing the
> same questions being asked over and over and the same complaints made over and
> over, but to the newer folks, they seem like new problems and they probably
> weren't expecting them.

Damn you and your intelligencenessity. But, yeah. That's a great point. I haven't checked the old SETI site in a while... are they still asking people to join BOINC? Do they mention it's a (unstable) beta now?

> Secondly, on the subject of credit... I'd be lying if I said I wasn't
> bothered a bit about this as well. Despite having about 75%-80% of my
> processing power dedicated to S@H and the remainder going to CPDN and
> Predictor, I still have far more credit in Predictor than S@H and CPDN is
> swiftly catching up with S@H too. I KNOW it's about the science and not the
> credit, but to most folks, the credit IS the tangible measurement that you're
> contributing to the science! Especially now that our work is checked for
> validity so much more thoroughly. Credit = a good and useful contribution to
> SETI (which is what we're all ultimately going for). I have, myself, started
> to worry how much of my work is just disappearing into the ether because I
> just don't see much tangible evidence that S@H even is aware of more than
> roughly 1/3rd of it. :( From my experience with Prodictor and CPDN, I KNOW
> that pending credit is MUCH MORE than just cosmetic. Many, many problems with
> the clients were discovered by users spotting unusual feedback in pending
> credit and bringing it to the attention of the developers.

Okay, maybe calling the pending credit feature "cosmetic" is underrating it a bit, but I still think there are other areas that should be worked on first. I keep thinking of all those poor Win98 people and wondering if there's another deadly bug lurking somewhere.

Out of curiousity, what kind of "unusual feedback" were people seeing? I mean, there are so many ifs, ands and buts involved with calculating credit that it makes me wonder how someone could tell if something was wrong by looking there.

> Finally, a response to all of the folks making analogies to us putting too
> much 'workload' or 'pressure' on the S@H BOINC system.... They're good
> points! (The boat and engine analogies were really good and I got a good smile
> out of them! :D ) However, what does that tell us as contributors to the
> project? It make me think, for sure. By putting lots and lots of processing
> power into S@H BOINC, aren't we stepping on the gas hard and trying to make
> this ship of holes cruise 30kts flat out? I've started considering whether or
> not it wouldn't be better for me and S@H both if I backed my resources off to
> about 10% for S@H to LIGHTEN their load while they get the engine tuned up and
> the holes patched. Obviously, I'd like to hear what others feel about the
> same.

Another good point. Yes, we are stressing the system. But some stress is good. Like, when the project was in alpha, it was apparently pretty stable. It only fell apart when they opened the floodgates and let a hundred thousand people in. However, allowing this to happen exposed a lot of problems that have since been fixed (though I think they should have limited the number of people joining).

To me, it should work like a ladder - add stress, then work out any bugs/stabilize the system. Then add more stress, work out any bugs and stablize the system. Lather, rinse, repeat.




------------------------------------


The game High/Low is played by tossing two nuclear warheads into the air. The one whose bomb explodes higher wins. This game is usually played by people of low intelligence, hence the name High/Low.

Like Thunder, not my nature to be quiet ...

Ok, we "olden" timers are not (in Paul's opinion) trying to blow smoke. And yes we have seen the same questions over and over, and I feel we as a community have, for the most part, taken an even "strain" as we used to say in the Navy. For the most part the questions have been answered as best we can.

To the extent possible I have tried to point out to many that this is a non-trivial system and there is a lot to learn. And to do my part, I have written down pretty much all I know, and made it avaiable. However, I can say with some assurance, that the response is a little underwhelming to say the least. I have now, individual page counters on most pages and you can take a look on your own to judge how much the resource has been used.

Digging back to the past, how many of us bought Windows 95 the first day it was available? :)

How many of those that did, feel that before SP1 it was a reliable OS? No, don't count me in that number.

For whatever reason, we take as givens the lower quality and reliability of Microsoft's Operating Systems and rarely seem to complain. To finish the analogy, BOINC is new... Like any new product it is not finished and is not all we would want it to be ...

I try very hard to not feed the frustration. Yet, on my part, I have to admit that I have been feeling mildly frustrated at some of the tones of the carping. Yes credit is an important feature. But, for my part the problems with credit are, as Leo G. Carroll said, "... it is like a headache to a drowning man, it is hardly noticiable ..." ...

On my 6 computers I have been running BOINC continually in many versions and v 4.0x for me has be very reliable (not that I say a lot of the problems that many other people saw). I have 5 projects locked and loaded and I am processing work on them day and night. To be honest, I have not been paying hardly any attention to that because of my delight I can contribute to several projects that hold my interest (that is why I have all 5 loaded on all machines).

One of our consistant points we try to make is that there are other projects. Unfortunately, all but cp.net are doing limited accounts. In part because of the problems evidenced in SETI@Home I am sure.

Ok, new analogy, since they seem to be popular. We are driving down the road at 500 MPH and working on the engine to do a valve job and changing the flat tire at the same time ...

Note: we are not stopping the car to do any of this ...

==============

Change of course...

Ok, lets talk pending credit (again ... sigh) As results are posted to the "Results" table the credit values are an insert/update to that record. If there is a turnover of 50,000 WU a day, that is 50,000 database hits. In theory, that is not that bad. Except we are also hitting it for all of the other activities involved with the processing of work, new issues insert new rows, etc.

One of the fundamental limiting factors is that there is a bottleneck. And that right now is centered on the results table. To obtain pending credit the system woould NORMALLY just do a read of all records by user id that were in a pending state. Still cool, except, guess what, unless there is an index that gives us direct access we are going to trigger a full table scan ... ouch.

Oh, and most people don't know that indexes only speed up retrieval. They slow down everything else. Every insert, update, or delete, triggers an change to the base table and the indexes. If you have 4 indexes, you now have triggered 5 update behaviors.

Continuing, the logical alternative is that we could do pending as a raw number maintained in the user table so that the updates are to another table. Except to do an initial population would mean that we would have to do full table scans on per user basis to create the initial values. On a system that is already heavily loaded, in that direction lies madness. Oh, and to make this change we also have to change the scheduler, validator, and transitioner and test them all over again before we can field the change to see if it cures the problem. And it may not cure the problem.

Most performance challenges occur because behaviors almost never scale in a linear manner. Twice as many users is not twice as many load points. Worst of all, most scaling factors are not only non-linear, they are almost always some form of exponential.

We were, during the beta, stressing SETI@Home at about the rate that you see on the LHC@Home and Predictor@Home sites (actually I think we go up as high as 5,000 ... but I forget, and it is not that important) and we did not have any problems with pending credit pages ... If they go unrestricted, it is almost certain that they will see the same performance issues (assuming roughly equivelent servers).

Ok, last point...

There are several third party sites that get your stats, slice and dice them so the pressure for actual values out of the project web site is, frankly, not that compelling of a problem right now. Folks, we have BOINC mod 1, version 4 ... We don't have a Linux or Macintosh GUI yet. We have known issues that are still in the task base. But every release is better, overall, than its predicessors ...

Heck, now I have BOINC View running at home, I may argue that a GUI for the other platforms are not needed, all we have to do is work on the visuals a bit. ...
<p>
For BOINC Documentaion: Click Me!

> Damn you and your intelligencenessity. But, yeah. That's a great point. I
> haven't checked the old SETI site in a while... are they still asking people
> to join BOINC? Do they mention it's a (unstable) beta now?

Still just this same blurb from June:

" A new version of SETI@home based on BOINC, is now available. We'll be transitioning to this new version (details are here). For now, you can use the new version or stick with SETI@home Classic. "

They've had the same page up describing the transition since that day and it still makes it sound like you can run either just as well. Like I said, the 'official' line is that S@H BOINC is the current alternative that will become the defacto standard soon.

>
> Okay, maybe calling the pending credit feature "cosmetic" is underrating it a
> bit, but I still think there are other areas that should be worked on first.
> I keep thinking of all those poor Win98 people and wondering if there's
> another deadly bug lurking somewhere.
>
> Out of curiousity, what kind of "unusual feedback" were people seeing? I
> mean, there are so many ifs, ands and buts involved with calculating credit
> that it makes me wonder how someone could tell if something was wrong by
> looking there.

Mostly it was WU's that would process partially, then return an error... the pending credits and results pages would show how much time was spent and what code was returned. During times when a lot was going wrong, it helped to have the users as well as the developers combing this info for useful tidbits about what was going on. The pending credits and results pages contain a startling amount of information about every WU. That's a double-edged sword though, I realize. As Paul mentioned, it makes for a heckuva lot of db queries to create the report, but as Falcon Fly mentioned, it really keeps the users 'connected' both to their own work, but the others that are validating their work.
>
> Another good point. Yes, we are stressing the system. But some stress is
> good. Like, when the project was in alpha, it was apparently pretty stable.
> It only fell apart when they opened the floodgates and let a hundred thousand
> people in. However, allowing this to happen exposed a lot of problems that
> have since been fixed (though I think they should have limited the number of
> people joining).
>
> To me, it should work like a ladder - add stress, then work out any
> bugs/stabilize the system. Then add more stress, work out any bugs and
> stablize the system. Lather, rinse, repeat.

I totally agree that we have to stress the system to see where it breaks. All sorts of web-based applications face the same problems and have to deal with them. My question really is whether or not we're stressing the system TOO MUCH. To continue having fun making analogies... it doesn't leave the crew with much time to patch the holes in the boat when they're busy bailing out water to keep afloat. Better to get into shallower water, patch the holes below the water line and gradually work their way up! ;) (aren't these nautical references fun?)

> Like Thunder, not my nature to be quiet ...

HA!

Um, sorry. Great post, carry on.




------------------------------------


The game High/Low is played by tossing two nuclear warheads into the air. The one whose bomb explodes higher wins. This game is usually played by people of low intelligence, hence the name High/Low.

>
> Still just this same blurb from June:
>
> " A new version of SETI@home based on BOINC, is now available. We'll be
> transitioning to this new version (details are here). For now, you can use the
> new version or stick with SETI@home Classic. "
>
> They've had the same page up describing the transition since that day and it
> still makes it sound like you can run either just as well. Like I said, the
> 'official' line is that S@H BOINC is the current alternative that will become
> the defacto standard soon.

Yeah, okay, that's the blurb that brought me over here. So I agree, it's just a tad bit misleading. heh


> Mostly it was WU's that would process partially, then return an error... the
> pending credits and results pages would show how much time was spent and what
> code was returned. During times when a lot was going wrong, it helped to have
> the users as well as the developers combing this info for useful tidbits about
> what was going on. The pending credits and results pages contain a startling
> amount of information about every WU. That's a double-edged sword though, I
> realize. As Paul mentioned, it makes for a heckuva lot of db queries to
> create the report, but as Falcon Fly mentioned, it really keeps the users
> 'connected' both to their own work, but the others that are validating their
> work.

Maybe it's because I've never seen these pages that I can't really appreciate how much information you're talking about here. It seems like this is available in the BOINC client text dumps. And I'm not sure we're having the problems that warrant this kind of scrutiny at this point.

Also: most of the people who want the pending credit feature don't want it for any kind of technical data they can get.


> I totally agree that we have to stress the system to see where it breaks. All
> sorts of web-based applications face the same problems and have to deal with
> them. My question really is whether or not we're stressing the system TOO
> MUCH. To continue having fun making analogies... it doesn't leave the crew
> with much time to patch the holes in the boat when they're busy bailing out
> water to keep afloat. Better to get into shallower water, patch the holes
> below the water line and gradually work their way up! ;) (aren't these
> nautical references fun?)

Cripes, I wish I'd chosen something else now. I don't know much about boats.

But to continue the analogy - At this point, the water coming in is a little less than the amount being bailed out. To get us back into shallower water would make some people have to stop bailing, which could make the ship start sinking again. It seems more logical, to me, that we continue to bail and fix as we go. In other words, yeah, there's probably too much stress on it but there's not a whole lot that can be done about that at this point.




------------------------------------


The game High/Low is played by tossing two nuclear warheads into the air. The one whose bomb explodes higher wins. This game is usually played by people of low intelligence, hence the name High/Low.

Papa,

If you mouse around my documentation I still have example pages of the results that are obtained and what the pages "should" look like ...

You can also go into the sites like Predictor@Home and see the same things ...

My examples are from the BOINC Beta test as I am still struggling to get caught up to 5 live projects.

Since Friday late I touched 225 objects which are uploading now. So, I am getting there ...

The bad news is that as I am changing thinks some stuff seems to come and go ... though my latest link test says nearly 300 broken links, about half are examples for the various projects, and the other part are pages that got changed / renamed and I am still fixing the links ...

The schema, if you know databases, is also available and you can see what they store. The most interesting aspect when that information is available is to look from results back to WU and the deltas between what you got and waht someone else got ...

And yes, it is powerful when we all can look at the evolution of the system and how it is behaving when we can all look at the WU, results and why some seem to be funky...

I just don't see much good news on the horizon ... and though it looks like a light at the end of the tunnel, well, I just heard a train whistle too ....
<p>
For BOINC Documentaion: Click Me!

Surely we could please 90% of people by adding to the "your account" page a "# of results pending" figure? So, if machine "a" returns a result, this counter increases by one. When credit is granted/refused, it decreases. When credit is granted/refused, the host & user tables must be updated anyway, so cost of update = 0?

This would surely please those who continually cry "I've returned one, where is it?". And would nicely sidestep the whole granted credit claimed credit issue?

As a quick, easy (to an outsider) update whilst the system as a whole is capable of results browsing this seems a reasonable solution?

Just like everybody knows that the pending credit feature will be turned on again. Eventually. But, like I said before, it's not a priority. It doesn't make sense to repaint the boat while it's sinking. Let's patch the holes first before we start looking at the cosmetic stuff.
=========
Good point there Papa, but they had better make it a priority while theres still somebody left to paint the Ship...IMO

I suppose you call being able to see your Stats on your Cell Phone Patching the Holes, I call it throwing Cheese to a bunch of Drowning Rats...

It wasn't that long ago that there where only about 9000 Clients over at CPDN, now there is close to 20,000 over there according to the Project Stat's. That tells me there are a lot of People that simply don't like the Color of the Ship over here anyway.

Myself, I've just about given up on Seti ever being a viable Project to run & have switched all my CPU time to CPDN like a lot of other people I know, I like the idea of all my Computers getting the Credit that they are due every day in a timely manor instead of never knowing what credit I am due and when the hell I'll ever get it.

I don't like the idea of my PC's not getting their Credit because Joe Blow decides to take a vacation and shuts his PC's off for a month & the WU's have to be sent back out again. And then the next Joe Blow that gets the Wu's decides something is wrong with his system or the way the Projects running on his PC so he resets the Project & the same WU's have to be sent out again & on & on until I see some of the WU's I used to get with 8's & 9's behind them & I wonder just how many times this WU is going to be sent out before 3 people actually finish it.

I also don't like the idea of 1 of my slower PC's spending 8-10 hours crunching a WU and then only getting .50 Credits for it because some Joe Blow has a freaking Million Programs running in the Background when his PC Bench marks and he only gets half the Score he should have got so it drags down everybody else's Credit with him.

I think CPDN is a great Project in the way the Credit system is set up, theres no dependency on anybody else to finish the WU's & your Benchmark Scores don't really mean anything over there either. Also if your going to talk about doing it for the Science then I think theres a whole lot more to do for Science over there than running around looking for Little Green Men on the other side of the Moon...

> Surely we could please 90% of people by adding to the "your account" page a "#
> of results pending" figure? So, if machine "a" returns a result, this counter
> increases by one. When credit is granted/refused, it decreases. When credit is
> granted/refused, the host & user tables must be updated anyway, so cost of
> update = 0?
>
> This would surely please those who continually cry "I've returned one, where
> is it?". And would nicely sidestep the whole granted credit claimed credit
> issue?
>
> As a quick, easy (to an outsider) update whilst the system as a whole is
> capable of results browsing this seems a reasonable solution?
>
I want Boinc release for FreeBSD.
I need it to be happy. :(

> This would surely please those who continually cry "I've returned one, where
> is it?". And would nicely sidestep the whole granted credit claimed credit
> issue?

No. Focus on those poor win98 sufferers.

(Actually I agree ;-)


PS. Credits are not flowing.

> Your wrong there PaPa, the Pending Credits & Results Features are just as
> important as somebody's Win98 Machine being destroyed, as far as I'm concerned
> the Win98 Machines need to be destroyed if their living that far back in the
> cave yet...

Hey, don't knock Win98 - living in that particular cave allows my wife's computer to safely ride out all these silly WinXP worms. Win98 still lets her word process, check email, and surf the web. It would probably crash into a ball of flames if she left it on all the time, but she only turns it on when she's using it...

Anyway, she'd be quite ticked if I loaded SETI and it wiped out her machine!

Anyway, she'd be quite ticked if I loaded SETI and it wiped out her machine!
==========

:0 ... Please don't blow up the little womans PC ... ;)

>> The newer guys are frustrated because they thought they were walking into a
> project that was close to fully functioning, yet they see problems left,
> right, up and down. The S@H people have been a bit misleading about BOINC,
> since some things you read on the various sites would give you the idea that
> BOINC is the new alternative to S@H Classic, while they actually consider it
> to be in beta testing now.

If they consider it to be beta then explain this:

June 22, 2004
Welcome to the new SETI@home! The project is now officially active. We've reset the project by deleting all results and workunits, and setting all credits (user, team, host) to zero. Thanks to everyone who participated in the alpha and beta tests for their help in debugging SETI@home and BOINC.

Thunder
This project went through alpha and beta testing and is LIVE.
Stop trying to give the impression that it is still beta.
Or to put it another way stop making up excuses for the admins.

Thunder
This project went through alpha and beta testing and is LIVE.
Stop trying to give the impression that it is still beta.
Or to put it another way stop making up excuses for the admins.
==========

PCZ, I was under the same impression that the Project was no longer Beta since it went Live. But if you will open up the BOINC GUI & click on Help then About, you will see the version of BOINC you are using is BOINC Beta version v4.05 or 4.08 & 4.09 & is a Development Release.

Of course this is the only place I can find any reference to the Project being Beta yet and the Dev's seemed to have somehow failed to inform the new people that are interested in joining the Project that it is still Technically a Beta Project...