You need to look back farther. Since the enhanced was released many people have pulled the plug on optimized clients (using the term as was explained to me earlier), so of course it would be as you say. But go back before enhanced was released and you will see that I am right.

Highly unlikely.
As has been mentioned earlier in the thread, most people download the software, set it up & then mostly forget about it. Optimised clients are generally only used by those that are in it for the competition. While they have a large total number of machines, they would be only a small percentage of the overall number of users.

Hehehe, you can say that but you really ought to look at the numbers first. Since all of the teams that are into competition encourage their members to optimize (and that is a larger number than you may think), there are many more optimized systems than you may think. As a matter of fact, one of the ways I attract new members to my team is telling them about the optimized clients and apps. Besides, it is the large number of optimized machines that I was talking about in the first place. They far outnumbered the unoptimized before enhanced and therefor most of the time you got the higher credit granted.

---

... and my statement is: if credit is suddenly dropped, on the same day, by 50%, for everyone, what difference does it make?

We're talking about racing. Autos race at 200 miles/hour, while a horse race is closer to 35 miles/hour -- but horse racing survives, because all you need is a difference in speed.

And you never see race car drivers racing a horse. If you told one he had to then he would laugh in your face and walk away.

---

... and my statement is: if credit is suddenly dropped, on the same day, by 50%, for everyone, what difference does it make?

It looks like you're going to find out. But you're not going to like the answer.

As I said, "And would someone please tell me why crunching PURELY for CREDIT is somehow BAD??? There are those that ARE here JUST for credit. But what you don't or more to the point, CAN'T accept, is that the "greedy credit whores" are the ones who are actually doing the MOST science. Isn't THAT ironic!!! Take away their motivation for crunching, and the bottom line is that it HURTS the SCIENCE, because there won't be many hosts left DOING any science. The project management should be thinking about that, and so should all of YOU."

Regards, Daniel.

I do not agree with those who say that crunching for credit is bad.

I just think you're all taking this way too personally -- as if it was done strictly to alienate those who have a high RAC.

It was done because alot of people claimed 50 and got 20 and were understandably unhappy. It was done to bring claimed and granted credit into line.

If fewer credits are given per unit of computing, then each credit is more valuable -- and the race is still a race even if the numbers are smaller.

---

We're talking about racing. Autos race at 200 miles/hour, while a horse race is closer to 35 miles/hour -- but horse racing survives, because all you need is a difference in speed.

How many car races do you see at ESPN vs. Horse races? I don't want to see a great Project like S@H become an obscure 3rd. class science program.

ESPN shows what they show because advertisers pay them. Car companies like to buy advertising during car races.

---

My point is: the 4.18 was inneficient to use CPU time, and some users found a VALID way to improve their donation.

Not only did they find a way to improve crunching speed, but their techniques show up in the latest client -- and we are all better off because of it.

... but it does tend to level the field a bit.

---

... and my statement is: if credit is suddenly dropped, on the same day, by 50%, for everyone, what difference does it make?

We're talking about racing. Autos race at 200 miles/hour, while a horse race is closer to 35 miles/hour -- but horse racing survives, because all you need is a difference in speed.

And you never see race car drivers racing a horse. If you told one he had to then he would laugh in your face and walk away.

Just like you wouldn't see a cricket player on a basketball court. Different game.

All you need to have a race is a (potential) difference in speed.

---

I'm one of those who had an RAC above 10k but dropped to the 7k range...
I won't get into the debate one way or another about what's the fairest way to calculate credits or not. I do believe however that immediately threatening to leave with your fleet of crunchers unless changes are made is entirely the wrong way of enticing the Berkeley scientists that they should make a change. If you truly believe that the credit situation is too skewed in the other direction as the pendulum swings, then present your stats, evidence, and other information backing your case....then give the Seti folk time to examine, digest, and square things away. I may like credits as much as any other high/mid flyer, but Seti@Home's mission isn't credit giving. I also know that they understand that Credit giving is what makes this fun for the competitors out there or else they wouldn't have implemented a credit system in the first place. I understand that and don't mind that it'll take time for them to figure this out as the transition occurs. One week, especially in May when Universities tend to have graduations, vacations starting, etc. isn't long enough for them to capture the important opinions of all involved.

I'm as upset as anyone that my RAC is on a downward spiral...but I know that I'm sticking with the project, continuing to contribute to the science, and hoping that the situation will be normalized by the powers that be over the next month (or however long it takes).

---

I do not agree with those who say that crunching for credit is bad.

I just think you're all taking this way too personally -- as if it was done strictly to alienate those who have a high RAC.

It was done because alot of people claimed 50 and got 20 and were understandably unhappy. It was done to bring claimed and granted credit into line.

If fewer credits are given per unit of computing, then each credit is more valuable -- and the race is still a race even if the numbers are smaller.

And that could just have easily been done without reducing the overall credit granted for the amount of work done. Someone earlier stated they could have used any number as the base. Why not use a number that kept the granted credit at or very near the current credit per hour level rather than reducing it? I have no problem with making the granted credit closer to the same as claimed, but they did not have to reduce the overall amount as much as they did.

---

How many car races do you see at ESPN vs. Horse races? I don't want to see a great Project like S@H become an obscure 3rd. class science program.

Well, that is exactly what's going to happen when all the top participants are treated like dirt and told that they are not wanted or needed, because their motivation happens to be for the credits. Those who crunch for credits are doing equally VALID science, at an awesome rate. I was told that no one "asked" me to dedicate 23 machines to Seti. This is true. Combined, we "credit mongers" have provided MILLIONS of DOLLARS worth of equipment for UCB, on which to DO their science, to say NOTHING about the electric bills we incur as a result. Without all of those who crunch for credit, NONE of this would have been possible. If you take away the "credit monger's" motivation for crunching, you'll completely remove them from the equasion. Then, Seti ultimately DOES degenerate into a 3rd class science project. Or worse.

Regards, Daniel.

And you never see race car drivers racing a horse. If you told one he had to then he would laugh in your face and walk away.

Someone who never watched Top Gear. :)

---

I'm one of those who had an RAC above 10k but dropped to the 7k range...
I won't get into the debate one way or another about what's the fairest way to calculate credits or not. I do believe however that immediately threatening to leave with your fleet of crunchers unless changes are made is entirely the wrong way of enticing the Berkeley scientists that they should make a change. If you truly believe that the credit situation is too skewed in the other direction as the pendulum swings, then present your stats, evidence, and other information backing your case....then give the Seti folk time to examine, digest, and square things away. I may like credits as much as any other high/mid flyer, but Seti@Home's mission isn't credit giving. I also know that they understand that Credit giving is what makes this fun for the competitors out there or else they wouldn't have implemented a credit system in the first place. I understand that and don't mind that it'll take time for them to figure this out as the transition occurs. One week, especially in May when Universities tend to have graduations, vacations starting, etc. isn't long enough for them to capture the important opinions of all involved.

I'm as upset as anyone that my RAC is on a downward spiral...but I know that I'm sticking with the project, continuing to contribute to the science, and hoping that the situation will be normalized by the powers that be over the next month (or however long it takes).

---

I'm one of those who had an RAC above 10k but dropped to the 7k range...
I won't get into the debate one way or another about what's the fairest way to calculate credits or not. I do believe however that immediately threatening to leave with your fleet of crunchers unless changes are made is entirely the wrong way of enticing the Berkeley scientists that they should make a change. If you truly believe that the credit situation is too skewed in the other direction as the pendulum swings, then present your stats, evidence, and other information backing your case....then give the Seti folk time to examine, digest, and square things away. I may like credits as much as any other high/mid flyer, but Seti@Home's mission isn't credit giving. I also know that they understand that Credit giving is what makes this fun for the competitors out there or else they wouldn't have implemented a credit system in the first place. I understand that and don't mind that it'll take time for them to figure this out as the transition occurs. One week, especially in May when Universities tend to have graduations, vacations starting, etc. isn't long enough for them to capture the important opinions of all involved.

I'm as upset as anyone that my RAC is on a downward spiral...but I know that I'm sticking with the project, continuing to contribute to the science, and hoping that the situation will be normalized by the powers that be over the next month (or however long it takes).

Well, I initially just tried to start a free discussion on the issue. Then I was accused of cheating, then I was told that I had to "rethink my motivation" for being here, and that it wouldn't matter if I left, because I'm a "credit monger", so I DID. I rethought my motivation. And I decided that since my "science" isn't GOOD ENOUGH for all you altruists out there, that fine. I'll just leave. If I'm not wanted or needed by this project, then so be it. I'll wait until I can no longer get 4.18 work, and then I'll be gone. The problem for you, is that quite a few other top crunchers have stated that they too will be leaving, and thus the Exodus begins.

Regards, Daniel.

Well, I initially just tried to start a free discussion on the issue. Then I was accused of cheating, then I was told that I had to "rethink my motivation" for being here, and that it wouldn't matter if I left, because I'm a "credit monger", so I DID. I rethought my motivation. And I decided that since my "science" isn't GOOD ENOUGH for all you altruists out there, that fine. I'll just leave. If I'm not wanted or needed by this project, then so be it. I'll wait until I can no longer get 4.18 work, and then I'll be gone. The problem for you, is that quite a few other top crunchers have stated that they too will be leaving, and thus the Exodus begins.

Regards, Daniel.

Yes, but who was it that accused you of cheating... not the actual official scientists and administrators of the Seti@Home Project. Very few of the actual Project "People" post here, Eric being one of them. Note that I'm intentionally not including the Volunteer Testers or the Volunteer Developers. Why? Because they do NOT speak for the Seti@Home project officially, nor do they speak for the Berkeley team. They make great contributions, but they do not determine what is "Good Science" or not. You are free to do as you please, but I doubt it's fair in the other direction to hold the Seti@Home administrators and scientists accountable for the opinions (however valid or invalid) of members of this Message Board.

---

Well, I initially just tried to start a free discussion on the issue. Then I was accused of cheating, then I was told that I had to "rethink my motivation" for being here, and that it wouldn't matter if I left, because I'm a "credit monger", so I DID. I rethought my motivation. And I decided that since my "science" isn't GOOD ENOUGH for all you altruists out there, that fine. I'll just leave. If I'm not wanted or needed by this project, then so be it. I'll wait until I can no longer get 4.18 work, and then I'll be gone. The problem for you, is that quite a few other top crunchers have stated that they too will be leaving, and thus the Exodus begins.

Regards, Daniel.

Yes, but who was it that accused you of cheating... not the actual official scientists and administrators of the Seti@Home Project. Very few of the actual Project "People" post here, Eric being one of them. Note that I'm intentionally not including the Volunteer Testers or the Volunteer Developers. Why? Because they do NOT speak for the Seti@Home project officially, nor do they speak for the Berkeley team. They make great contributions, but they do not determine what is "Good Science" or not. You are free to do as you please, but I doubt it's fair in the other direction to hold the Seti@Home administrators and scientists accountable for the opinions (however valid or invalid) of members of this Message Board.

Well, one of them needs to step in here before those who do NOT speak officially for the project manage to run off a large portion of the power crunchers.

---

Have you noticed that after crunching just a few Enhanced WU's on a machine that has been using the Crunch3r optimized application and Trux's calibrating client, that the Duration Correction Factor gets driven up so fast by just a few Enhanced WU's, that even Trux's calibrating client is only able to claim such a low credit for older WU's, that it is hardly worth crunching them and you are better off living with just doing the Enhanced WU's and not trying to mix them on a system. Nice feature to force you to switch completely. This rapid adjustment of the Duration Correction Factor by long running WU has been complained about in the past with little response, so I have to assume the developers and Seti management like it that way, as it discourages use of optimized applications and clients. This and the sometimes No Work on machines still running just the old optimized application has caused me to raise my old 0.8 DAYS queue to near 3.0 DAYS on them, to make sure I don't run out of work.

Jack

Both Andy and I pointed out there were issues running Trux's Optimized Core Client with Enhanced... I loaded it on a couple of machine for testing during Beta...

You can get around that by turning "calibration = off" for Seti and still use it for other projects... I also stated that as I am moving optimized in and optimzed out that there were three instances where it caused issues shutting down and restarting... No there was nothing that I could directly put my finger on other that BOINC Manager with trux's client was shutdown... First suspend work and when everything shows "suspended" exit BOINC Manager...

So while Trux may be busy, I am sure that he would be looking at the various mailing lists... I suspect that he is waiting for things to stablize...

Have you noticed that after crunching just a few Enhanced WU's on a machine that has been using the Crunch3r optimized application and Trux's calibrating client, that the Duration Correction Factor gets driven up so fast by just a few Enhanced WU's, that even Trux's calibrating client is only able to claim such a low credit for older WU's, that it is hardly worth crunching them and you are better off living with just doing the Enhanced WU's and not trying to mix them on a system. Nice feature to force you to switch completely. This rapid adjustment of the Duration Correction Factor by long running WU has been complained about in the past with little response, so I have to assume the developers and Seti management like it that way, as it discourages use of optimized applications and clients. This and the sometimes No Work on machines still running just the old optimized application has caused me to raise my old 0.8 DAYS queue to near 3.0 DAYS on them, to make sure I don't run out of work.

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

Daniel,
You have the "volunteer tester" tag -- did you not help with the Beta? Did you not comment on the crunching time or granted credit?

Obviously the whole relase of 5.12 came out of nowhere. It was a surprise to me and i think to Daniel too that while knowning this app is to buggy to be released.

It is of course your decision: no one asked you to build 23 machines just for SETI (or any other BOINC project).

And noone asked for fpop counting...

It just seems silly to get so upset over credits with effectively zero value.

Well if i look at your RAC or one of the other guys who only ... and look at Daniels RAC then ...

Well Said Crunc3r! - it seems that those that have not spent the time nor energy on the project are the ones that don't care. That is appropriate, but for those of us that have spent a lot of cash, time and energy are the ones that are consistently being criticized for being credit whores..so be it.
And yes, to respond to a previous post, there was a lot of talk about fpop counting and such over on the beta site. And proper credit for proper work was a concern for the developers, I am not privy to why they chose the course of action they did, but here we are.
We are still better off than what we had during classic, in classic, who would have dreamed of being able to crunch for even 1000 credits a day! Let alone 10,000 or 20,000 a day. It took me several years to get the 6,000 that I ended up with.

---

Daniel et al

I have been avoiding the Forum's with reason, I have not been helping the transition... Competition is fine... Some of the Fun has been lost...

No one, really wants to see anyone leave... Right now we are all in the middle of a debate and a transition... As I shifted machines running Beta over to Seti BOINC SANS optimization at Eric's request for a credit analysis... That is still a work in progress, besides the Win9.x issue... This does not mention the long hard fought what happens with VLAR's and VHAR's...

One of my statements in Seti Beta is to ease the transition, give the users the credit... So currently we have a full blown debate about credit... Currently some feel it is too low (I have to include myself there). We have not even completed the transition to allow for "before and after" studies... That table is still incomplete... I am guilty of running my small number of computers in a "mixed" (optimized and no optimized state)... Overall, a recompile and credits are adjusted unless you have an app_info.xml...

So if everyohe can step back and take breath and remember we are here for the Science...

Edit
BTW? did anyone notice that the weekly outage cleared in less than an hour as Seti Enhanced is working? I did, my laptop that travels and is set for No New Work, uploaded and reported...

Well, I initially just tried to start a free discussion on the issue. Then I was accused of cheating, then I was told that I had to "rethink my motivation" for being here, and that it wouldn't matter if I left, because I'm a "credit monger", so I DID. I rethought my motivation. And I decided that since my "science" isn't GOOD ENOUGH for all you altruists out there, that fine. I'll just leave. If I'm not wanted or needed by this project, then so be it. I'll wait until I can no longer get 4.18 work, and then I'll be gone. The problem for you, is that quite a few other top crunchers have stated that they too will be leaving, and thus the Exodus begins.

Regards, Daniel.

Regards

Al
aka Pappa

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

Ahm...The weekly outage is not until TOMORROW. Sorry, Al...

I will wait to make my final decision until there has been some kind of response from project management regarding this fiasco. Then, we'll see what happens.

Regards, Daniel.

You can get around that by turning "calibration = off" for Seti and still use it for other projects... I also stated that as I am moving optimized in and optimized out that there were three instances where it caused issues shutting down and restarting... No there was nothing that I could directly put my finger on other that BOINC Manager with trux's client was shutdown...

I know, and have ran into those problems too. It acts like the client is not correctly updating its open files before closing them, or worse not even closing all of them. I have watched BOINC set there running in memory for as long as five minutes after telling it to exit. Or hanging the shutdown process if it is not manually exited first. Sounds like you are telling me all those old problems have not been addressed in the new versions of the Client. An Exit, disable startup, wait and then reboot is the only safe way, and I will be doing system updates and cleanup at the same time anyway and don't want Seti running during that process.

I have been too busy with other things to bother with Seti much the past three weeks, and finally was forced to take a break by heavy rains here in South Florida today. I will be taking the easy way out. Have downloaded and setup diskettes and CD-R with what all that I need right now. Just shutdown and convert one machine at a time as I have time and after the servers stop sending it any more old WU's. Remove the old optimized application and only run Crunch3r's Seti Enhanced 5.12 (or better). Turn optimization off and keep Trux's client only for its Return_Results_Immediately option.

Will worry about the new Client much later, hopefully after Trux has had time to update his with stable code for Windows 98/ME systems. All I need it for is the Return_Results_Immediately option now, which is sort of ridiculous that the standard client does not do it automatically. Four older system I picked up recently (P3) to use for Setiathome will instead be scrapped for a few parts, not worth the electric bill now. As someone else said, its starting to get hot down here now. Not sure if I will even bother to convert my slowest system any times soon, that I use for personal software development and testing. At least not until I find a link that explains in detail what the "Timer Problem" is all about, and can make sure there is no confict with a program I am writing and testing.