We can live without Seti, but the project cannot exist without US. And what about all the other projects that would not even be here, if not for the success of Seti. Like it or not, credits are the "wages" of the D.C. world.

Daniel:

Sounds like extortion to me. I don't think that's in the spirit of a community dedicated to a grand search for ET. I think you might need to reconsider your motivation to participate in this project. I don't intend that statement to be mean-spirited. All of us who are truly interested in this search for ET, however improbable the search may be, greatly appreciate the contribution to this project that you and others like you have made.

Regarding Benchmark vs. FPOP:
The benchmark system was/is intended to encourage users of old slow computers to contribute their computing time to Boinc projects. Under the benchmark system the 'pay' was for hours of time crunching. Under the FPOP system the 'pay' is for actual work done. Another way of saying this would be 'pay' for product produced.

If my old computer produces 1 unit of product in 3 hours and my new computer produces 3 units of product in 3 hours, which computer is doing more work? Which computer should get more 'pay'? If I run an optimized app and my other new computer produces 4 units of product in 3 hours, wouldn't you say that it is doing more work? Shouldn't it get more 'pay' than the old slow computer?

The danger is that the FPOP system WILL CAUSE people to remove their old slow computers from the project. The advantage is that it will encourage people to upgrade the computing power of the computers that remain in the project. In the end I believe this will benefit all Boinc projects by providing a higher powered more competent base of computers which will increase the actual amount of work being done.

Problem is I think Intel cpus and AMD cpus have a difference in speed here as Intel is supposedly faster in floating point, Of course If the app has an intel bias now then It doesn't seem anymore fair than the previous system as Now AMD systems are penalized for having slower floating point, The Megahertz myth is alive and well It seems. And I don't and won't any buy Intel stuff I might add.

The machine from my example is an Athlon XP.

The old scoring system gave various results depending on the CPU types and efficiencies of the quorum -- if AMD was better, having two AMD parts would bias the score up, while having two Intel parts would bias it down.

---

Well, let's see, someone running the "normal" application on a specific computer gets example 10 Cobblestones/hour, and this "pay" haven't changed significantly from v4.18 & v5.12.

If I understood correctly, the 'standard' 5.12 itself is more optimized than the 'standard' 4.18. And that would be the reason why the optimized 5.12 isn't 3x quicker than the optimized 4.18...

So indeed the optimized users get less credit than before... that's a pity for anyone fond of credits. All in all, more science is done. That should weigh up to it for most of us. After all, it's only a hobby. :)

Greetings,
Sander

---

Problem is I think Intel cpus and AMD cpus have a difference in speed here as Intel is supposedly faster in floating point, Of course If the app has an intel bias now then It doesn't seem anymore fair than the previous system as Now AMD systems are penalized for having slower floating point, The Megahertz myth is alive and well It seems. And I don't and won't any buy Intel stuff I might add.

The machine from my example is an Athlon XP.

The old scoring system gave various results depending on the CPU types and efficiencies of the quorum -- if AMD was better, having two AMD parts would bias the score up, while having two Intel parts would bias it down.

Well I had asked and then You didn't reply, For reasons unknown to Me. In the past software was set for Intels, Of course I don't and haven't used Athlon XP cpus in a couple of Years, Nor do I have any.

I think I responded promptly.

Statements like "software was set for Intels" always bother me. Optimizing code for a specific set of features (cache size, number of floating point units, avoiding pipeline stalls, taking advantage of parallel execution) is always possible, for the project it isn't worth the bother. It requires a lot of time and a certain amount of actual talent.

SETI isn't trying to make Intel (or AMD) look good, they're trying to run on as many different architectures as possible -- and get correct results.

Instead, the project can look for optimizations like caching the results of SIN and COS operations (which are slow on all CPUs). Those help everyone (if I'm not mistaken 4.18 does not cache trig ops, and 5.13 does).

They can look for faster FFT implementations that run across all platforms.

Mostly, different processors are, well, different.

As for my choice of processor: the Athlon XP was a good choice when I bought it, not the fastest thing around, but this machine spends most of its time waiting for me to type (Crane's law: all computers wait at the same speed). A dual Opteron would do the same.

When I can buy a new machine that it at least three times faster, I'll spend my money. Until then, fast enough really is fast enough.

---

If the previous credit system was so unfair, why have I not seen discussions to that affect?

I don't know how you could miss it. It's been ongoing for as long as i've been here (12-24 months?).

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Just a question from someone who has only been at this for a few months. If credits don't matter why are they even kept and recorded? If they are not important why list and post them everywhere? Why all those little stat boxes i see all around? I understand this whole BOINC thing is about the science but anyone can plainly see it's not only about the science. That may have been the project's original intent but it has obviously evolved into something more. Pure scientific exploration started this mission, but giving it's participants something tangible to experience is what has made it grow to include some 650,000 people world wide. Science is at the core of why we are all here. I see nothing wrong with dressing it up a little if it leads to more work getting done. However frivilous it may seem to some the element of competition is what will get BOINC it's 1,000,000th and 2,000,000th user.

Only as a way to measure progress.

For some, credits become an overriding quest -- to post the biggest number.

For others (like myself) it's just interesting to see what my (one) cruncher has done, on a shared basis with other tasks.

---

Suppose you show up at work tomorrow. Your boss tells you that he is cutting your wages by a factor of three...

Yes, but this isn't work.
It something you chose to do voluntarily. If you choose not to then so be it.
It would be sad that people take their bat & ball & go home becasue they're not getting as much as what they're used to; but i guess that's just the way some people are.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

...If you look at your own results, you can see that there was almost always a difference between claimed and granted credits, and now they are almost always the same.

That's better, even if some "win" and some "lose" as a result.

One way to stop the complaints would be to just raise the credits by 50% but that starts the whole credit inflation thing, and that's exactly what the project was trying to avoid.

Agreed Ned

understood that the faster, more powerful machines still would earn more credit than slower less powerful. People just want to see their machines earn the same overall credit.

Question is...is it unreasonable to ask to earn the same amount of total credit?

We can live without Seti, but the project cannot exist without US. And what about all the other projects that would not even be here, if not for the success of Seti. Like it or not, credits are the "wages" of the D.C. world.

Daniel:

Sounds like extortion to me. I don't think that's in the spirit of a community dedicated to a grand search for ET. I think you might need to reconsider your motivation to participate in this project. I don't intend that statement to be mean-spirited. All of us who are truly interested in this search for ET, however improbable the search may be, greatly appreciate the contribution to this project that you and others like you have made.

Regarding Benchmark vs. FPOP:
The benchmark system was/is intended to encourage users of old slow computers to contribute their computing time to Boinc projects. Under the benchmark system the 'pay' was for hours of time crunching. Under the FPOP system the 'pay' is for actual work done. Another way of saying this would be 'pay' for product produced.

If my old computer produces 1 unit of product in 3 hours and my new computer produces 3 units of product in 3 hours, which computer is doing more work? Which computer should get more 'pay'? If I run an optimized app and my other new computer produces 4 units of product in 3 hours, wouldn't you say that it is doing more work? Shouldn't it get more 'pay' than the old slow computer?

The danger is that the FPOP system WILL CAUSE people to remove their old slow computers from the project. The advantage is that it will encourage people to upgrade the computing power of the computers that remain in the project. In the end I believe this will benefit all Boinc projects by providing a higher powered more competent base of computers which will increase the actual amount of work being done.

Not if it causes those who joined for the competition to leave! Most of the upgrading that has been taking place has been due to the competition between individuals/teams in the race to be the best. Do you really think everybody is spending money and running multiple machines just for the science?? If you do you are in for a rude awakening. One team alone has crunched approximately 2-3 million WUs in just over a year mainly due to the competition (and that is probably a low estimate). I would hazard to say that probably 50% or more of the "volunteers" crunching today are in it as deep as they are because of the competition. Without the competitive side of it I would probably be quite happy running it on the 3 main machines in my house, but then you would be losing the other 21 machines I am currently using, and I would have spent the money I have used for upgrades to these machines on other things. If you kill the competition with a diluted credit system, in the long run you will be hurting the project rather than helping it.

---

I would say that the system is fair. I ran an optimised client & seti app but found that I was normally claiming 30-35 credits but getting 20-25 (or even less). I am now running the optimised enhanced app and find that I'm now claiming as near as damn it what I was getting before hand.

The only reason my RAC has droped is because I'm waiting on other computers to return work so what I've done can be validated.

---

I really hope someone at Berkeley is reading this thread and paying attention to all the people who are being told "just leave if you do not like it cuz we don't need you"!! That is really a good way to solve the issue. Just run off the ones who are complaining.

---

I think the analogy with workers and wages is good, but I have a different view.

I have been crushing for S@H since 1999. With Boinc, S@H became part of a shopping mall, each project selling the same basic product, with different themes. They are all competing for scarse assets (i.e. clients). As in all marketing activity, the sellers have to cativate their clients, or they will go away, and do business in the next shop. We, the cruncher, are the clients. Now we have the option to choose what science is worth our time (pernonal and computer).

At this mall, some stores are offering rewards for crushers who improve their products (like E@H is doing with Akros), other are letting the client decide the size of the WU they whant (like Rosetta).

I see S@H still thinking as the monopoly of science, with a motto "My way is the right way". I even read someone calling users of optimized apps as "cheating". I hope this is not the official view of the project...

This is a great project, but others also are. If there are some chunchers that want more credit, give them. It's much easier than raising money thru donnations.

---

This is a great project, but others also are. If there are some chunchers that want more credit, give them. It's much easier than raising money thru donnations.

OK, I demand that you give me all YOUR credits! Does that help? Is that fair?

I don't mean this seriously - I just want to make a point.

(point... credit... it's a punn... get it?)

This is a great project, but others also are. If there are some chunchers that want more credit, give them. It's much easier than raising money thru donnations.

OK, I demand that you give me all YOUR credits! Does that help? Is that fair?

I don't mean this seriously - I just want to make a point.

(point... credit... it's a punn... get it?)

You can have all the credit for my 1700+ classic units, since they worth noting these days. ;) - just kidding.

The first time I realize the credits was a couple of months ago. Now I check them quite often, and it helps to create some will to crunch more. Someone brought the pinball machines point. I think he's right. Everyone likes to progress, if the RAC is cut by 2 or 3 with the new credit system, a pergentage of users will loose the motivation. Botton line: less science.

Let's use some psychology for some users, and let the science motivate to the others.

---

I I even read someone calling users of optimized apps as "cheating". I hope this is not the official view of the project...

Well i dont think they consider it as cheating. As you can see on the third party download page.

Why would the put a link to TRUX boinc clients there with the comment:
"BOINC client (optimized; benchmarks more closely match optimized SETI@home clients)" ?

---

Join BOINC United now!

...If you look at your own results, you can see that there was almost always a difference between claimed and granted credits, and now they are almost always the same.

That's better, even if some "win" and some "lose" as a result.

One way to stop the complaints would be to just raise the credits by 50% but that starts the whole credit inflation thing, and that's exactly what the project was trying to avoid.

Agreed Ned

understood that the faster, more powerful machines still would earn more credit than slower less powerful. People just want to see their machines earn the same overall credit.

Question is...is it unreasonable to ask to earn the same amount of total credit?

It is not unreasonable -- that is what Enhanced does.

Let's try an analogy.

Let's say we're giving out water, and we're passing it out in one pint containers. Water weighs 8.3 pounds per gallon, so 1 pint is about a pound.

If we instead switch to giving out one pound of water, it's still fair, each "work unit" is a little less than a pint, but it's about the same number.

If we then switch to gasoline (which is 6 pounds per gallon), each one pound work unit is about 1.2 pints (in round numbers).

Would it have been fairer to give out one pint "work units" of gasoline?

Now I don't much care if we pass out pints or pounds. I'd prefer gasoline at the current prices, but changing how you measure changes what you get.

We aren't looking at an intentional deflation of credits, we're looking at what happens when you change how you measure.

Enhanced counts work done. 4.18 counted some work, measured time, and estimated.

---

I see S@H still thinking as the monopoly of science, with a motto "My way is the right way". I even read someone calling users of optimized apps as "cheating". I hope this is not the official view of the project...

Where did you see that? In this thread the only context where I’ve noticed “cheating” come up is concerning clients that inflate claims made under the time-&-benchmarks system, particularly those that go beyond “calibration” for parity with standard apps, but claim as much as a third more than the developers intended for cross-project parity. (That’s my understanding of the position, anyway; I’m not well enough informed on the issues to judge its merit.)

---

Where did you see that? In this thread the only context where I’ve noticed “cheating” come up is concerning clients that inflate claims made under the time-&-benchmarks system, particularly those that go beyond “calibration” for parity with standard apps, but claim as much as a third more than the developers intended for cross-project parity. (That’s my understanding of the position, anyway; I’m not well enough informed on the issues to judge its merit.)

Down below Winterknight said "And like Tony I have not in the past accused people who use optimised clients of cheating, but do believe they are, especially those using them with other projects."

So he said he believes optimized clients are cheating.

---

So he said he believes optimized clients are cheating.

Yes, CLIENTS. Thats the BOINC bit.

Not the Science app, which is what we're talking about in this thread.

But when each one of us looks at what they have accomplished here, then sees that accomplishment cut by a factor of THREE, then what do we have to look forward to?

The optimization programmers increasing the efficiency of the app, I should think, if history is anything to go by. Granted, due in part to the generosity of some of them in contributing ideas to the developers, the gains to be made over the standard 5.x app are unlikely to be as great as those that were achieved for 4.x. I was only around for the last couple of months of Enhanced beta-testing, and saw my cobblestones-per-hour production double during that period (WU times decreased eight- or ninefold, credit per WU quartered—based on a rather small sample of WUs with similar ARs). But no doubt various specific processor-tweaked (SSE, 3DNow, AltiVec, 64-bit, …) builds will be coming out over the next few months, so I doubt those users who work at maximizing their production will go unrewarded.

---