I suggest that SETI (we) incorporate. Make this a for profit veture like Mr. Brason's Spaceline or what NASA was trying to achieve with private cargos on the shuttle. Just a matter of finding people to pay for the technologies that are secondary offshoots from the research. Possibilities exsist, just off the top of my head I would say this is custom programing with numerous private sector or academic applications. . .

---

Most humbly.

I liked seti classic.

Yeah I think alot of us liked Classic. The problem is it just ran out of money. The US Government decided to do other things with its money, then so did all the other Corporate sponsors. Finally it came down to just people like you and I supporting with our spare cash and finally even that ended. The Developers looked for a way to keep the project alive and Boinc came about . There are a bunch of other projects you can run under a basic platform and fortunately, from my point of view, Seti is one of them.
Now unfortunately the Developers are asking for our cash again or Berkeley may cut Seti off. The people with the money just don't seem to think that ET is worth finding! I am hoping that the current request for donations works so we can keep crunching for Seti!

If seti is truly short on cash this really does not explain how they have the time and resources required to write a fancy pants screensaver that requires complicated 3d graphic drivers instead of a plain jane 2 dimensional one.

If seti is truly short on cash this really does not explain how they have the time and resources required to write a fancy pants screensaver that requires complicated 3d graphic drivers instead of a plain jane 2 dimensional one.

You can always go here and use the old Classic version in Boinc http://boinc-wiki.ath.cx/index.php?title=Screen_Saver_%26_Graphics_Display_-_SETI%40Home_Classic_%28Emulation%29 never tried it myself.

---

If seti is truly short on cash this really does not explain how they have the time and resources required to write a fancy pants screensaver that requires complicated 3d graphic drivers instead of a plain jane 2 dimensional one.

You can always go here and use the old Classic version in Boinc http://boinc-wiki.ath.cx/index.php?title=Screen_Saver_%26_Graphics_Display_-_SETI%40Home_Classic_%28Emulation%29 never tried it myself.

Actually that isn't hte old classic version. That's the same craptastic 3d version that's trying to look like the old version, only with abysmal performance. It's total crap. You've deleted like 10 of my posts saying this same thing, becuase you're offended when I say what a huge pile of dung it is, because it runs so slowly.

Just accept the fact that classic is gone. The best that can be done is emulate it's screensaver.
@Rob
Your post will continue to be removed as long as you can not use civil language. This is a board to help the project and its users, not a place for your personal rants.

---

Boinc V7.2.42
Win7 i5 3.33G 4GB, GTX470

Just accept the fact that classic is gone. The best that can be done is emulate it's screensaver.
@Rob
Your post will continue to be removed as long as you can not use civil language. This is a board to help the project and its users, not a place for your personal rants.

How is this merely a personal rant when so many other people agree with me? REQUIRING a 3d card of a freaking screensaver is just insane. Especially for something like this! Who's decision was it to make this 3d?

Just accept the fact that classic is gone. The best that can be done is emulate it's screensaver.
@Rob
Your post will continue to be removed as long as you can not use civil language. This is a board to help the project and its users, not a place for your personal rants.

How is this merely a personal rant when so many other people agree with me? REQUIRING a 3d card of a freaking screensaver is just insane. Especially for something like this! Who's decision was it to make this 3d?

Just because some people might agree with you (you've found, what, a couple dozen people out of the several hundred thousand that crunch for SETI), doesn't mean it's not a personal rant. Every time you get on this topic, you get nasty (such as constantly calling people names) or become very vulgar. You simply change the words in your posts after they're deleted for foul language, but you don't change the tone toward other people, as if you cannot hold a civil discussion without over-reacting.

Just because you can't see the logic in something, doesn't make it "insane" or "stupid" or any other negative adjective you can think up. What is so hard about simply stating your opinion in a civilized manor without freaking out?

---

Because, believe it or not, it really is totally absurd. Seti was never just for power users, it was installed on just any old machine, because people thought it was fun. Now, because it REQUIRES a 3d card, it runs WORSE and SLOWER than it did in 1999.

See what's so absurd yet?

1999= 2d, simple, runs fast, runs on almost anything

2006= 3d ONLY, much more complex, runs slowly, only runs on computers that have decent videocards.

THAT IS NOT PROGRESS. It is bass ackwards.

THAT IS NOT PROGRESS. It is bass ackwards.

Well, there's part of your problem. It's not a screen saver anymore, so it's not about being progressive as a screen saver.

BOINC is a full-fledged distributed computing product that offers users to connect to the science of their choice. It is those science apps that have the screen savers - and not all of them do.

The screen saver is an afterthought now, as not many people run screen savers anymore. Most people just set their monitors to power off after a period of inactivity to save electricity.

I'd hardly call that "bass ackwards", but I can see how someone who doesn't understand might call it that.

---

THAT IS NOT PROGRESS. It is bass ackwards.

Well, there's part of your problem. It's not a screen saver anymore, so it's not about being progressive as a screen saver.

BOINC is a full-fledged distributed computing product that offers users to connect to the science of their choice. It is those science apps that have the screen savers - and not all of them do.

The screen saver is an afterthought now, as not many people run screen savers anymore. Most people just set their monitors to power off after a period of inactivity to save electricity.

I'd hardly call that "bass ackwards", but I can see how someone who doesn't understand might call it that.

... Holy crap! Really! Oh wait, I've heard all that before. And you're still ignoring this:

It is MUCH more complex and demanding to write an entire screensaver in THREE DIMENSIONS that takes advantage of different videocards, than it is to write a 2d screensaver that does not use the GPU.

End of story. Some idiot, whoever it may be, spent a whole lot of extra time making the thing 3d only, isntead of a far simpler, and faster running solution.

... Holy crap! Really! Oh wait, I've heard all that before. And you're still ignoring this:

It is MUCH more complex and demanding to write an entire screensaver in THREE DIMENSIONS that takes advantage of different videocards, than it is to write a 2d screensaver that does not use the GPU.

End of story. Some idiot, whoever it may be, spent a whole lot of extra time making the thing 3d only, isntead of a far simpler, and faster running solution.

And then there would have been complaints that the original static screensaver was damaging users nice modern lcd screens - which were not widely owned back in 1999 and really don't like fixed pictures for long periods... There is a strong arguement for a more mobile screensaver in this respect - one that actually does its job properly - instead of insisting on living in the past.

Please consider that other projects don't offer a screensaver, so if you wanted 'some idiot' to write code that was a 'far simpler, and faster running solution', they could simply have left the thing out altogether.

... Holy crap! Really! Oh wait, I've heard all that before. And you're still ignoring this:

It is MUCH more complex and demanding to write an entire screensaver in THREE DIMENSIONS that takes advantage of different videocards, than it is to write a 2d screensaver that does not use the GPU.

End of story. Some idiot, whoever it may be, spent a whole lot of extra time making the thing 3d only, isntead of a far simpler, and faster running solution.

See, there you go again. You can't post a thing on these boards without insulting someone. You don't understand the logic, so you're calling the programmer(s) an idiot.

What you're forgetting is that many users have had screen burn-in with the old 2D screen saver, because it didn't move enough. And you're apparently forgetting what I just told you: not many people use screen savers anymore! End of story. You're lucky they even included one.

You keep responding like that, and I'm going to start reporting every one of your posts to the mods. It seems your lack of civility is only cause for flame bait. You simply want to insult someone into arguing with you, and I'm not going to fall for it. A review of your entire post history can prove everything I just said.

Now quit beating a dead horse. End of story.

---

... Holy crap! Really! Oh wait, I've heard all that before. And you're still ignoring this:

It is MUCH more complex and demanding to write an entire screensaver in THREE DIMENSIONS that takes advantage of different videocards, than it is to write a 2d screensaver that does not use the GPU.

End of story. Some idiot, whoever it may be, spent a whole lot of extra time making the thing 3d only, isntead of a far simpler, and faster running solution.

And then there would have been complaints that the original static screensaver was damaging users nice modern lcd screens - which were not widely owned back in 1999 and really don't like fixed pictures for long periods... There is a strong arguement for a more mobile screensaver in this respect - one that actually does its job properly - instead of insisting on living in the past.

Please consider that other projects don't offer a screensaver, so if you wanted 'some idiot' to write code that was a 'far simpler, and faster running solution', they could simply have left the thing out altogether.

I hope this is a joke response. Burn in was a much MUCH bigger problem on CRTs than it is with LCDs. LCDs can still sometimes suffer from burn in, but it's VERY, VERY rare compared to CRTs. Your argument does not make any sense, because of this fact.

As for it wobbling..fine... are you saying that it's impossible to make the old 2d screen saver move around a little? Are you telling me that the only way to get it ot move around is to make it fully 3d, requiring a graphics card? I have seen many images that move around or bounce around without using a graphics card at all, and they are NOT 3d. So again, your argument is weak and does not hold water.

... Holy crap! Really! Oh wait, I've heard all that before. And you're still ignoring this:

It is MUCH more complex and demanding to write an entire screensaver in THREE DIMENSIONS that takes advantage of different videocards, than it is to write a 2d screensaver that does not use the GPU.

End of story. Some idiot, whoever it may be, spent a whole lot of extra time making the thing 3d only, isntead of a far simpler, and faster running solution.

See, there you go again. You can't post a thing on these boards without insulting someone. You don't understand the logic, so you're calling the programmer(s) an idiot.

What you're forgetting is that many users have had screen burn-in with the old 2D screen saver, because it didn't move enough. And you're apparently forgetting what I just told you: not many people use screen savers anymore! End of story. You're lucky they even included one.

You keep responding like that, and I'm going to start reporting every one of your posts to the mods. It seems your lack of civility is only cause for flame bait. You simply want to insult someone into arguing with you, and I'm not going to fall for it. A review of your entire post history can prove everything I just said.

Now quit beating a dead horse. End of story.

Now you're insulting me. I do understand 'the logic', the problem is it's just a bad decision, that goes AGAINST what logic dictates. If you're going to make a simple screen saver, it'd be easier to make it 2d. If you're going to make a simple screensaver that needs to run on tons of differnet machines, you make it 2d. If you're going to make a simple screensaver that doesn't require a ton of time to code, and doesn't use a whole lot of CPU time, you're going to make it 2d.

There is NO freaking reason for making it completley 3d, and requiring the use of a graphics card. It's a dumb idea, period. And with that, I'm deleting boinc from my machine, since the display sucks so horribly. No CPU time for any of these programs, thanks to the horrid, awful decision to REQUIRE a 3d card in order for it to run properly. It's crap.

I hope this is a joke response.

I'm deleting boinc from my machine, since the display sucks so horribly. No CPU time for any of these programs, thanks to the horrid, awful decision to REQUIRE a 3d card in order for it to run properly. It's crap.

You've had several polite responses which outline the current situation more than adequately.
I'm truly sorry none of them meet with your approval.

Now you're insulting me.

It's always funny when the bully cries foul.

I do understand 'the logic', the problem is it's just a bad decision, that goes AGAINST what logic dictates.

In your opinion it's a bad decision, and it goes against your logic. When did you become the absolute arbitrator of all things right and wrong? Just because you think it's a bad decision, doesn't make it so, nor does it give you the right to call people idiots.

There is NO freaking reason for making it completley 3d, and requiring the use of a graphics card. It's a dumb idea, period. And with that, I'm deleting boinc from my machine, since the display sucks so horribly. No CPU time for any of these programs, thanks to the horrid, awful decision to REQUIRE a 3d card in order for it to run properly. It's crap.

Bye. If this is what it takes for you to quit filling up these boards with beligerant rants, then I'm not sad to see you go. I guess the screen saver meant more to you than the science did.

---

Please add my vote for the return of the old 2-d graphics !! Appearance is everything and the old style graphics definitely have more "Geek Appeal"

Regards
Brodo

The 3D graphics use a graphics language that is standard across platforms. Thus there is only one set of graphics code that runs on all graphics cards (from my oldest PC that only has 2D graphics - the graphics package compensates, to the most modern PC with 3D built into the graphics card). It is also supposed to work across platforms (Windows, Mac, Linux, ...). Admittedly, Linux at least needs a little work from the BOINC platform to get it to work.

There is indeed a problem with the Classic screen saver and burn in - there are several monitors in my office that have had to be junked because of the classic screen saver.

---

BOINC WIKI

... Holy crap! Really! Oh wait, I've heard all that before. And you're still ignoring this:

It is MUCH more complex and demanding to write an entire screensaver in THREE DIMENSIONS that takes advantage of different videocards, than it is to write a 2d screensaver that does not use the GPU.

End of story. Some idiot, whoever it may be, spent a whole lot of extra time making the thing 3d only, isntead of a far simpler, and faster running solution.

And then there would have been complaints that the original static screensaver was damaging users nice modern lcd screens - which were not widely owned back in 1999 and really don't like fixed pictures for long periods... There is a strong arguement for a more mobile screensaver in this respect - one that actually does its job properly - instead of insisting on living in the past.

Please consider that other projects don't offer a screensaver, so if you wanted 'some idiot' to write code that was a 'far simpler, and faster running solution', they could simply have left the thing out altogether.

I hope this is a joke response. Burn in was a much MUCH bigger problem on CRTs than it is with LCDs. LCDs can still sometimes suffer from burn in, but it's VERY, VERY rare compared to CRTs. Your argument does not make any sense, because of this fact.

As for it wobbling..fine... are you saying that it's impossible to make the old 2d screen saver move around a little? Are you telling me that the only way to get it ot move around is to make it fully 3d, requiring a graphics card? I have seen many images that move around or bounce around without using a graphics card at all, and they are NOT 3d. So again, your argument is weak and does not hold water.

The 2d was better, how about setting the monitor to turn off, (It does save some energy and prevents burn-in)

I hope this is a joke response. Burn in was a much MUCH bigger problem on CRTs than it is with LCDs. LCDs can still sometimes suffer from burn in, but it's VERY, VERY rare compared to CRTs. Your argument does not make any sense, because of this fact.

Rob:

Did I really miss that one?!? LCDs don't suffer from burn-in as much as CRTs did? Wow, tell that to the last five LCDs my girlfriend's sister burned. That didn't happen on any of her CRTs! All current LCDs and only older generation CRTs suffer from screen burn. That is a fact. Do a little research and you'll find this out. Even more serious than your computer LCD are large screen LCD TVs that people play video games on - they burn extremely often, often enough to the point that some people have sworn of video gaming on LCD TVs (which are made the same as computer LCDs, so there's no difference).

The 2d was better, how about setting the monitor to turn off, (It does save some energy and prevents burn-in)

Now there's the smartest idea I've read in this entire thread!

---