100658

---

100658

I think this reflects more of when you transitioned to BOINC, as my 106800 is higher than 100658, but unless you were under a different account prior to your start date of March 9th, 2001, I've been active longer (since June 11, 1999)...

lets see... ;)
11044

---

Join BOINC United now!

Mine's 9815 but I know that there are some lower.

---

SETI Classic Stats:
Workunits processed 28,419
Total CPU time 216,314 hours

100658

I think this reflects more of when you transitioned to BOINC, as my 106800 is higher than 100658, but unless you were under a different account prior to your start date of March 9th, 2001, I've been active longer (since June 11, 1999)...

I only transitioned in February this year, so...dunno ;/
Still, an interesting quasi-representative poll of forum posters, nonetheless,
n'est pas?

Account number = 4081

& I'll raise you a birthdate of March, 1936.

:-)

---

Well, this is not quite accurate as a metric of length of participation in the S@H project as a whole.

The S@H Classic accounts were transitioned to S@H/BOINC when this project was first 'turned on' based on a snapshot of the S@H Classic account data taken shortly beforehand. ID#'s for those accounts were assigned in order of rank in S@H Classic when the snapshot was taken (more Classic Workunits -> lower ID#).

For instance, my original account (Join date May 28, 1999) has id # 1585117, with 23 classic workunits.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/show_user.php?userid=1585117

My current account (this one that I post from and crunch under) has 3801 classic workunits, with a join date of Jan. 5th, 2000.

Totally new S@H/BOINC accounts (not transitioned from S@H classic) had their ID numbers begin from where the classic ID#'s ended in chronological order of sign-up (earlier signup -> lower number).

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

ID#'s for those accounts were assigned in order of rank in S@H Classic when the snapshot was taken (more Classic Workunits -> lower ID#).

OK, so how do you splain' my 106800 vs. Greggy's 100658, when I did 6,531 WUs and he did only 2,621?

ID#'s for those accounts were assigned in order of rank in S@H Classic when the snapshot was taken (more Classic Workunits -> lower ID#).

OK, so how do you splain' my 106800 vs. Greggy's 100658, when I did 6,531 WUs and he did only 2,621?

The S@H Classic workunit totals were updated again when S@H Classic shut down (but the ID numbers had already been assigned based on standings from the first snapshot). S@H Classic and S@H/BOINC ran side by side for quite some time. Perhaps you did the bulk of your work after the first snapshot was taken and Greggy didn't. I had virtually stopped producing for Classic when S@H/BOINC entered beta testing (not to be confused with the current S@H Beta project), well before S@H/BOINC opened to the public. S@H/BOINC went live around June 3, 2004, and as far as I can remember, the snapshot of Classic's account data that the ID numbers were based on was from sometime between March and May of 2004. S@H Classic didn't shut down until around the end of 2005. So, thats a year and a half to 2 years of additional crunching on Classic that was not reflected in the ID#'s.

So, thats a year and a half to 2 years of additional crunching on Classic that was not reflected in the ID#'s.

I did hang around with Classic until either "the end" or close to it... My AMD system shows the last WU that I was working on was May 7, 2005, although my Intel system was going for longer...

At that time SETISpy showed:

User: Brian Silvers
Country: United States
Registered: 6/10/1999
User ID: 576307
Results returned: 6530
Last result returned: 11/21/2005 4:10:15 PM
Total CPU time: 3.05 yrs
Avg. CPU time: 4:05:27
Result interval: 8:39:30
CPU dedication: 47.2%
Rank: 53,639 of 5,436,301 (99.013%)
Users with this rank: 9

Who's got the lowest S@H ID and still active?

A strange day indeed when people forget ID 22.

---

me@rescam.org

Well, this is not quite accurate as a metric of length of participation in the S@H project as a whole.

The S@H Classic accounts were transitioned to S@H/BOINC when this project was first 'turned on' based on...

That's some rather good fundamental trivia...

Could you add it to the Boinc-HELP for the s@h fanatics?

Do you know what the boundary point is between the transitioned numbers and the new account numbers?


Too good a snippet to lose...

Happy crunchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

There are indeed some low numbers still around.

---

As Mikey says ...

'''some low numbers around.

I moved from Classic to BOINC mid July last year.

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

Who's got the lowest S@H ID and still active?

A strange day indeed when people forget ID 22.

NEZ doesn't have the lowest that's active... Try ID 5. ;-)

100658

Just been digging out some old Back-Up discs.

My old membership number was 1318329903 or have I found the wrong one. I got this from an old 1997 account.

If Big is early and small is youth, then my d.o.b. of 1944 makes my birthdate one of the smallest

---

Alien Pet Lover

Who's got the lowest S@H ID and still active?

A strange day indeed when people forget ID 22.

NEZ doesn't have the lowest that's active... Try ID 5. ;-)

Yeah but when you have Nez you don't need to worry about other numbers.

---

me@rescam.org

I do seem to have asked a rather more complicated question than I first thought: But it's been interesting noting that there are some anomalies; I crunched the last of my Classics in March 2005- I think- then had a 2-year hiatus, before beginning with Boinc full-blown in February.
But thanks for explaining how, as a relative late-comer, I have such a low ID (I seem to have a vague recollection that this was my ranking at the time I last crunched- or am I suffering a case of byte-fatigue?).

I do seem to have asked a rather more complicated question than I first thought: But it's been interesting noting that there are some anomalies; I crunched the last of my Classics in March 2005- I think- then had a 2-year hiatus, before beginning with Boinc full-blown in February.
But thanks for explaining how, as a relative late-comer, I have such a low ID (I seem to have a vague recollection that this was my ranking at the time I last crunched- or am I suffering a case of byte-fatigue?).

ID # has nothing to do with anything you did, other than sign up.

---

The real question should be, who has the lowest computer ID that is still crunching? I know I have computer ID #37, but it has not crunched anything.

Live long and BOINC.

---

Paul
(S@H1 8888)
And proud of it!