A WU of 1X size = x Credit.

A WU of 2X size = 2x Credits.

That is effectively what we had before Credit New came in & the roll out of v7.
The problem is the way Credit New is calculated results in people that ran optimised applications receiving less credit for doing the same amount of work. It also means those running stock get less credit than if they were to have run an optimised application instead of the stock one being optimised.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

So until I can get that Seti@Home toaster I still think credits are meaningless:)

I invest my credits in Milliways so my descendents might have a drink when they get there.

So until I can get that Seti@Home toaster I still think credits are meaningless:)

I invest my credits in Milliways so my descendents might have a drink when they get there.

After V7 and with the help of creditnew, the value of the credit was devaluated by factor of 2. Now you need 2 biliions of credits to get that SETI@Home toaster... so keep crunching and hopping they not will be devaluated again...

Creditnew random generator is a live sample of the theory of inflation and the existance of the black holes.

---

How many slices of bread can contain in the SETI Toaster, CLYDE ? ;)

---

It could be that the SETI@home logo appears on toasted bread ! OMG ! ;)
Me too, I love toast ! :)

---

OK, let's go back to the drawing board and quickly summarize what we now know to be true:

-Credit New is working and working well at that. None of the credit situation has anything to do with DA or Credit New, right?

-Credits are our speedometer. They are essentially a flopcounter. A lot of people (most?) need to resist temptation of taking the word "credit" at face value. It is not just a worthless word. It's our flopmeter and it turns out it's working. It's just that we are slow. And that's ok. Our speedometer is working correctly. This is good to know.

(Now I'm sure someone like Joe could make me break down and cry by going into an in depth analysis about how approximate and/or inefficient we are at actually counting real flops but...)

Objections?

OK, let's go back to the drawing board and quickly summarize what we now know to be true:

-Credit New is working and working well at that. None of the credit situation has anything to do with DA or Credit New, right?

-Credits are our speedometer. They are essentially a flopcounter. A lot of people (most?) need to resist temptation of taking the word "credit" at face value. It is not just a worthless word. It's our flopmeter and it turns out it's working. It's just that we are slow. And that's ok. Our speedometer is working correctly. This is good to know.

(Now I'm sure someone like Joe could make me break down and cry by going into an in depth analysis about how approximate and/or inefficient we are at actually counting real flops but...)

Objections?

Joe does a good job explaining. I just dont understand it.

But I think your saying it means that the flop has done flipped a flop and kerrplopped :)

---

[/quote]

Old James

-Credit New is working and working well at that. None of the credit situation has anything to do with DA or Credit New, right?

It has everything to do with credit new, and how it is calculated.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Ok, lets see if I can explain this problem in a better way.

All stock apps are no longer stock as they're now based on the basic optimized apps since SETI V7 was introduced.

This means that those who just ran the old stock apps now get a good increase in their RAC's.

But this also means that those of us who ran optimized apps before V7 get hit badly until a new release of optimized apps come along.

Just think of it as a "great leveler" which just helps out those at the bottom end of the scale get a little bit closer to those of us at the top who were light years in front (this also happened about 2yrs ago when CreditNew was 1st introduced and a lot of people just went AP only).

Drop 200 credits from the average AP w/u and that will level the whole playing field again (remember when we use to get about 1200 credits per AP prior to CreditNew's introduction?).

Cheers.

Ok, lets see if I can explain this problem in a better way.

All stock apps are no longer stock as they're now based on the basic optimized apps since SETI V7 was introduced.

This means that those who just ran the old stock apps now get a good increase in their RAC's.

But this also means that those of us who ran optimized apps before V7 get hit badly until a new release of optimized apps come along.

Just think of it as a "great leveler" which just helps out those at the bottom end of the scale get a little bit closer to those of us at the top who were light years in front (this also happened about 2yrs ago when CreditNew was 1st introduced and a lot of people just went AP only).

Drop 200 credits from the average AP w/u and that will level the whole playing field again (remember when we use to get about 1200 credits per AP prior to CreditNew's introduction?).

Cheers.

Yes I do remember. But then I crunch anything thrown my way. Even the VLARS that went to my GPU back in the old days.

So we are in another period where change sucks. Im sure it will settle out untill in two years another version pops up and we get to relive this all over again.

---

[/quote]

Old James

OK, let's go back to the drawing board and quickly summarize what we now know to be true:

-Credit New is working and working well at that. None of the credit situation has anything to do with DA or Credit New, right?

-Credits are our speedometer. They are essentially a flopcounter. A lot of people (most?) need to resist temptation of taking the word "credit" at face value. It is not just a worthless word. It's our flopmeter and it turns out it's working. It's just that we are slow. And that's ok. Our speedometer is working correctly. This is good to know.

Objections?

Wrong.
Both assertions.
It's not a flopcounter. It's not speedometer. And it doesn't work "OK".
Maybe it works "as designed". But its design not good.

---

SETI apps news
We're not gonna fight them. We're gonna transcend them.

This means that those who just ran the old stock apps now get a good increase in their RAC's.

Wrong.

Those who only run stock apps on the CPU see no change in RAC.

But because the stock app is now more optimised then the "Bonus" for running the optimised apps has decreased.

This means that those who just ran the old stock apps now get a good increase in their RAC's.

Wrong.

Those who only run stock apps on the CPU see no change in RAC.

I agree to disagree on that point.

But because the stock app is now more optimised then the "Bonus" for running the optimised apps has decreased.

Pretty much what I said, you just used different words. ;-)

Really some people should just be more flexible in their understanding English I think instead of nitpicking on petty points due to their point of view/understanding. :-D

Cheers.

Wiggo wrote:

...
All stock apps are no longer stock as they're now based on the basic optimized apps since SETI V7 was introduced.
...

The stock v7 CPU apps are optimized in the same way that the stock Enhanced CPU apps were, there was no major shift there. The Lunatics v7 CPU apps have less advantage over the stock v7 CPU apps because open source tools are used to build Lunatics now.

                                                                   Joe

I'm stunned that Lionel hasn't responded to Eric's thoughts after demanding someone give him "answers".

---

I'm stunned that Lionel hasn't responded to Eric's thoughts after demanding someone give him "answers".

I'm not surprised that it seems to want to go-on even after it has stopped.

The inability to "let it go" around here, both sides of the argument, is amazing.

A psychiatrist could make a fortune.

<edit> If you just NEED someone to gang-up on and be mad at for being strongly opinionated; pick me. </edit>

Wiggo wrote:

...
All stock apps are no longer stock as they're now based on the basic optimized apps since SETI V7 was introduced.
...

The stock v7 CPU apps are optimized in the same way that the stock Enhanced CPU apps were, there was no major shift there. The Lunatics v7 CPU apps have less advantage over the stock v7 CPU apps because open source tools are used to build Lunatics now.

                                                                   Joe

Joe I think you might want to expand a bit on what you are saying. I know you've already explained this same fact a long time ago but like Wiggo, a lot of people keep on having the same misconception. I tried to explain it to someone with an Iron Man avatar (probably in this very thread, together with your first explanation) but somehow managed to offend him instead of helping him out. For that I apologize.

I just need a reliable gauge to measure what my PCs are doing. More for knowing what a change made did for "real world" crunching not to crunch more than another but if that is a by product...

---

OK, let's go back to the drawing board and quickly summarize what we now know to be true:

-Credit New is working and working well at that. None of the credit situation has anything to do with DA or Credit New, right?

-Credits are our speedometer. They are essentially a flopcounter. A lot of people (most?) need to resist temptation of taking the word "credit" at face value. It is not just a worthless word. It's our flopmeter and it turns out it's working. It's just that we are slow. And that's ok. Our speedometer is working correctly. This is good to know.

Objections?

Wrong.
Both assertions.
It's not a flopcounter. It's not speedometer. And it doesn't work "OK".
Maybe it works "as designed". But its design not good.

Uh-oh. I feel another Bank of Zimbabwe speech coming:)

Ok mathematically (for the moment) I am unable to prove or disprove anything involving CreditNew. Unless someone can provide me with some real world numbers to go into the CreditNew equations? I'd be happy to have a crack at it since nobody wants to touch that page with a ten foot pole (and I don't blame you one bit). So for the first assertion we'll take Eric's word for it and assume it to be true (without fully understanding the mechanism of why it is true).

As to the second assertion, credits are very much a flopcounter. I hated telling Richard he was wrong and I hate telling you you are wrong but what can I say? It's math:) This one I can actually show you with equations but I'm not sure I can get it done tonight. Gimme some time and I'll do a separate thread on it.

I'm not surprised that it seems to want to go-on even after it has stopped.

The inability to "let it go" around here, both sides of the argument, is amazing.

A psychiatrist could make a fortune.

As a retired social worker/therapist, I agree.

---