No it doesn't but he shouldn't be held to a higher standard either. Perhaps Carl is like me and has seen these same stupid threads many times over and nothing good ever comes of them. Its especially disheartening when its comes from someone with a position within the project. Would be different if there is any proof for such accusations but from what I've seen there is none concerning XS.

I do admit to being particulary sensitive on this topic after the mess at Rosetta but I think I would have reacted the same way had that not happenned.
My feeling is that Didactylos has some axe to grind with us at XS or has heard half truths or distortions of the truth and has taken them as gospel.
This is why I asked that he come to XS in that other thread but this honest offer he ignored.
Are there people at XS or at any other group using optimised files?
Probably. I don't have access to all the machines everywhere so I can't access that info.
Have I done all that I could to get all of XS using the stock client? Yes.
With this current system here and the different projects it is impossible to tell who is using what and that is why I was so surprised to see the orginal comments made. Had this person acting as a representative of WCG just taken the time to contact me and ask: Hey Dave, I have some concerns about what XS is doing." I'd have been more than happy to help him in any way possible. He did not. Instead he came here and attacked my team and in so doing attacked me whether that was his intent or not. I am XS as much as anyone else. I value the people there, their devoution to what they set to do and the "never quit" commitment from them.These are good people and deserve better treatment than we have seen here first from that fool back in sept and now here by a community advisor.
To the people who have supported us in this thread, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Some of you I know and some I don't.
Anyone who does know me understands the drive I have and what my motivations are for running DC projects ands it is not any ego boost from points. I am way too old for that BS BUT I beleive that competitions using those points are the backbone for success in any project. People love to compete, whether in sports,life,sucess in the business world or any other endeavor you can name.
Without the credit systems all of these projects would fall by the wayside for lack of support as lets face it, having your machines run at 100% cpu 24/7 is like watching grass grow without the credit system to see how they do compared to others.
He stands by his words. That's his decision. I find them offensive and totally uncalled for but above all of that is that they are coming from someone who is supposed to be representing WCG in these forums.
That is the part that bothers me the most and why tomorrow am I will be asking that he be removed from that position as he has used that position to slander us without any proof of misdeeds on our part.
Thanks again to all that supported us in this.
I am terribly sorry that it took place but I could not see this and not respond.
I said this before and it bears repeating:
Without respect you have nothing.

my apologies movieman for hijacking your thread. i'm done with it now. hopefully they can straighten this mess out tomorrow.

phicks is right in that the the same argument in threads over and over again is disheartening and it certainly doesn't do anything productive to bring new people to help out.

goodnight all

You're right. Points earned per WU are drastically less with UD than with BOINC, at least on fast systems.

When I first joined WCG back in May, I ran UD for a few hours before finding these forums, discovering BOINC, and switching. I just went back and dug up those old scores for comparison. On the same system where I'm currently earning 100+ WCG points per hour with BOINC, UD was granting me ~40.

I crunched 7 UD WUs before switching, at an average rate of 60 points per WU. Since it takes the same amount of time to crunch a WU whether you use UD or BOINC, if I had crunched those same WUs with BOINC, I would have earned 2.5 times the points each, or 150 points per WU instead of 60.

To cross-check this, I just installed UD on my new C2D rig and crunched an HDC WU. I set the throttle to 100% and the storage to 10GB for max score. It took ~0.86 hours to complete, and scored 34 points, or ~39.7 points per hour. Note that this is essentially the same as my old AMD 4800 was scoring with UD, even though this new rig is much faster.

Looking back through my BOINC WU history, I found a similar length WU; it took 0.85 hours and scored 17 BOINC points, or 119 WCG points. UD granted just 29% of the points for virtually identical WUs, run on the same machine.

Since my AMD and my C2D score the same per hour, this demonstrates the cap which Lawrence mentioned. UD will give no more than 40 points per hour no matter what computer you use. The faster your computer, the worse UD penalizes you (or to put it more positively, the more benefit from using BOINC!).

There is, then, no possible way to fairly compare average points per WU between different mixes of UD and BOINC clients. Or even within UD groups, since some PCs will be capped and others won't. It's possible that UD and BOINC points are comparable for slower PCs which don't hit the cap, but I don't have a way to check that.

So why did my check of the top 5 teams (by points that day) show a consistent cluster of points per WU? My theory is that a team simply doesn't get to the top 5 points per day by running UD.

And if we can't compare points per hour, and we can't compare points per WU, this whole argument is... (wait for it)... pointless.

(sorry)