To commemorate the bipartisan consensus on alternate measurement of progress:
____________Enlightenment <-------------------------------------------------------------------- Dark ages___________

Steady on Dave I might get offended if it was suggested that I switched to BOINC just to get more points Or maybe not...

I switched to BOINC because I wanted to run other projects too. At this time it became apparent to me that points system was a bit of a nonsense. BOINC seems to undervalue my machine - my claimed points are usually lower the the rest of the quorum. But it does not matter - I get the quorum average. Similarly, looking at my team's stats, between members, points do not corellate with runtime very well. This does not matter either - it just means that you look at runtime and points to get the whole picture.

I have never regarded crunching as competitive and have always thought of Teams as just a bit of fun - a grouping pf people with similar interests to give the whole thing a bit of personality and a sense of community. Above all - to make this a FRIENDLY PLACE

I run Climate Prediction, Malaria Control and WCG. I treat each as separate, and watch the progresss of each separately. I have never been bothered to look at any overall score using BOINC stats or whatever it is.

All I need is some measure of how well I am doing, not in competition with any one else. Then I can see if anything is going wrong, or if that new PC or memory upgrade has had any benefit. Points and runtime give me this now.

OK I suppose I am not very Sporty, and a lot of other people are, and value the competitive angle of crunching. But it should not be the main reason for crunching.

There are other ways to add depth, interest and meaning to participating in crunching. For instance, in my Climate Prediction project, I can see my individual model results in great detail. I am not sure how to translate this to WCG projects, but the recently added BOINC graphics are a start. More feedback! Something that shows how our individual WU's fit into the whole. At the moment the only feedback we get is something like "Phase 1a complete"


(not wanting to end without a smile)

Sorry but Seks post made me laugh

That's one chilled out smiley.

I was enjoying the constructive feedback so please keep on going.

The upgrades to duals would still benefit on the runtime front as you would get twice the runtime and soon 4 times with Quad Core I realise that a true CPU benchmark would be the ideal but with 2 Clients, Throttling, Wall Clock Time v CPU Time and the crazy UD Rating system (all grid.org'er will agree with me) that preceeded BOINC we've very little chance now of drawing a line in the sand.

carl.h I still have my eye out for a X2 AMD 3800+ energy efficient if you see one let me know I'd love to get 2 WU's crunched with just one PSU I'm way behind the times now on my nF2 Board.

The Grid would still get faster every day as we each upgrade. The average when you could make an educated guess about these things (on average points per hour pre BOINC) was a 2700+ we are probably past the 2800+ point now but who would know


Keep em coming I need your feedback on if this is a flyer or not.

I'm long in the tooth now and tired of all the wars that break out on here

I for one would like to celebrate the achievements we have made so far on our second birthday 16th November just hoping we don't start our "Terrible Two's"

Dave

p.s. Didactylos, Sek has my old problem with Excel there is a way to re-order but I forget how to do it. Unfortunately the way Sek's graph is is Excel's default mode bizzarre I know but hey that's Microsoft for you

I realise the runtime would benefit but let`s look at 2 of mine crunching faah.....

AMD 939 X2 3800+ takes approx 6.5 hours per WU

E6600 X2 OCed at 3300 takes approx 3.3 Hours per WU

The latter costing lots more money......They both run approx the same amount of time therefore in a time based comparison they`d be the same. The E6600 would crunch far more work so this would be unfair, it would be like saying a P3 crunching 24/7 would be equal to a Cray crunching the same.

I realise there is no way a TRUELY fair system could happen but the ludicrous system that really hurts the Linux crunchers is not fair at all or even near it yet no one seem`s to care (that matters). It profers the question is Boinc /WCG in Microsofts pocket ? I realise that Windows in virtually the default OS but a lot of experienced computer people crunch and a big percentage use Linux !

There are, looking at the stats I produced in the other thread, great benefits to using Linux.....You can see the same machine crunching using Windows took approx 6 hours per WU yet Linux 3.3....This was an AM2 X2 5000+. So Linux is of benefit to the project yet it is held back by the lower points alloted ! You can clearly see that the Linux OS is getting 30% of the points the Windows OS does yet crunches a lot faster which is not good for the project or the potential linux crunchers !

If I turned my E6600 to linux the possibility is it will crunch WU`s in even less time.....This would benefit the project immensely......Am I going to ? No.....Why ? Because of points !

Linux appears to be a stream of Gold waiting for the project/Boinc to dig it out, no one appears interested. If the points were alloted more fairly a lot of teams knowing that Linux would be quicker would make the jump.......Imagine a team like XS on speed ! and they would do it !

Don't worry about that inverse, long solved. Already worked out how to reformat with a string formula, than sort it according conventions.....not going to Dumb your brain down with fLying Dutchman stuff...