Akos Optimizations require installing Calibrating Clients 2 !!!

If you had taken the time to read my post properly You insult me., you would have seen that I'm not trying to make you feel guilty. I'm (along with countless others) just telling you that you are wrong.You insult me again. Are you trying to tell me something?

By definition effective communication requires a "sender" and a "receiver". If as receiver I do not understand your transmitted message is it my fault or yours, or just a lack of common ground and experience? You believe that you are an effective sender therefore, as receiver I am construed to be an idiot if I don't "understand" you, and more of an idiot if I understand you but happen to disagree with your message. Since I do disagree with your message pretense then too "I am simply wrong". I accept that you believe you possess superior wisdom, intellect, knowledge base and powers of deductive reasoning.

You claim that "I contend that it is not my responsibility to fiddle with calibrating clients or any other gimmick relating to credits" yet by using an optimised app, yet sticking to the official BOINC client, you are doing just that. Not so. My goal is to maximize throughput which is easily achieved by installing Akos' app (a one minute job). I do this only because the UWM project team has not. An unintended consquence of UWM not distributing Akos' apps to the general public is that credits being awarded is altered (not fair, but it never was fair). The credit system is something I choose not to get involved in.

Please explain to me where exactly in the sentence "Before anyone starts the old "It's about the science, not the credit" rubbish, just remember this." I have said that participating in this, or any other project, is rubbish. My interpretation of your message is that you imply it is rubbish for me to pursue increasing my science throughput 4-fold without ALSO considering what you and others in my quorum are awarded as credit. You cannot accept that an action taken by me has -- you perceive -- an adverse impact on you. By your logic I should be upset with someone who chooses to use an AMD chip or a MAC that is faster than my pentium chip, or with someone who recently purchased a 3.6GHz machine that is faster than my 3.0GHz machine, or everyone who uses a core client that fudges the claimed credits. How dare they cheat me? For me it's just a fact of life in DC and I do not let it bother me. What is rubbish is the argument of "It's about the science, not credits". Both the science and credits are of equal importance. {color=teal]Let's just accept the fact that people are in DC for their own various reasons. Like me some people are here for the science; when I first joined BOINC DC I didn't even know that credits were awarded and therefore was not a factor for joining. Some people participate primarily for the credits and competition, some just for the credits and the opportunity to "outshine" in the stats arena.[/] Whist I agree that credits are of no material value, they are our reward for our participation in a project and some are not getting their full reward due to people only doing half the job of optimising their system. Life is crowded with people who make decisions that attempt to improve their position relative to yours. Would they not do so in every aspect of life including DC? One person's improvement is often perceived by another as unfair. Life will always seek a balance and never achieve it, partly because no one really wants it.

For what it's worth I suggest that you (and by inferrence, others) have drawn some correlations that in my opinion do not correlate. Bantering back and forth will not alter either person's position. For the last time I will say this: The credit system stinks because it is inequitable. From what I can see the credit system needs to be tailored to the project. Since Einstein uses the quorum technique IMO every member of a given quorum should be awarded the same amount of credit but not by the method currently used. I do not know, maybe Flops counting. For a project like Rosetta where credit claimed is credit granted there is a real problem with cheating because people fudge the benchmarks and claimed credits, so Rosetta needs a method of awarding credits that mitigates the desire to fudge the claims. This is a tall order and I do not see a resolution in sight. In any case I do not see it as my responsibility, nor of any participant, to collectively counter the inadequacies of the BOINC/Project credit system; let them do it with our urging. If that fails then you can accept your fate or move on. Conclusion: your fight is with BOINC/Project, not with your fellow participants.

I was just wondering what the best BOINC calibrating client is for the new version 5.4.9? My Einstein claims are rather unfair to those whose computers work for 3 hours and end up getting stuck with lower credits since I'm claiming between 2-8 credits per WU...

[…] I don't care if a work unit is worth 1 credit or 1000 credits, but I will claim what is fair and WILL NOT disadvantage any other participants by not optimising my system properly and lower the credits that they are rewarded, and before you start going on about what "I" claim to be fair, The system seems to award on average 40-45 credits per work unit. That is what the SYSTEM thinks is fair, not you, not me nor any other participant in this great project.

It's called showing consideration to others, a concept that seems to be beyond your grasp.

Once again, how are Mac users supposed to “show consideration�? Apparently “the SYSTEM� thinks about 25 credits per WU is fair for them, typically something like 60% as much as for Windows/x86, now more like 50% with the beta v4.56. Does it not occur to you that making lower claims tends to reduce that user’s credit as well as those of others in the quorum?

I resent the implication that by using Macs to work for the project I’m “antisocial�, inconsiderately “betraying� others, “cheating� them of their due, and so on. I realize this thread is about the optimized Windows apps in particular, but the virulence of the tone has me wondering how long it will be before anyone making lower-than-average claims becomes a fair target for credit-obsessed brown-shirts. “First they came for the optimizers …�