Quote from David Kim,
We support Mac PPCs because there are volunteers who are willing to contribute and any contribution, big or small, helps our research. Those that are interested in the competition may not want to take part because of the under utilization of PPC processors but those that want to help can.

Had I known that 70%-80% of my CPU cycles were wasted not doing any science in the first place I would not have racked up 379,049 credits on this project.

I thought I was doing something good and with the new credit system exposing the fact that the clients I use because they are Macs and they were not designed to use my powerPC, I feel I have thrown thousands of dollars out the window only to help the electric company.
I would like a refund please.
I worked hard for those credits, invalid as they are, but don't blame me blame the project.

---

Quote from David Kim,
We support Mac PPCs because there are volunteers who are willing to contribute and any contribution, big or small, helps our research. Those that are interested in the competition may not want to take part because of the under utilization of PPC processors but those that want to help can.

Had I known that 70%-80% of my CPU cycles were wasted not doing any science in the first place I would not have racked up 379,049 credits on this project.

I thought I was doing something good and with the new credit system exposing the fact that the clients I use because they are Macs and they were not designed to use my powerPC, I feel I have thrown thousands of dollars out the window only to help the electric company.
I would like a refund please.
I worked hard for those credits, invalid as they are, but don't blame me blame the project.

Why are they invalid ?
If they finished and did no error out then they are legitimate science, probably doing it faster than my Pentium III 1GHz that cost me a lot of £££ and cost me a lot a £££ in electricity to run. I still run it even though it is slower than the super fandangled Core2Duo AthlonX2's (and even in thoose processors it does not you ever bit of it's capabilities, just as in your G5)

You results are valid, the science is therefore valid and you have therefore contributd towards rosetta@home.
It may not be as quick as /as much as you like/think it should be. But it is still very useful science.

---

Team mauisun.org

Quote from David Kim,
We support Mac PPCs because there are volunteers who are willing to contribute and any contribution, big or small, helps our research. Those that are interested in the competition may not want to take part because of the under utilization of PPC processors but those that want to help can.

Had I known that 70%-80% of my CPU cycles were wasted not doing any science in the first place I would not have racked up 379,049 credits on this project.

I thought I was doing something good and with the new credit system exposing the fact that the clients I use because they are Macs and they were not designed to use my powerPC, I feel I have thrown thousands of dollars out the window only to help the electric company.
I would like a refund please.
I worked hard for those credits, invalid as they are, but don't blame me blame the project.

Why are they invalid ?
If they finished and did no error out then they are legitimate science, probably doing it faster than my Pentium III 1GHz that cost me a lot of £££ and cost me a lot a £££ in electricity to run. I still run it even though it is slower than the super fandangled Core2Duo AthlonX2's (and even in thoose processors it does not you ever bit of it's capabilities, just as in your G5)

You results are valid, the science is therefore valid and you have therefore contributd towards rosetta@home.
It may not be as quick as /as much as you like/think it should be. But it is still very useful science.

I said nothing about the results I turned in as being invalid. I said the credits were for power my processors had but did not contribute to the science because the clients do not use the processors.

I tried to come up with other ways to explain it but don't think It will do anything except waste my time. I was very clear re-read my statement.

---

...

I tried to come up with other ways to explain it but don't think It will do anything except waste my time. I was very clear re-read my statement.

but credits mean bugger all. it has no value.

---

Team mauisun.org

but credits mean bugger all. it has no value.

You are so wrong.

Credits are a representation of the contribution to the science we have given.

---

but credits mean bugger all. it has no value.

You are so wrong.
Credits are a representation of the contribution to the science we have given.

Yes, since the change in the granting process they are.
And with non-optimised (non-optimisable?) applications, this was the expected behaviour.
The old credit system (regardless of stock or "opt." client) hid this, as it only looked at the capabilities of the puter, not at the scientific work done.

I'm no Mac-user, so I can't say what project suits a Mac best, and I don't know your scientific interest, so I can't even say whether it's Folding, Einstein, Seti, Gimp or whatever. You should look in some Mac-team fora, perhaps they can provide such info.

Dave Wilson,

I understand your frustration. We did attempt to find people interested in helping out with altivec optimizations before mac announced their switch to intel. We also mentioned the fact that the mac ppc version is not optimized but we should state that on the application page for clarification and I'll do that when I get a chance. We were not trying to hide anything and your comments show that the new credit system is indeed doing what it should. This doesn't mean mac ppcs are useless for our project. My G5 is cranking out a lot of structures and I'm sure the mac scientific contributions in total are very very significant. I'll mention it again, we appreciate all volunteers that contribute to our project and every contribution helps.

I added a note on the applications page that the Mac OS X app is not optimized.