Where is this going?

[pskoda]

People buy dedicated HW to fold, folding team is more turning to big computers, changing their original idea form folding at home to fold at labs, companies etc...sounds to me like fold for $ and the whole folding is losing sense (folding at home - AT HOME, the name say it all).
Also comparing to other projects similar to folding, folding team doesn't do too much to make their site better or more user friendly, or statistic more organized. Instead a comment we are researchers not IT is their primary reason why not to devote more time to users who gave them all this results.
I think pande and his team are getting arrogant especially when it comes to users who are with them for years, common people. Now they just dumped them and changed for companies and labs, users leaving behind and they forget that this project wouldn't even be successful if there was no home users in the first place. Look the changes in WU and timings that are benefiting labs that are folding dedicated and not users who give some time to project.
I for one don’t fold anymore for them and changed to bionic as more projects are supported and some of the projects under bionic are better, more user friendly.
Any thoughts?

[7im]

Yes.

1. V7 client is a complete re-write of the client from the ground up to make folding easier to install and run for new donors.
2. A re-write of the fah web site is probably in the works to go with V7.
3. The project staff of this project are more active in this 3rd party support forum than other projects running their own forums.
4. FAH is still focused on the end user and small donors. The ease of install for V7 clients is proof of that. They wouldn't have needed to make a simplier client if their only targets were labs and companies. Also, they recently added a bonus program for single core CPU clients to help attract and keep the smaller home donors.
5. And those big computers ARE being run at home, not in labs. Some people just have bigger homes than other people.

You are only looking at parts of the project, not the whole project. When the project is viewed with all things considered, the focus of the project has not changed. And in fact, it is improving. Better clients coming, better web pages coming, beta team forum was opened up for all to read, addition of the Donors Advisary Board, so teams can give more direct feedback to Pande Group, etc.

The one thing that does still lag behind other projects is the stats. But we have to get the V7 clients and servers updated before we can improve the stats. Then, anything is possible.

[Grandpa_01]

Well I guess I am 1 of those corporate folders you are talking about only thing is it is in my home. If you look at the top 100 donors page there are 4 corporate or corporate backed which are awachs, fac, SACO and s3v3n who is folding 200+ clients on HPCS beta test. Which I very much appreciate the fact that some corporations use their spare CPU cycles for F@H. I think all of the rest are home users which most of them I know through these and other forums. http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/ ... p?s=&srt=1 The numbers of people who participate in F@H are increasing on a daily basis so they must be doing something right

As far as which Boinc projects you are referring to I am not sure, I run Boinc from time to time and nothing about it is easier than the v7 of F@H. And there forums have just as much griping about points and points systems as F@H. I myself am a long time folder along with many others that fold and I have not forgotten about the those that folded in the beginning and I will not forget about them. I do not believe Stanford has forgotten either. One thing we all need to remember is that time does not stand still. If Stanford stood still where do you think they would be today they have to move forward with the technology or get left behind.

I am not quite sure where you are getting your info from could you point me in the right direction or is this a emotional reaction to the points spread dilemma.

[Jesse_V]

I strongly disagree with the idea that the Pande lab has grown "arrogant" and forgetful of home users. There have been plenty of blog posts and nearly every F@h scientific publication I read states something along the lines of "We acknowledge and are very greatful to all Folding@home participants. This was very much a team effort." Yes, they are excited about what they can do with their network. I don't blame them, since they're at the helm of one of the most powerful computing systems on the planet. Given the vast computational difficulty most folding simulations have, I also understand why they are excited about gaining ever more power. Yet I know they aren't forgetting the regular uniprocessors, they've said so themselves. Each client is useful in its own sense.

They haven't been forcing anyone to upgrade their hardware or do anything of that manner. That decision is up to each individual donor. No one has to. Last month I purchased a new computer and installed F@h on it not because the PG forced me to, but because I believe in the cause, I know this project is extremely productive, and I love getting those made-up points. There are at least a hundred DC projects under the BOINC umbrella, each doing some really fascinating research. Maybe they are more user friendly, I wouldn't know. But F@h's simple uniprocessor client has been sitting on the main download page for quite some time now. It's always been extremely user friendly. As 7im pointed out, V7 is aimed at making running powerful clients much easier. Even though it'll only go to the main site when it's stable enough, it still remains your choice if you want to go that route.

[ChasR]

The v7 client is certainly a vast improvement in the ease of use category. However the message from PG is mixed. Lets make it easy to get new donors to contribute, but impossible to compete without server class hardware. Granda's 4P 6174 is 8.5 times faster than my C2Qs @ 3.2 Ghz, but is awarded 50 times the ppd (p6904). That's a pretty powerful disincentive to fold on a C2Q or similar "real world" hardware.

I look at my team website and the first page of recent posts is almost entirely about MP folding. I look at our team top 100 and find 33% no longer contribute at all and many others have scaled way back. One could make the case that things aren't quite peachy, unless you have a 4P machine.

[Grandpa_01]

So when your team members were making 20X more points than me folding on my worthless cpu were they discouraged or were they yipping it up about how good their hardware was compared to those of us folding on cpu's and how they deserved more PPD because they were doing more work. It is amazing to me how people tend to forget the past. And I do know the answer to that question you do not have to answer it. But you can if you wish. So why is it different now ? and by the way your teams active folding members keep going up so they must be people to replace those that have left. I believe you PPD avg is also going up at this time. Once again Stanford must be doing something right.

I do a 6904 in 27 hrs on both of my 6174 4P's @ 2.6Ghz and receive around 620,000 PPD per machine how many hrs does it take you and how many PPD do you receive. Anyway times change needs change hardware changes someday my 4P’s will be outdated and I will need to upgrade. And I will either upgrade or I will not but that will be my choice hopefully Stanford will still be giving me clear direction when it come's that time.

[7im]

But ppd going up is a function of the bonus curve approaching infinity, not a function of additional users. PPD isn't the only measure we should be considering, and there is still much doubt the high end of the curve is really worth that much scientfically. So there is doubt about the project heading in the right direction.

[ChasR]

As I recall, in the past, if you were 2x as fast, you got 2x the ppd. I liked it that way.

[MtM]

I'm with Grandpa on this one.

I am not bothered loosing my spot in the rankings to people running smp clients on more core's then I'm able to donate. I can't run more then smp:4 which isn't going to make big dents. Since gpu clients do not have the QRB in effect, that smp:4 is still my biggest producer, swapping back and forth at times with my gtx275.

The reason I'm not bothered is because I believe in the validity of the QRB formula. There is a definitive steep increase caused by the formula, but no one was able to come up with an alternative which according to PG matched the scientific value better then the current one. This might change in the future, but until then it's no longer a point of debate for me personally. Having said that, I did think about how the point in the graph where ppd would start to steeply increase could be moved further back, but the answer is the combination of kfactor and deadline's. So, since the formula already allows these variables to influence the steepness and point where the increases start to be really big only makes it easier to believe the formula is correct.

While I feel bad if people get discouraged because they see others rank in more points, I can only say I'm in the same boat but for me the science is more important and I believe the science is being reflected in the QRB. I also feel points should reflect science, and not user participation levels. I rather see how much of an impact someone has had on the science behind the project, then how long a user has been active in the project even if that means I'm dropping in global ranking because my social economic environment doesn't allow me to buy the hardware which is now generating the most points per day.

I to get overtaken by people who have only folded a few months or even less if you would take grandpa here and have him register a new account and put all his rigs on it. The only reasonable thing I can think of, is to thank Grandpa for his contributions, maybe even envy him a bit but nothing else.

Also, just to ponder on 'folding@home' and the @home part of it, iirc it was 7im who linked to an article in general chat not to long ago where it was said the number of pc's in circulation would drop in the coming years as more personal/mobile internet/information devices ( read smartphone's and tablets for instance ) are being sold then pc's. I then wondered if it wouldn't be prudent if Folding@Home was prepared for this and would have clients capable of running in bigger environments. Because even while the number of personal computers might drop, I don't think total available computation power will be dropping. Where this available power would be situated will probably change though, and again since I support the science behind the project more then the concept of the project ( spare cycles is for allot of donors now not even relevant as they run dedicated systems ) I support anything which ensures that the project will keep growing in computational throughput even if less people have a pc at their home. If this means that putting resources into a client capable of exploiting lots of available core's ( which would be the case in locations consisting of companies/educational institutes ect where mid's are not a valid replacement ) then I support this fully.

As I recall...

As I recall, at that time people liked to slow down the project because they would run dual instances which gave more points. I hated the fact that the point system advocated running the clients in an inefficient manner, I like it much better now people are forced to focus on quicker returns.

To each his own?

[k1wi]

For those discussing PPD, I have started a thread with a hypothetical change here:

http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=21036

[jimerickson]

if i may interject, would not a qrb for gpus help in evening things out just a little? just my 2 cents.

[7im]

if i may interject, would not a qrb for gpus help in evening things out just a little? just my 2 cents.

Already planned. Just need support added to the fahcores...

[jimerickson]

jimerickson crosses fingers and hopes its soon!

[bruce]

I for one don’t fold anymore for them and changed to bionic as more projects are supported and some of the projects under bionic are better, more user friendly.
Any thoughts?

You certainly have the right to fold for BOINC if that's your preference, but I think it demonstrates your arrogance to visit the FAH support forum without any expectation that we can help you to run FAH more effectively.

I do believe you've gotten some good answers (whether you choose to accept them or not).

I'm closing this topic.