Progress

[kindsir]

I have three questions, really. 1) What is the progress of folding@home? As in, have any breakthroughs been made, or how close are we to a breakthrough? 2) What is the deal with the PS3 client? I realize that PS3 isn't exactly high end in terms of hardware specs these days, but it is still the number 2 contributor according to the folding@home website. Why not keep it going even though it is not the best hardware out there? 3) I notice that when I try to install the client on my late 2006 iMac, it tells me that it can only run on 64-bit systems. What kind of snobbery is this? I might as well get a message saying "we are doing so well that we can be selective in who processes our data. PS3 and 32-bit OSX didn't make the cut". Apparently, I don't own any hardware that is good enough to run folding@home.

[bruce]

Welcome to foldingforum.org, kindsir.

1) There have been many scientific discoveries which have warranted a paper published in a scientific journal.
See http://folding.stanford.edu/English/Awards and http://folding.stanford.edu/English/Papers

2) Support for the PS3 client was withdrawn by Sony.

3) The Intel versions of the Mac can run 64-bit versions of OS-X. (e.g.- the Mac Mini.) Support for the PowerPC versions of the Mac hardware has been withdrawn.

You may choose to call it snobbery but it's actually a matter of support costs. FAH is constantly working on software that makes the maximum use of newer types of hardware and when hardware is old enough that the manufacturer drops support, Standford can't keep it running by themselves.

[Joe_H]

3) The Intel versions of the Mac can run 64-bit versions of OS-X. (e.g.- the Mac Mini.) Support for the PowerPC versions of the Mac hardware has been withdrawn.

To expand on this statement, you mentioned you have a Late 2006 iMac. That should be capable of running the current F@H client since it should have a Core 2 Duo processor. However to have the 64-bit support that F@H needs, you need to be running OS X 10.6 or later. 10.4 or 10.5 is not supported.

[Jesse_V]

Other than the Papers page, most of these questions are answered on the Folding@home article on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F@h
You can also check the references for more information, since the article summarizes the details.

[kindsir]

Thanks for the info. I will take a look at the Papers page! In regards to my Mac, it is not a PowerPC, but is also not 64-bit. I am not at home right now, but off the top of my head I think it is a Core Duo 1.6Ghz which is a 32-bit chip running OSX 10.6. I dunno, I feel like F@H is really missing a lot of processing power by not having support for 32-bit systems. 64-bit systems, while they have been around for a while, really only started to become widespread just recently. Buy a computer now, and it will be 64-bit. That is not the case if you got your computer only a few years ago. As for PS3, why did Sony decide to drop it?

[Jesse_V]

As for PS3, why did Sony decide to drop it?

AFAIK, they retired Life with Playstation, in which F@h was included. See http://www.playstation.com/life/en/index.html and http://blog.us.playstation.com/2012/10/ ... ate-v4-30/

[kindsir]

those sony punks

[Zagen30]

I dunno, I feel like F@H is really missing a lot of processing power by not having support for 32-bit systems.

There is 32-bit support for Windows machines. There's also a lot more Windows machines contributing than Linux or OSX, as you can see here, hence it gets more attention and keeps a broader support base. With the Pande Group's limited resources and manpower, it may be easier for them to only support one core each for OSX and Linux. I know that Linux SMP folding has required a 64-bit OS for several years, so there's likely a technical reason that 32-bit doesn't work for both Unix-based OSes.

[kindsir]

I can see that but it doesn't change the fact that here is someone wanting to help but cant even though I have a common computer system. That is fine, but less is going to get done by keeping some volunteers out. Even when I get some new systems at some point that can handle F@H, I kinda doubt I will due to the experience that I am having now.

[Zagen30]

Keep in mind this is run by grad students and professors, not a corporation that can just hire additional people whose sole task will be to support a specific platform. They would love to be able to support everything, but there isn't enough time and money to do that. They have to make choices as to what expenditure of resources will give them the most benefit, and every choice will hurt someone out there.

[Joe_H]

When you get home, please do check which Mac and processor you have. Only the very first models of iMac's used Core Duo processors - Early 2006. As I mentioned before the Late 2006 iMac's used Core 2 Duo processors and are usable for F@H as long as the minimum supported version of the OS is installed.

As for 32-bit processing, there used to be an older version of the A3 core for OS X that was 32-bit. The last server for projects that could run on that core died last Fall and could not be resurrected. So in theory PG could release another 32-bit core. However that is not just a case of compiling the code to create a 32-bit core. They would need to test it extensively and certify it as producing accurate results. That time and effort would have to be weighed against the number of older machines that might be brought in. Since almost every Mac made since late 2006 is 64-bit capable, it is a small group of older systems that are limited to 32-bit only. Given the low potential return, I do not see a 32-bit core for OS X as likely to be high on a priority list.

Where change is likely is that PG has made some statements that they are investigating GPU folding for Linux and possibly OS X. Potentially that could provide much GPU processing power to those OS's that is currently only supported on Windows.

[kindsir]

Maybe I was a little harsh in saying that I may not run the software in the future. My system is not 64bit. I cant run any new OS past 10.6, I cant upgrade any of my Adobe stuff, and now I apparently cant run F@H either. I got the thing in 2006. I was thinking it was late 2006, but maybe it was earlier than that. It was right around the time that Apple made the switch to Intel chips.

[bruce]

I don't know how many minis were shipped with Core Duo chips but I suspect that almost all of them have been upgraded. The instructions published on the web explaining how to upgrade to the Core2 Duo. As I understand it, it was a relatively inexpensive upgrade which improved performance quite significantly. Then if you choose to upgrade OS-X, the option will be open to you, solving the other problems you mentioned. Upgrading may not suit your style, but I though you should be aware of it, in any case.

[calxalot]

According to everymac.com, even though the original Intel iMacs have the processor in a ZIF socket and it can be upgraded, it still cannot run OSX past 10.6.8. It has 32 bit EFI and soldered graphics which do not support OpenCL.

It would probably be cheaper to buy a used mini than upgrade the iMac.

[kindsir]

I suppose one of these days Ill just get a new iMac