Yes to both but I do understand a little bit of why the limitations in hardware or software it's simply easier to make it work now and then let someone else patch it later when the problem becomes more real. As for ram and disk etc limitations why plan for things like that when you can just sell them a new one because their current model doesn't support that brand new 3PB drive?
Because when I buy a motherboard and it's advertised as taking much larger drives I'll buy that one instead because it's more future proof.
Meaning the MB company makes less money off of you, ie they can't sell you 2 or even 3 but instead just 1. That means they have to charge 2 arms and a leg for the future proof one and you aren't really saving any money.
But there's no guarantee I'll buy another the same. In fact if my MSI motherboard can't take a larger disk, I'll most likely avoid that make for the next one. So all they've done is give their opponent money.
Also, if I want a second computer, or I'm building loads for my work, or I've just researched the specs when I'm buying one, I will buy one I know to be futureproof and not their competitor's.
Anyway it's not the MB design, it's the standard they all stick to for disk controllers and the way they work. It's those standards committees like VESA that don't think ahead. For example why has it taken until recently to come up with a symmetrical USB plug that you can plug in either way up? I suggested that idea 20 years ago and everyone said it was silly/impossible/expensive. Should have patented it.
If this page takes an hour to load, reduce posts per page to 20 in your settings, then the tinpot 486 Einstein uses can handle it.
But there's no guarantee I'll buy another the same. In fact if my MSI motherboard can't take a larger disk, I'll most likely avoid that make for the next one. So all they've done is give their opponent money.
Also, if I want a second computer, or I'm building loads for my work, or I've just researched the specs when I'm buying one, I will buy one I know to be futureproof and not their competitor's.
Anyway it's not the MB design, it's the standard they all stick to for disk controllers and the way they work. It's those standards committees like VESA that don't think ahead. For example why has it taken until recently to come up with a symmetrical USB plug that you can plug in either way up? I suggested that idea 20 years ago and everyone said it was silly/impossible/expensive. Should have patented it.
They've need the same thing for network cables for YEARS, why does it matter which wire goes where in the plug as long as the one of the ends knows what to send thru which wire?
But there's no guarantee I'll buy another the same. In fact if my MSI motherboard can't take a larger disk, I'll most likely avoid that make for the next one. So all they've done is give their opponent money.
Also, if I want a second computer, or I'm building loads for my work, or I've just researched the specs when I'm buying one, I will buy one I know to be futureproof and not their competitor's.
Anyway it's not the MB design, it's the standard they all stick to for disk controllers and the way they work. It's those standards committees like VESA that don't think ahead. For example why has it taken until recently to come up with a symmetrical USB plug that you can plug in either way up? I suggested that idea 20 years ago and everyone said it was silly/impossible/expensive. Should have patented it.
Because it's not a free change. Making USB-C reversible requires adding an extra chip to each port to detect which way the cable is inserted and to route the the signals to the correct traces leading to/from the controller. The chip costs several times more than the socket a USB-A cable plugs into.
They've need the same thing for network cables for YEARS, why does it matter which wire goes where in the plug as long as the one of the ends knows what to send thru which wire?
Indeed, I'm old enough to remember when you needed to buy straight or crossover cables, now all network sockets are self switching.
If this page takes an hour to load, reduce posts per page to 20 in your settings, then the tinpot 486 Einstein uses can handle it.
Because it's not a free change. Making USB-C reversible requires adding an extra chip to each port to detect which way the cable is inserted and to route the the signals to the correct traces leading to/from the controller. The chip costs several times more than the socket a USB-A cable plugs into.
They could have just had twice the connectors required in the plug (with half the current capability each). Half of them are already duplicates.
And considering the complexities of the circuit anyway, I very much doubt a simple test to see which way round it is costs much at all.
If this page takes an hour to load, reduce posts per page to 20 in your settings, then the tinpot 486 Einstein uses can handle it.
It looks like “Binary Radio Pulsar Search (Arecibo, fast) v1.33 () windows_x86_64” tasks generate ~ 30% less credit per unit time compared to the “Gamma-ray pulsar search #5 v1.08 () windows_intelx86” tasks. I afraid some people may deselect Arecibo project because of this.
I agree with you on this.
Gamma-ray pulsar search #5 runs average 23,900 seconds for me and gives 693 credits
Binary Radio Pulsar Search (Arecibo Large) runs average 37,100 seconds and gives 500 credits
Does not seem right when resource use is as intensive for both.
Why could they not at least have the same amount of credit?
It would still be less but will level the playing field a little bit more.
It looks like “Binary Radio Pulsar Search (Arecibo, fast) v1.33 () windows_x86_64” tasks generate ~ 30% less credit per unit time compared to the “Gamma-ray pulsar search #5 v1.08 () windows_intelx86” tasks. I afraid some people may deselect Arecibo project because of this.
I agree with you on this.
Gamma-ray pulsar search #5 runs average 23,900 seconds for me and gives 693 credits
Binary Radio Pulsar Search (Arecibo Large) runs average 37,100 seconds and gives 500 credits
Does not seem right when resource use is as intensive for both.
Why could they not at least have the same amount of credit?
It would still be less but will level the playing field a little bit more.
Conan
I agree as well and think it makes it look like the Project is playing favorites with which tasks they want us to run, but not by very much as even though it's @1/3 more credits we are still talking less than 200 credits per task!! Also since credits are just for bragging rights making them even would make alot of sense. To further complicate things they could even give MORE credits for the longer BRPL tasks than the GRP#5 as they take longer to run. Personally I have no problem with fixed credits but please take into consideration the amount of time needed to run them when figuring out how many credits to give out for each valid task.
Peter Hucker of the Scottish
)
Meaning the MB company makes less money off of you, ie they can't sell you 2 or even 3 but instead just 1. That means they have to charge 2 arms and a leg for the future proof one and you aren't really saving any money.
But there's no guarantee I'll
)
But there's no guarantee I'll buy another the same. In fact if my MSI motherboard can't take a larger disk, I'll most likely avoid that make for the next one. So all they've done is give their opponent money.
Also, if I want a second computer, or I'm building loads for my work, or I've just researched the specs when I'm buying one, I will buy one I know to be futureproof and not their competitor's.
Anyway it's not the MB design, it's the standard they all stick to for disk controllers and the way they work. It's those standards committees like VESA that don't think ahead. For example why has it taken until recently to come up with a symmetrical USB plug that you can plug in either way up? I suggested that idea 20 years ago and everyone said it was silly/impossible/expensive. Should have patented it.
If this page takes an hour to load, reduce posts per page to 20 in your settings, then the tinpot 486 Einstein uses can handle it.
Peter Hucker of the Scottish
)
They've need the same thing for network cables for YEARS, why does it matter which wire goes where in the plug as long as the one of the ends knows what to send thru which wire?
Peter Hucker of the Scottish
)
Because it's not a free change. Making USB-C reversible requires adding an extra chip to each port to detect which way the cable is inserted and to route the the signals to the correct traces leading to/from the controller. The chip costs several times more than the socket a USB-A cable plugs into.
Bernd Machenschalk
)
Thank you for the update. Hope no one is suffering long Covid symptoms. And the symptoms they are suffering are the mild post VAX ones.
WHAT! You actually take time off? <grin>
Tom M
A Proud member of the O.F.A. (Old Farts Association). Be well, do good work, and keep in touch.® (Garrison Keillor)
mikey wrote: They've need
)
Indeed, I'm old enough to remember when you needed to buy straight or crossover cables, now all network sockets are self switching.
If this page takes an hour to load, reduce posts per page to 20 in your settings, then the tinpot 486 Einstein uses can handle it.
DanNeely wrote:Because it's
)
They could have just had twice the connectors required in the plug (with half the current capability each). Half of them are already duplicates.
And considering the complexities of the circuit anyway, I very much doubt a simple test to see which way round it is costs much at all.
If this page takes an hour to load, reduce posts per page to 20 in your settings, then the tinpot 486 Einstein uses can handle it.
TRAPPIST-713 wrote: It looks
)
I agree with you on this.
Gamma-ray pulsar search #5 runs average 23,900 seconds for me and gives 693 credits
Binary Radio Pulsar Search (Arecibo Large) runs average 37,100 seconds and gives 500 credits
Does not seem right when resource use is as intensive for both.
Why could they not at least have the same amount of credit?
It would still be less but will level the playing field a little bit more.
Conan
Conan wrote: TRAPPIST-713
)
I agree as well and think it makes it look like the Project is playing favorites with which tasks they want us to run, but not by very much as even though it's @1/3 more credits we are still talking less than 200 credits per task!! Also since credits are just for bragging rights making them even would make alot of sense. To further complicate things they could even give MORE credits for the longer BRPL tasks than the GRP#5 as they take longer to run. Personally I have no problem with fixed credits but please take into consideration the amount of time needed to run them when figuring out how many credits to give out for each valid task.
Somebody deleted a whole page
)
Somebody deleted a whole page of this discussion [rolls eyes].
If this page takes an hour to load, reduce posts per page to 20 in your settings, then the tinpot 486 Einstein uses can handle it.