Update of my Wintel Seti@home results.
Edwin
Edwin E. Thorne
Email
thor...@juno.com
Results received
260
Total CPU time
5884 hr 18 min
Average CPU time per work unit
22 hr 37 min 54.9 sec
Your rank: (based on current work units received)
Your rank out of 1701318 total users is: 55808th place.
The total number of users who have this rank: 235
You have completed more work units than 96.706% of our users.
Eric Tanks
have a question. Why the hell did you post this?!
Eric
Edwin wrote:
--
Eric Tanks
Computing Support
James Madison University
All things Zep.
Chad Irby
> I just got to this news group yesterday so I don't know anyone, but i
> have a question. Why the hell did you post this?!
> Eric
>
> Edwin wrote:
>
> (His current SETI@Home stats)
Edwin posts this from time to time to remind us that he only uses his computers
for two things: posting inaccurate things about the Mac, and searching for
extraterrestrial life in the hope that he can find someone to believe his
inaccurate posts about the Mac.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
ci...@cfl.rr.com \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
Leon Hanson
>You have completed more work units than 96.706% of our users.
I'm surprised the report doesn't follow that with "and we're very
concerned that you don't have anything better to do with your
computer...and your time" ;-)
WickedDyno
wrote:
>I just got to this news group yesterday so I don't know anyone, but i
>have a question. Why the hell did you post this?!
>Eric
To prove that PCs are superior to Macs, naturally. That's all that
Edwin ever does.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <am...@cornell.edu> |
|"'Cause you took the peace and love from the Rock |
| And turned it into sand. . ." -- Zeeza |
Edwin
"WickedDyno" <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:amg39.REMOVE-THIS-2...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
> In article <38A32DFA...@jmu.edu>, Eric Tanks <tan...@jmu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >I just got to this news group yesterday so I don't know anyone, but i
> >have a question. Why the hell did you post this?!
> >Eric
>
> To prove that PCs are superior to Macs, naturally. That's all that
> Edwin ever does.
I also wait futilely for Mac advocates to prove their claims that Macs are
better than PCs. I wait in vain for even one concrete reason why we should
pay more to have a Mac instead of buying a PC.
> --
> | Andrew Glasgow <am...@cornell.edu> |
> |"'Cause you took the peace and love from the Rock |
> | And turned it into sand. . ." -- Zeeza |
--
"Not only are they liars who speak when they know better, but even
more those who speak when they know nothing". -- A quote from Walter
Kaufmann's
translation of Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathrustra"
Edwin
"Eric Tanks" <tan...@jmu.edu> wrote in message
news:38A32DFA...@jmu.edu...
> I just got to this news group yesterday so I don't know anyone, but i
> have a question. Why the hell did you post this?!
I posted this as a common benchmark between Macs and PCs. I am also
attempting to generate interest in a worthy project.
Why don't you run the client and post your results too? ;)
> Eric
>
> Edwin wrote:
>
> > Name
> > Edwin E. Thorne
> >
> > Email
> > thor...@juno.com
> >
> > Results received
> > 260
> >
> > Total CPU time
> > 5884 hr 18 min
> >
> > Average CPU time per work unit
> > 22 hr 37 min 54.9 sec
> >
> > Your rank: (based on current work units received)
> >
> > Your rank out of 1701318 total users is: 55808th place.
> >
> > The total number of users who have this rank: 235
> >
> > You have completed more work units than 96.706% of our users.
>
> --
> Eric Tanks
> Computing Support
> James Madison University
>
> All things Zep.
Edwin
"Leon Hanson" <han...@nspam.com> wrote in message
news:38a34044....@news.uswest.net...
>
> concerned that you don't have anything better to do with your
> computer...and your time" ;-)
I use my computer for doing work and playing games, along with running the
seti client. Because my PC has PMT, I can do that and all my normal
activities as well.
Mac advocates had claimed in the past that they can run the seti client much
faster than I do. Yet all they have is sarcastic remarks to post, not any
results to match mine.
Edwin
"Chad Irby" <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:cirby-F6CA17....@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> Eric Tanks <tan...@jmu.edu> wrote:
>
> > I just got to this news group yesterday so I don't know anyone, but i
> > have a question. Why the hell did you post this?!
> >
> > Edwin wrote:
> >
> > (His current SETI@Home stats)
>
> Edwin posts this from time to time to remind us that he only uses his
computers
> for two things: posting inaccurate things about the Mac, and searching for
> extraterrestrial life in the hope that he can find someone to believe his
> inaccurate posts about the Mac.
What happened to Mac advocate claims that Macs run the seti client faster
than PCs? Where's your seti results?
> --
>
> Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
> ci...@cfl.rr.com \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
Alan Baker
wrote:
>"Eric Tanks" <tan...@jmu.edu> wrote in message
>news:38A32DFA...@jmu.edu...
>> I just got to this news group yesterday so I don't know anyone, but i
>> have a question. Why the hell did you post this?!
>
>I posted this as a common benchmark between Macs and PCs. I am also
>attempting to generate interest in a worthy project.
>
>Why don't you run the client and post your results too? ;)
Why bother doing it again. You've already seen that my Mac is faster
than your PC (how fast was your CPU again?).
>
>
>> Eric
>>
>> Edwin wrote:
>>
>> > Name
>> > Edwin E. Thorne
>> >
>> > Email
>> > thor...@juno.com
>> >
>> > Results received
>> > 260
>> >
>> > Total CPU time
>> > 5884 hr 18 min
>> >
>> > Average CPU time per work unit
>> > 22 hr 37 min 54.9 sec
>> >
>> > Your rank: (based on current work units received)
>> >
>> > Your rank out of 1701318 total users is: 55808th place.
>> >
>> > The total number of users who have this rank: 235
>> >
>> > You have completed more work units than 96.706% of our users.
>>
>> --
>> Eric Tanks
>> Computing Support
>> James Madison University
>>
>> All things Zep.
>--
>"Not only are they liars who speak when they know better, but even
>more those who speak when they know nothing". -- A quote from Walter
>Kaufmann's
>translation of Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathrustra"
>
>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
Alan Baker
wrote:
>"WickedDyno" <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
>news:amg39.REMOVE-THIS-2...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> In article <38A32DFA...@jmu.edu>, Eric Tanks <tan...@jmu.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I just got to this news group yesterday so I don't know anyone, but i
>> >have a question. Why the hell did you post this?!
>> >Eric
>>
>> To prove that PCs are superior to Macs, naturally. That's all that
>> Edwin ever does.
>
>I also wait futilely for Mac advocates to prove their claims that Macs are
>better than PCs. I wait in vain for even one concrete reason why we
>should
>pay more to have a Mac instead of buying a PC.
How about because it will be just one more way that I can say I'm not
anything like you?
Alan Baker
wrote:
>"Chad Irby" <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:cirby-F6CA17....@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
>> Eric Tanks <tan...@jmu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > I just got to this news group yesterday so I don't know anyone, but i
>> > have a question. Why the hell did you post this?!
>> > Eric
>> >
>> > Edwin wrote:
>> >
>> > (His current SETI@Home stats)
>>
>> Edwin posts this from time to time to remind us that he only uses his
>computers
>> for two things: posting inaccurate things about the Mac, and searching
>> for
>> extraterrestrial life in the hope that he can find someone to believe
>> his
>> inaccurate posts about the Mac.
>
>What happened to Mac advocate claims that Macs run the seti client faster
>than PCs? Where's your seti results?
Well mine runs faster than yours, but that's probably due to a problem
with the setup of the PC in question. <G>
Patrick W. Gierke
wrote:
Just to repsond to your question:
> What happened to Mac advocate claims that Macs run the seti client faster
> than PCs? Where's your seti results?
>
So far, i've processed 102 work units for a total amount of 878 hr and
26 minutes. The works out to about 8 hours and 36 minutes per unit.
I have completed more work units than 91.372% of SETI users....
BTW, I've got a beige G3/400 right now. Before, when I had a G3/266, I
was processing work units well under 22 hours. It was closer to 15 hours.
Hey, you asked for some results, there you go. Make of them what you
will.
-Gierke
--
Patrick Gierke
gierkeS...@delaware.infi.net
To email me, remove SPAMSUCKS from the address above.
lloyds...@my-deja.com
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> Name
> Edwin E. Thorne
>
> thor...@juno.com
>
> Results received
> 260
>
> Total CPU time
> 5884 hr 18 min
>
> Average CPU time per work unit
> 22 hr 37 min 54.9 sec
Your Wintel is cranking out 22 hr results?
> Your rank: (based on current work units received)
>
> Your rank out of 1701318 total users is: 55808th place.
>
> The total number of users who have this rank: 235
>
> You have completed more work units than 96.706% of our users.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Graham
> Name
> Edwin E. Thorne
>
> Email
> thor...@juno.com
>
> Results received
> 260
>
> Total CPU time
> 5884 hr 18 min
>
> Average CPU time per work unit
> 22 hr 37 min 54.9 sec
>
> Your rank: (based on current work units received)
>
> Your rank out of 1701318 total users is: 55808th place.
>
> The total number of users who have this rank: 235
>
> You have completed more work units than 96.706% of our users.
MY Hero!
--
** REALITY IS FOR ACCOUNTANTS **
Chad Irby
> What happened to Mac advocate claims that Macs run the seti client faster
> than PCs? Where's your seti results?
I stopped running Seti@Home a while back, when I lost interest.
But since you're so interested, here's some numbers from their Web page:
1) Pentium/Windows 46858892 141836.99 years 26 hr 30 min 56.2 sec
2) Macintosh 6418075 13792.90 years 18 hr 49 min 33.1 sec
The average Mac runs a block about four hours faster than your wonderful little
Windows box... and about eight hours faster than the typical Windows machine.
Andrew Irvine
> Name
> Edwin E. Thorne
>
> Email
> thor...@juno.com
>
> Results received
> 260
>
> Total CPU time
> 5884 hr 18 min
>
> Average CPU time per work unit
> 22 hr 37 min 54.9 sec
>
> Your rank: (based on current work units received)
>
> Your rank out of 1701318 total users is: 55808th place.
>
> The total number of users who have this rank: 235
>
> You have completed more work units than 96.706% of our users.
Tom Elam style post again I think :)
What has this go to do with mac advocacy?
--
Andrew Irvine
Your mouse has moved.
Windows NT must be restarted for the change to take effect.
Reboot now? [ OK ]
Alan Baker
Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> What happened to Mac advocate claims that Macs run the seti client
>> faster
>> than PCs? Where's your seti results?
>
>I stopped running Seti@Home a while back, when I lost interest.
>
>But since you're so interested, here's some numbers from their Web page:
>
>1) Pentium/Windows 46858892 141836.99 years 26 hr 30 min 56.2 sec
>2) Macintosh 6418075 13792.90 years 18 hr 49 min 33.1 sec
>
>The average Mac runs a block about four hours faster than your wonderful
>little
>Windows box... and about eight hours faster than the typical Windows
>machine.
Chad, check your math. You meant to say about 8 hours faster.
Timberwoof
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > What happened to Mac advocate claims that Macs run the seti client
> > faster
> > than PCs? Where's your seti results?
>
> I stopped running Seti@Home a while back, when I lost interest.
>
> But since you're so interested, here's some numbers from their Web page:
>
> 1) Pentium/Windows 46858892 141836.99 years 26 hr 30 min 56.2 sec
> 2) Macintosh 6418075 13792.90 years 18 hr 49 min 33.1 sec
>
> The average Mac runs a block about four hours faster than your wonderful
> little
> Windows box... and about eight hours faster than the typical Windows
> machine.
Which only goes to show that Seti@Home is not a proper menchmark to test
Mac and Win relative performance. Obviously there's somehting wrong with
the Windows version that creates these bogus results. }: )
Help me! I need a wintrollectomy!
--
Timberwoof; woofy<at>infernosoft<dot>com; http://www.infernosoft.com
Ice Hockey QA Engineer (Goalie), 1998 BMW R1100GS rider, and
not your ordinary noncomformist. "You may have the right to say that,
but I will defend to the death my right to disagree."
Bob Hoye
> "Chad Irby" <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:cirby-F6CA17....@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> > Eric Tanks <tan...@jmu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > I just got to this news group yesterday so I don't know anyone, but i
> > > have a question. Why the hell did you post this?!
> > > Eric
> > >
> > > Edwin wrote:
> > >
> > > (His current SETI@Home stats)
> >
> > Edwin posts this from time to time to remind us that he only uses his
> computers
> > for two things: posting inaccurate things about the Mac, and searching for
> > extraterrestrial life in the hope that he can find someone to believe his
> > inaccurate posts about the Mac.
>
> What happened to Mac advocate claims that Macs run the seti client faster
> than PCs? Where's your seti results?
>
________________________________________________________________
Performa 6400 w/300MHZ-1MB L2 G3 Upgrade:
________________________________________________________________
hoy...@osu.edu
Your credit:
Name Results Total CPU time Average CPU time
received per work unit
Bob Hoye 15 172 hr 36 min 11 hr 30 min 26.1 sec
_____________________
Your group info:
You do not currently belong to a group.
You are not currently the founder of any teams.
Your rank: (based on current workunits received)
Your rank out of 1701318 total users is: 496749th place.
The total number of users who have this rank: 14700
You have completed more work units than 69.938% of our users.
________________________________________________________________
What else do you want to know, Eddie?
Bob Hoye
R. Kirk McPike
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote in message news:newscache$m0pqpf$wqa@home...
> > have a question. Why the hell did you post this?!
>
> attempting to generate interest in a worthy project.
A worthy project? To a degree.
Methinks there are far more pressing concerns that our government could be
spending money on. I'm all for space exploration, but let's get to Mars
before we go searching for Klingons. And let's pay down the debt and lower
our taxes before we head to Mars.
Kirk McPike
R. Kirk McPike
>
> "WickedDyno" <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
> news:amg39.REMOVE-THIS-2...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
> > In article <38A32DFA...@jmu.edu>, Eric Tanks <tan...@jmu.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >have a question. Why the hell did you post this?!
> >
> > To prove that PCs are superior to Macs, naturally. That's all that
> > Edwin ever does.
>
> I also wait futilely for Mac advocates to prove their claims that Macs are
> better than PCs. I wait in vain for even one concrete reason why we
should
> pay more to have a Mac instead of buying a PC.
Maybe you shouldn't... but then, maybe for some people, it's worth it. Some
people find the Mac a more comfortable environment. I, for one, have always
found it easier to write on a Mac. Now that FinalDraft 5 is out, it's about
even, but for several years there, for whatever reason, the material I wrote
on my Power Mac was generally better than the stuff I produced on my PC.
I finally figured out why, too... when I was on my Mac, I found it much
easier to concentrate on my writing... because the interface is so simple,
so clean. With Windows, the GUI is completely in-your-face... things flash,
menus zip up and down, buttons jump out at you as you roll your mouse
around, the whole thing is designed to draw your attention. And when you're
fighting ADD as badly as I was a few years ago, those little distractions
add up fast.
Take AIM for instance... I would tend to write at night, and juggle that
with chatting with budies on AOL INstant Messenger. I'd write for awhile,
and then take a break and chat.
When I was writing on the Mac, andI got a message from a buddy, the
Application Menu would blink "IM." Very subtle, unintrusive, and since it's
at the top of the display (and when writing, most of your attention is
towards the bottom), it didn't really bug me. I idn't even see it, really,
until I took my break, and went to AIM to see what was up.
In Windows, when I get an IM, a button appears on the task bar, and starts
to blink blue. It's right there, in my line of sight, and it is highly
distracting (for a brief time I moved the Taskbar to the top, just so I
could finish a screenplay, but that drove me nuts cause it made the screen
look way too top heavy). Finally, I had to stop being on the net when I was
writing. So I didn't even get to put that vaunted Windows multitasking to
use.
Everyone's mileage varies, Edwin. You've made up your mind that the added
cost (if any) of a Mac isn't worth it to you, but nothing you can say can
prove to anyone that it's not worth it for other people.
You want to know the truth of it all, Eddie? The Mac is better than the PC.
And the PC is better than the Mac. It all depends on who you are, what you
do, and how you do it.
Kirk McPike
Eric Tanks
everything Carl Sagan wrote). But would you really want me to post? I
think my G4 might show you up!
Beside that it just seems kind've of stupid to me to post SETI results in
here. Thats like me posting my golf scores up here or something!
Eric
Edwin wrote:
> "Eric Tanks" <tan...@jmu.edu> wrote in message
> news:38A32DFA...@jmu.edu...
> > I just got to this news group yesterday so I don't know anyone, but i
> > have a question. Why the hell did you post this?!
>
> I posted this as a common benchmark between Macs and PCs. I am also
> attempting to generate interest in a worthy project.
>
> Why don't you run the client and post your results too? ;)
>
> > Eric
> >
> > Edwin wrote:
> >
> > > Name
> > > Edwin E. Thorne
> > >
> > > Email
> > > thor...@juno.com
> > >
> > > Results received
> > > 260
> > >
> > > Total CPU time
> > > 5884 hr 18 min
> > >
> > > Average CPU time per work unit
> > > 22 hr 37 min 54.9 sec
> > >
Eric Tanks
its money mainly from the Planetary Society (of which I am a member) and
personal donations. I maybe wrong though. Also I don't' think the SETI@home
client cost the government anything.
Eric
"R. Kirk McPike" wrote:
> Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote in message news:newscache$m0pqpf$wqa@home...
> >
> > "Eric Tanks" <tan...@jmu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:38A32DFA...@jmu.edu...
> > > I just got to this news group yesterday so I don't know anyone, but i
> > > have a question. Why the hell did you post this?!
> >
> > I posted this as a common benchmark between Macs and PCs. I am also
> > attempting to generate interest in a worthy project.
>
> A worthy project? To a degree.
>
> Methinks there are far more pressing concerns that our government could be
> spending money on. I'm all for space exploration, but let's get to Mars
> before we go searching for Klingons. And let's pay down the debt and lower
> our taxes before we head to Mars.
>
> Kirk McPike
--
fretwiz
wrote:
> "WickedDyno" <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
> news:amg39.REMOVE-THIS-2...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
> > In article <38A32DFA...@jmu.edu>, Eric Tanks <tan...@jmu.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I just got to this news group yesterday so I don't know anyone, but i
> > >have a question. Why the hell did you post this?!
> > >Eric
> >
> > To prove that PCs are superior to Macs, naturally. That's all that
> > Edwin ever does.
>
> I also wait futilely for Mac advocates to prove their claims that Macs
> are
> better than PCs. I wait in vain for even one concrete reason why we
> should
> pay more to have a Mac instead of buying a PC.
To run Pro Tools... ask the pros.
fretwiz
--
It was a result of letting go of bad past experiences and permitting
myself live in the present with an eye to the future, instead of
staying stuck in the past to grind axes.
Edwin Thorne
EdWIN
ir...@clara.co.uk (Andrew Irvine) wrote:
> Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > Name
> > Edwin E. Thorne
> >
> > thor...@juno.com
> >
> > Results received
> > 260
> >
> > Total CPU time
> > 5884 hr 18 min
> >
> > Average CPU time per work unit
> > 22 hr 37 min 54.9 sec
> >
> > Your rank: (based on current work units received)
> >
> > Your rank out of 1701318 total users is: 55808th place.
> >
> > The total number of users who have this rank: 235
> >
> > You have completed more work units than 96.706% of our users.
>
>
> What has this go to do with mac advocacy?
Comp.sys.mac.advocacy exists to compare the Mac to all other
platforms. I gave my seti client results from my PC. Let's see those
from your Mac so we can compare them.
> --
> Andrew Irvine
> Your mouse has moved.
> Windows NT must be restarted for the change to take effect.
> Reboot now? [ OK ]
>
--
"Let all who oppose the OverMind feel the Fury of the Swarm!"
-- Infested Kerrigan, aka The Queen of Blades, StarCraft.
EdWIN
Eric Tanks <tan...@jmu.edu> wrote:
> I suppose I could. I DO want to find other live out there (I've read
> everything Carl Sagan wrote). But would you really want me to post? I
> think my G4 might show you up!
I invite you to "show me up" with your G4, if you can. My PC cost
$899. How much did you pay for your G4?
Even if you don't post your results, please run the seti client. It's
an historic undertaking, and you have a chance to be a part of it.
> Beside that it just seems kind've of stupid to me to post SETI
>results in here.
Not at all. This news group was created to compare the Mac to all
other platforms. The best comparison is to do the same task, with the
same program if possible.
> Thats like me posting my golf scores up here or something!
Well, golf scores would be dumb, because they'd have nothing to do with
computers. Doing the same work on a Mac and a PC and posting the
results wouldn't be "stupid," it would be doing the thing this group
exists for.
> Eric
>
> Edwin wrote:
>
> > "Eric Tanks" <tan...@jmu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:38A32DFA...@jmu.edu...
> > > I just got to this news group yesterday so I don't know anyone,
but i
> > > have a question. Why the hell did you post this?!
> >
> > I posted this as a common benchmark between Macs and PCs. I am
also
> > attempting to generate interest in a worthy project.
> >
> > Why don't you run the client and post your results too? ;)
> >
> > > Eric
> > >
> > > Edwin wrote:
> > >
> > > > Name
> > > > Edwin E. Thorne
> > > >
> > > > Email
> > > > thor...@juno.com
> > > >
> > > > Results received
> > > > 260
> > > >
> > > > Total CPU time
> > > > 5884 hr 18 min
> > > >
> > > > Average CPU time per work unit
> > > > 22 hr 37 min 54.9 sec
> > > >
> > > > Your rank: (based on current work units received)
> > > >
> > > > Your rank out of 1701318 total users is: 55808th place.
> > > >
> > > > The total number of users who have this rank: 235
> > > >
> > > > You have completed more work units than 96.706% of our users.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Eric Tanks
> > > Computing Support
> > > James Madison University
> > >
> > > All things Zep.
> > --
> > "Not only are they liars who speak when they know better, but even
> > more those who speak when they know nothing". -- A quote from
Walter
> > Kaufmann's
> > translation of Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathrustra"
> >
> > >
> > >
>
> --
> Eric Tanks
> Computing Support
> James Madison University
>
> All things Zep.
>
>
--
EdWIN
Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
faster
> > than PCs? Where's your seti results?
>
I believe the reason you "lost interest" was because the only way to
get any speed out of the client on your Mac was to do nothing else.
> But since you're so interested, here's some numbers from their Web
page:
>
> 1) Pentium/Windows 46858892 141836.99 years 26 hr 30 min 56.2 sec
> 2) Macintosh 6418075 13792.90 years 18 hr 49 min 33.1 sec
>
> The average Mac runs a block about four hours faster than your
wonderful little
> Windows box... and about eight hours faster than the typical Windows
machine.
Then why are there NO Mac users who can match my results? You've got
faster cars than mine, but they only travel between your garage and the
end of your driveway, while mine takes me around the world and beyond.
As with the RC5 challenge, Mac users make boasts while PC users do the
work. As the RC5 encryption was cracked by the PC, so now shall any
success in the seti@home project belong to PC owners.
>
> --
>
> Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
> ci...@cfl.rr.com \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
>
--
EdWIN
Alan Baker <Alan_...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> In article <newscache$3ipqpf$gva@home>, "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Chad Irby" <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:cirby-F6CA17....@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> >>
> >> > I just got to this news group yesterday so I don't know anyone,
but i
> >> > have a question. Why the hell did you post this?!
> >> >
> >> > Edwin wrote:
> >> >
> >> > (His current SETI@Home stats)
> >>
> >> Edwin posts this from time to time to remind us that he only uses
his
> >computers
> >> for two things: posting inaccurate things about the Mac, and
searching
> >> for
> >> extraterrestrial life in the hope that he can find someone to
believe
> >> his
> >> inaccurate posts about the Mac.
> >
faster
> >than PCs? Where's your seti results?
>
problem
> with the setup of the PC in question. <G>
Then where are your results? Why haven't you done more work than me?
> --
> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that
wall to that
> wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit
in the
> bottom of that cupboard."
>
--
Chad Irby
> Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >The average Mac runs a block about four hours faster than your wonderful
> >little
> >Windows box... and about eight hours faster than the typical Windows
> >machine.
>
> Chad, check your math. You meant to say about 8 hours faster.
No, I meant to say four - Edwin's been running blocks in about 22 hours,
somewhat faster than the average Windows user.
Here's a general comparison:
Average Windows user: ~26 hours
Edwin: ~22 hours
Average Mac user: ~18 hours
Boy, those Windows machines are sure slow...
Chad Irby
> Methinks there are far more pressing concerns that our government could be
> spending money on.
It's not a government-sponsored project.
Chad Irby
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > I wait in vain for even one concrete reason why we
> > should pay more to have a Mac instead of buying a PC.
>
> To run Pro Tools... ask the pros.
And other things... like video editing suites. For some reason, after a few
years of pushing NT for video work, the Mac is still the number one system for
professional-level video work. And audio work. And 2-D graphics.
Windows, on the other hand, is still the most popular machine for running, well,
Microsoft Office.
Jason S.
>> >You have completed more work units than 96.706% of our users.
>> I'm surprised the report doesn't follow that with "and we're very
>> concerned that you don't have anything better to do with your
>> computer...and your time" ;-)
>I use my computer for doing work and playing games, along with running the
>seti client. Because my PC has PMT, I can do that and all my normal
>activities as well.
>Mac advocates had claimed in the past that they can run the seti client much
>faster than I do. Yet all they have is sarcastic remarks to post, not any
>results to match mine.
SETI@home
jhst...@mindspring.com
Your credit:
Name Results
received Total CPU time Average CPU time per work unit
261 3369 hr 35 min 12 hr 54 min 37.1 sec
Your group info:
You do not currently belong to a group.
You are not currently the founder of any teams.
Your rank: (based on current workunits received)
Your rank out of 1706171 total users is: 55997th place.
The total number of users who have this rank: 223
You have completed more work units than 96.705% of our users.
--
Check out the comp.sys.mac.advocacy FAQ
http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/csmafaq/
muahahahahahahaha!!!snap!snap!!snap!!photoshop!!
-- Ho You Kong
Marge Simpson: That's a pretty lousy lesson.
Bill Clinton: Hey -- I'm a pretty lousy President.
-- The Simpsons
EdWIN
fretwiz <fre...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In article <newscache$mhpqpf$gva@home>, "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "WickedDyno" <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
> > news:amg39.REMOVE-THIS-
> > > In article <38A32DFA...@jmu.edu>, Eric Tanks
<tan...@jmu.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >I just got to this news group yesterday so I don't know anyone,
> > > >but i have a question. Why the hell did you post this?!
> > > >Eric
> > >
> > > that Edwin ever does.
> >
> > I also wait futilely for Mac advocates to prove their claims that
> > reason why we should pay more to have a Mac instead of buying a PC.
>
> To run Pro Tools... ask the pros.
I still wait in vain. Thanks for the non-answer.
> fretwiz
>
> --
> It was a result of letting go of bad past experiences and permitting
> myself live in the present with an eye to the future, instead of
> staying stuck in the past to grind axes.
>
> Edwin Thorne
>
>
--
EdWIN
You forgot to mention that your results are on a Mac clone running
LinuxPPC.
> --
> Check out the comp.sys.mac.advocacy FAQ
> http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/csmafaq/
>
> muahahahahahahaha!!!snap!snap!!snap!!photoshop!!
> -- Ho You Kong
>
> Marge Simpson: That's a pretty lousy lesson.
> Bill Clinton: Hey -- I'm a pretty lousy President.
>
> -- The Simpsons
>
--
WickedDyno
>Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote in message
>news:newscache$m0pqpf$wqa@home...
>>
>> "Eric Tanks" <tan...@jmu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:38A32DFA...@jmu.edu...
>> > I just got to this news group yesterday so I don't know anyone, but i
>> > have a question. Why the hell did you post this?!
>>
>> I posted this as a common benchmark between Macs and PCs. I am also
>> attempting to generate interest in a worthy project.
>
>A worthy project? To a degree.
>
>Methinks there are far more pressing concerns that our government could be
>spending money on. I'm all for space exploration, but let's get to Mars
>before we go searching for Klingons. And let's pay down the debt and lower
>our taxes before we head to Mars.
This costs them almost nothing, since people download it and run it for
free. All they have to do is make the client and watch the data come
rolling in.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <am...@cornell.edu> |
|"'Cause you took the peace and love from the Rock |
| And turned it into sand. . ." -- Zeeza |
Leon Hanson
>Mac advocates had claimed in the past that they can run the seti client much
>faster than I do. Yet all they have is sarcastic remarks to post, not any
>results to match mine.
I'm not a MacAdvocate, Edwin.
fretwiz
<edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <fretwiz-8B33A6...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> fretwiz <fre...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > In article <newscache$mhpqpf$gva@home>, "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com>
> > wrote:
> > > I also wait futilely for Mac advocates to prove their claims that
> > > Macs are better than PCs. I wait in vain for even one concrete
> > > reason why we should pay more to have a Mac instead of buying a PC.
> >
> > To run Pro Tools... ask the pros.
>
> I still wait in vain. Thanks for the non-answer.
What's wrong Eddie? Still can't read even your own words? You asked for
"one concrete reason why we should pay more to have a Mac instead of
buying a PC." You didn't ask why 'Edwin', or why a 'windoze user' should
pay more, you said 'WE'. If you want an answer more to your liking, next
time, limit your wording so you'll get what you seek, moron. You
foolishly chose to make the wording broad, and as a result, you don't
like the answer you've received. Tough sh*t. Pro audio guys DO pay more
to run Macs, the fact that you are simply too stupid to understand this,
despite being repeatedly told so, doesn't change a thing. You don't wait
in vain, (unless you use the definition of vain encompassing 'lack of
sense' or wisdom) you wait for an answer you can shoot down. Too bad I
didn't provide you with one eh? Try again.
EdWIN
fretwiz <fre...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In article <881ii9$ijr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
> <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <fretwiz-8B33A6...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> > fretwiz <fre...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > In article <newscache$mhpqpf$gva@home>, "Edwin"
<thor...@juno.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > I also wait futilely for Mac advocates to prove their claims
that
> > > > Macs are better than PCs. I wait in vain for even one concrete
> > > > reason why we should pay more to have a Mac instead of buying a
PC.
> > >
> > > To run Pro Tools... ask the pros.
> >
> > I still wait in vain. Thanks for the non-answer.
>
> What's wrong Eddie?
You didn't answer the question.
>Still can't read even your own words? You asked for
> "one concrete reason why we should pay more to have a Mac instead of
> buying a PC."
Right. I didn't ask for a vague and empty assertion. I asked for a
concrete reason.
>You didn't ask why 'Edwin', or why a 'windoze user' should
> pay more, you said 'WE'. If you want an answer more to your liking,
> next time, limit your wording so you'll get what you seek, moron.
I asked for a concrete reason why anyone should pay more for a Mac
instead of buying a PC. You failed to deliver it.
> You
> foolishly chose to make the wording broad, and as a result, you don't
> like the answer you've received.
"Concrete reason" is too broad? Yet even with such "broad wording"
you failed to deliver anything that met the requirements.
>Tough sh*t. Pro audio guys DO pay more
> to run Macs, the fact that you are simply too stupid to understand
>this, despite being repeatedly told so, doesn't change a thing.
Your insults and empty assertions do not count for a concrete reason
why anyone should buy a Mac instead of a PC.
> You don't wait
> in vain, (unless you use the definition of vain encompassing 'lack of
> sense' or wisdom) you wait for an answer you can shoot down.
I wait in vain for Mac advocates to prove that the PC is better than
the Mac, or to supply even one concrete reason why anyone should pay
more for a Mac instead of buying a PC.
>Too bad I
> didn't provide you with one eh? Try again.
Yes, it is indeed too bad that you can't provide any real reasons why
anyone should buy or use a Mac. I'll try asking again, but I don't
hold much hope of ever getting a real answer.
>
> fretwiz
>
> --
> It was a result of letting go of bad past experiences and permitting
> myself live in the present with an eye to the future, instead of
> staying stuck in the past to grind axes.
>
> Edwin Thorne
>
>
--
Jason S.
>> >Mac advocates had claimed in the past that they can run the seti
>client much
>> >faster than I do. Yet all they have is sarcastic remarks to post,
>not any
>> >results to match mine.
>> SETI@home
>>
>> jhst...@mindspring.com
>>
>> Your credit:
>>
>> Name Results
>> received Total CPU time Average CPU time per work unit
>> 261 3369 hr 35 min 12 hr 54 min 37.1 sec
>You forgot to mention that your results are on a Mac clone running
>LinuxPPC.
Only 51 of them are from that. The other 210 are from a Celeron 366
running Linux. Funny how the Celeron kicks the crap out of your
K6 in this. ;)
--
Check out the comp.sys.mac.advocacy FAQ
http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/csmafaq/
muahahahahahahaha!!!snap!snap!!snap!!photoshop!!
-- Ho You Kong
Marge Simpson: That's a pretty lousy lesson.
Bill Clinton: Hey -- I'm a pretty lousy President.
-- The Simpsons
SETI@Home Hall of Shame Competitor
Apple Macintosh Performa 450: MC68030 at 25 MHz
8 MB RAM, no FPU, NetBSD 1.3.3
0.00135% completed, 68 hours 5 minutes
tinman
<edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <38A42503...@jmu.edu>,
> Eric Tanks <tan...@jmu.edu> wrote:
> > I suppose I could. I DO want to find other live out there (I've read
> > everything Carl Sagan wrote). But would you really want me to post? I
> > think my G4 might show you up!
>
> I invite you to "show me up" with your G4, if you can. My PC cost
> $899. How much did you pay for your G4?
Eddie, given that my iMac does a unit in just a shade more than half the
time it takes your PC, I'm certain even the low end iMac will trounce your
PC. Your PC is just not that fast....('
[snip]
--
______
tinman
fretwiz
<edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <fretwiz-011A51...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> fretwiz <fre...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > In article <881ii9$ijr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
> > <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <fretwiz-8B33A6...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> > > fretwiz <fre...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <newscache$mhpqpf$gva@home>, "Edwin"
> <thor...@juno.com>
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > I also wait futilely for Mac advocates to prove their claims
> that
> > > > > Macs are better than PCs. I wait in vain for even one concrete
> > > > > reason why we should pay more to have a Mac instead of buying a
> PC.
> > > >
> > > > To run Pro Tools... ask the pros.
> > >
> > > I still wait in vain. Thanks for the non-answer.
> >
> > What's wrong Eddie?
>
> You didn't answer the question.
Wrong. I did, and have answered it, repeatedly.
> >Still can't read even your own words? You asked for
> > "one concrete reason why we should pay more to have a Mac instead of
> > buying a PC."
>
> Right. I didn't ask for a vague and empty assertion. I asked for a
> concrete reason.
The reason I gave,(to run Pro Tools), is evidenced by the fact audio
pros prefer the Mac over Windoze. That makes it a pretty concrete
reason. Pretending I didn't give you a reason makes you look like...
well... like ... ...Edwin!
> >You didn't ask why 'Edwin', or why a 'windoze user' should
> > pay more, you said 'WE'. If you want an answer more to your liking,
> > next time, limit your wording so you'll get what you seek, moron.
>
> I asked for a concrete reason why anyone should pay more for a Mac
> instead of buying a PC. You failed to deliver it.
No, I delivered it, but no one was home.
> > You
> > foolishly chose to make the wording broad, and as a result, you don't
> > like the answer you've received.
>
> "Concrete reason" is too broad? Yet even with such "broad wording"
> you failed to deliver anything that met the requirements.
Hmmm, let's take another look at what I wrote, shall we?
fretwiz wrote these next 3 lines:
"You asked for one concrete reason why we should pay more to have a Mac
instead of buying a PC." You didn't ask why 'Edwin', or why a 'windoze
user' should pay more, you said 'WE'."
Let's look at this for a moment. It would appear that I expended some
effort to focus on the word 'WE'. I suppose a reader that never met
Edwin, (or Edwin himself) might wonder why. Let's take a look.
fretwiz sequentially continued with these next 4 lines:
If you want an answer more to your liking, next time, limit your wording
so you'll get what you seek, moron. You foolishly chose to make the
wording broad, and as a result, you don't like the answer you've
received."
Gee, being that I capitalized the word 'WE', even my 6 year old could
have figured out what I was referring to when I said, "You foolishly
chose to make the wording broad", in my reply to you. But, being that
you appear to lag behind my 6 year old in development, I'll pass at
trying to explain it any further. Maybe in a couple of years,(when you
might possibly attain the level of reading comprehension most first
grader's usually possess) we'll pick this conversation up again.
>
> >Tough sh*t. Pro audio guys DO pay more
> > to run Macs, the fact that you are simply too stupid to understand
> >this, despite being repeatedly told so, doesn't change a thing.
>
> Your insults and empty assertions do not count for a concrete reason
> why anyone should buy a Mac instead of a PC.
I gave you a reason, pick it apart if you don't consider it valid, but
don't sit there and pretend you didn't get one. I insult you because you
continually attempt to run people in circles in almost every thread
you're in. Most people find it quite annoying, and I'll lays odds that
is the main reason you get insulted at all.
> > You don't wait
> > in vain, (unless you use the definition of vain encompassing 'lack of
> > sense' or wisdom) you wait for an answer you can shoot down.
>
> I wait in vain for Mac advocates to prove that the PC is better than
> the Mac, or to supply even one concrete reason why anyone should pay
> more for a Mac instead of buying a PC.
>
> >Too bad I
> > didn't provide you with one eh? Try again.
>
> Yes, it is indeed too bad that you can't provide any real reasons why
> anyone should buy or use a Mac.
I gave you a reason, but you're pretending I didn't. Where do you
suppose that leaves us? I feel like I'm talking with an elementary
school child. Why waste the time? Why not take issue with my reason and
explain why you don't consider it valid? Wouldn't that be better than
what you're doing? You just want to shoot the Mac down, that's why
you've chosen to ignore the fact I gave you a valid reason, that, and
the fact you can't actually knock the reason down. Actions like this
make you a poor advocate, but being that you're really here for the
attention factor, you don't really care.
>I'll try asking again, but I don't
> hold much hope of ever getting a real answer.
Then we're even, 'cus I don't hold out much hope of you ever being
intelligent enough to recognize an answer,(look at your floppy drive
thread). Which brings us to another topic. WHY... did you bother to
answer my post in this thread? It's obvious you didn't actually read
what I wrote. Did you do it to give me another shot at you? I'm more
than a willing participant, but you made this TOO easy.
Alan Baker
<edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <Alan_Baker-18476...@news.telus.net>,
> Alan Baker <Alan_...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> In article <newscache$3ipqpf$gva@home>, "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Chad Irby" <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
>> >news:cirby-F6CA17....@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
>> >> Eric Tanks <tan...@jmu.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I just got to this news group yesterday so I don't know anyone,
>but i
>> >> > have a question. Why the hell did you post this?!
>> >> > Eric
>> >> >
>> >> > Edwin wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > (His current SETI@Home stats)
>> >>
>> >> Edwin posts this from time to time to remind us that he only uses
>his
>> >computers
>> >> for two things: posting inaccurate things about the Mac, and
>searching
>> >> for
>> >> extraterrestrial life in the hope that he can find someone to
>believe
>> >> his
>> >> inaccurate posts about the Mac.
>> >
>> >What happened to Mac advocate claims that Macs run the seti client
>faster
>> >than PCs? Where's your seti results?
>>
>> Well mine runs faster than yours, but that's probably due to a
>problem
>> with the setup of the PC in question. <G>
>
>Then where are your results?
Right here:
Alan Baker 229 units 11 hr 50 min 35.4 sec per unit.
Or a little less than twice as fast as your machine.
>Why haven't you done more work than me?
I run it as a screensaver.
Andrew Irvine
> In article <1e5ti63.1sgkzat1qivfoiN%ir...@clara.co.uk>,
> ir...@clara.co.uk (Andrew Irvine) wrote:
> > Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Name
> > > Edwin E. Thorne
> > >
> > > Email
> > > thor...@juno.com
> > >
> > > Results received
> > > 260
> > >
> > > Total CPU time
> > > 5884 hr 18 min
> > >
> > > Average CPU time per work unit
> > > 22 hr 37 min 54.9 sec
> > >
> > > Your rank: (based on current work units received)
> > >
> > > Your rank out of 1701318 total users is: 55808th place.
> > >
> > > The total number of users who have this rank: 235
> > >
> > > You have completed more work units than 96.706% of our users.
> >
> > Tom Elam style post again I think :)
> >
> > What has this go to do with mac advocacy?
>
> Comp.sys.mac.advocacy exists to compare the Mac to all other
> platforms. I gave my seti client results from my PC. Let's see those
> from your Mac so we can compare them.
>
Ahh, I see, this is that kind of immature "lets see who has the biggest
cock" exercise.
I don't look for aliens with my computer, and from what i have read in
previous threads, the mac is faster for seti at home anyway. Not that
seti is a good benchmarking program.
Bob Hoye
> In article <38A42503...@jmu.edu>,
> Eric Tanks <tan...@jmu.edu> wrote:
> > I suppose I could. I DO want to find other live out there (I've read
> > everything Carl Sagan wrote). But would you really want me to post? I
> > think my G4 might show you up!
>
> I invite you to "show me up" with your G4, if you can. My PC cost
> $899. How much did you pay for your G4?
>
I paid a little over $200 for the G3 upgrade to my 6400. You spent
4 1/2 times that to get a slower computer with a deficient operating
system.
> Even if you don't post your results, please run the seti client. It's
> an historic undertaking, and you have a chance to be a part of it.
>
> > Beside that it just seems kind've of stupid to me to post SETI
> >results in here.
>
> Not at all. This news group was created to compare the Mac to all
> other platforms. The best comparison is to do the same task, with the
> same program if possible.
You never responded to my SETI results, Eddie: Average CPU time per
work unit: 11 hr 30 min 26.1 sec. Same task, same program, and just
about twice as fast as yours. You're SO selective in your posts here.
Is this all you have to do?
Bob Hoye
EdWIN
Alan Baker <Alan_...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> In article <881fgi$g89$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
> <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <Alan_Baker-18476...@news.telus.net>,
> > Alan Baker <Alan_...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> In article <newscache$3ipqpf$gva@home>, "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Chad Irby" <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:cirby-F6CA17....@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
That's bullshit. I have 260 blocks done to your 229, and your machine
is doing the work faster? The seti client would never do a block in 11
hours as a screen saver on either a Mac or a PC. How about giving the
email address you registered with seti so we can see for ourselves?
> --
> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that
wall to that
> wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit
in the
> bottom of that cupboard."
>
--
EdWIN
Bob Hoye <ho...@osu.edu> wrote:
> In article <newscache$3ipqpf$gva@home>, Edwin <thor...@juno.com>
wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:cirby-F6CA17....@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> > > Eric Tanks <tan...@jmu.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I just got to this news group yesterday so I don't know anyone,
but i
> > > > have a question. Why the hell did you post this?!
> > > > Eric
> > > >
> > > > Edwin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > (His current SETI@Home stats)
> > >
> > > Edwin posts this from time to time to remind us that he only uses
his
> > computers
> > > for two things: posting inaccurate things about the Mac, and
searching for
> > > extraterrestrial life in the hope that he can find someone to
believe his
> > > inaccurate posts about the Mac.
> >
> > What happened to Mac advocate claims that Macs run the seti client
faster
> > than PCs? Where's your seti results?
> >
> Performa 6400 w/300MHZ-1MB L2 G3 Upgrade:
> ________________________________________________________________
> hoy...@osu.edu
> Your credit:
> Name Results Total CPU time Average CPU time
> received per work unit
> Bob Hoye 15 172 hr 36 min 11 hr 30 min 26.1 sec
> _____________________
> Your group info:
> You do not currently belong to a group.
>
> You are not currently the founder of any teams.
>
> Your rank out of 1701318 total users is: 496749th place.
>
> The total number of users who have this rank: 14700
>
> You have completed more work units than 69.938% of our users.
> ________________________________________________________________
> What else do you want to know, Eddie?
I'd like to know why you have a paltry 15 blocks done compared to my
260.
> Bob Hoye
>
> hoy...@osu.edu
Phil Brewster
wrote:
Excuse me, but isn't the relevant benchmarking metric in these tests the
CPU time per work unit, and not the number of units completed?
IOW, 11 hours per unit is twice as fast as 22 hours per unit, no matter how
many units have been completed.
IOW, Alan Baker and Bob Hoye have both provided Mac seti@home results that
beat the Wintel numbers you posted by a wide margin, as proof of the more
general 'Mac advocacy' point that you requested, and so now you try to
divert attention away from that proof to the number of blocks completed,
i.e., to the fact that you've been running seti@home for longer (but not
faster...) than they have?
Pathetic...
Thingfishhhh
<pjb...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> What else do you want to know, Eddie?
> >
> >I'd like to know why you have a paltry 15 blocks done compared to my
> >260.
> >
>
> Excuse me, but isn't the relevant benchmarking metric in these tests the
> CPU time per work unit, and not the number of units completed?
Of course it is, but this IS Crazy Eddie we're talking about here.
> IOW, 11 hours per unit is twice as fast as 22 hours per unit, no matter
> how
> many units have been completed.
Except in Crazy Eddie's little world.
In his pathatic little world, nubers are meaningless - they can be
adjusted to suit whatever pathetic need his ego needs at a given moment.
> IOW, Alan Baker and Bob Hoye have both provided Mac seti@home results
> that
> beat the Wintel numbers you posted by a wide margin, as proof of the more
> general 'Mac advocacy' point that you requested, and so now you try to
> divert attention away from that proof to the number of blocks completed,
> i.e., to the fact that you've been running seti@home for longer (but not
> faster...) than they have?
Typical "Crazy Eddie Moving Goalposts Tactic".
Heck, Crazy Eddie moves the goalposts so much, he had wheels installed
on his.
Silly peeg.
> Pathetic...
Yup. Ain't it great? :)
Let's all thank Crazy Eddie for going to such lengths in providing us
with such a humorous cartoon character to laugh at! :)
Jochen Lippert
Jochen Lippert
--
Wo bleibt eigentlich mein iBook?!?
fretwiz
(snip)
Edwin wrote:
> >I'd like to know why you have a paltry 15 blocks done compared to my
> >260.
> >
>
> Excuse me, but isn't the relevant benchmarking metric in these tests the
> CPU time per work unit, and not the number of units completed?
>
> IOW, 11 hours per unit is twice as fast as 22 hours per unit, no matter
> how
> many units have been completed.
>
> IOW, Alan Baker and Bob Hoye have both provided Mac seti@home results
> that
> beat the Wintel numbers you posted by a wide margin, as proof of the more
> general 'Mac advocacy' point that you requested, and so now you try to
> divert attention away from that proof to the number of blocks completed,
> i.e., to the fact that you've been running seti@home for longer (but not
> faster...) than they have?
>
> Pathetic...
Goal post moving, an oldie but a goodie.
Chad Irby
> That's bullshit. I have 260 blocks done to your 229, and your machine
> is doing the work faster? The seti client would never do a block in 11
> hours as a screen saver on either a Mac or a PC.
What gives you this weird idea?
When I was still running SETI@Home, the difference between running as an app and
as a screensaver was not noticeable. It was only with the recent version that
you could run the application "windowshaded" and get a speed boost (because the
app finally got smart enough to notice when it wasn't displaying, and stopped
drawing the graphs).
SETI@Home blocks just run faster on Macs. Live with it.
Chad Irby
> Speaking of "results", how much ETI have you found so far? ;)
Well, we have Edwin...
ZnU
wrote:
> "Leon Hanson" <han...@nspam.com> wrote in message
> news:38a34044....@news.uswest.net...
> > On Thu, 10 Feb 2000 11:15:12 -0600, "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > >You have completed more work units than 96.706% of our users.
> >
> > I'm surprised the report doesn't follow that with "and we're very
> > concerned that you don't have anything better to do with your
> > computer...and your time" ;-)
>
> I use my computer for doing work and playing games, along with running
> the
> seti client. Because my PC has PMT, I can do that and all my normal
> activities as well.
>
> Mac advocates had claimed in the past that they can run the seti client
> much
> faster than I do. Yet all they have is sarcastic remarks to post, not
> any
> results to match mine.
My average time per unit is 7 hr 44 min 59.6 sec. Your numbers are not
very impressive, Edwin. We went through this last time.
--
The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives.
-- Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project
ZnU <z...@znu.dhs.org> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
ZnU
<edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[snip]
> That's bullshit. I have 260 blocks done to your 229, and your machine
> is doing the work faster? The seti client would never do a block in 11
> hours as a screen saver on either a Mac or a PC. How about giving the
> email address you registered with seti so we can see for ourselves?
Are you serious, Edwin? I run only in screen saver mode. Average CPU time
per work unit: 7 hr 44 min 59.6 sec. G3/400.
See
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/cgi?name=tita...@psn.net&cmd=
user_stats
Mike Zulauf
> In article <Alan_Baker-965F5...@news.telus.net>,
> Alan Baker <Alan_...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > Alan Baker 229 units 11 hr 50 min 35.4 sec per unit.
> >
> > Or a little less than twice as fast as your machine.
> >
> > >Why haven't you done more work than me?
> >
> > I run it as a screensaver.
>
> That's bullshit. I have 260 blocks done to your 229, and your machine
> is doing the work faster? The seti client would never do a block in 11
> hours as a screen saver on either a Mac or a PC. How about giving the
> email address you registered with seti so we can see for ourselves?
Edwin, you stupid sack of shit. You totally set yourself up for this.
You asked for results, he gave them. You want his email address? Try the
one in his message!! Not everybody feels the need to use stupid aliases
and bogus email addresses.
What was the point of your posting? If it was to point out how many units
you've processed - big fucking deal! If it was to show how fast your
system is, well then you're just showing (once again) just how pathetic
you really are.
Mike
ps - my Nissan Sentra is faster than an Indy car, since very few of them
last for 120,000 miles!
--
Mike Zulauf
mazu...@met.utah.edu
Alan Baker
mazu...@met.utah.edu (Mike Zulauf) wrote:
Thanks for pointing the obvious out to him Mike. I'm afraid Edwin has
become so caught up in his strange "crusade" that he's incapable of
seeing somthing so simple and honest as using one's own email in one's
usenet posts.
jeff nee
> > That's bullshit. I have 260 blocks done to your 229, and your machine
> > is doing the work faster? The seti client would never do a block in 11
> > hours as a screen saver on either a Mac or a PC. How about giving the
> > email address you registered with seti so we can see for ourselves?
>
> Edwin, you stupid sack of shit. You totally set yourself up for this.
> You asked for results, he gave them. You want his email address? Try the
> one in his message!! Not everybody feels the need to use stupid aliases
> and bogus email addresses.
>
> What was the point of your posting? If it was to point out how many units
> you've processed - big fucking deal! If it was to show how fast your
> system is, well then you're just showing (once again) just how pathetic
> you really are.
well, at one point i was actually watching eddie's stats since he kept
talking about them so much. and i came to the conclusion that he's using
more than one computer for his account. because his average time isn't
dropping that much, yet he seems to still be doing as many results/time
as i was. that's pitiful. how about every mac user just attribute all
our accounts to one computer and see how much work we get done. sheesh!
now, i didn't pay enough attention to actually track it logically (ie,
more than one unit per day given his 20~ hour time/unit average) so i'm
not *completely* sure. but by casual tracking it seemed suspicious.
jeff
tinman
[snip]
>
> That's bullshit. I have 260 blocks done to your 229, and your machine
> is doing the work faster? The seti client would never do a block in 11
> hours as a screen saver on either a Mac or a PC. How about giving the
> email address you registered with seti so we can see for ourselves?
My iMac does a block in 11 hours as a screen saver. The G4/400 I'm setting
up at work does one in about 8 hours in screen saver mode. And, Ediot,
your PC is just not that fast, my Dell does blocks in about 10 hours.
As for total amount of work, sorry dude, you're just not doing that much.
--
______
tinman
Paul E. Larson
>>
>>260.
>>
>
>Excuse me, but isn't the relevant benchmarking metric in these tests the
>CPU time per work unit, and not the number of units completed?
>
>IOW, 11 hours per unit is twice as fast as 22 hours per unit, no matter how
>many units have been completed.
>
Your credit:
Name Results
received Total CPU time Average CPU time
per work unit
Paul Larson 53 698 hr 58 min 13 hr 11 min 17.3
sec
Your group info:
You do not currently belong to a group.
You are not currently the founder of any teams.
Your rank: (based on current workunits received)
Your rank out of 1709475 total users is: 247325th place.
The total number of users who have this rank: 3345
You have completed more work units than 85.336% of our users.
PII-450 w/ 128mb of memory and Win98...... BLAH
>IOW, Alan Baker and Bob Hoye have both provided Mac seti@home results that
>beat the Wintel numbers you posted by a wide margin, as proof of the more
>general 'Mac advocacy' point that you requested, and so now you try to
>divert attention away from that proof to the number of blocks completed,
>i.e., to the fact that you've been running seti@home for longer (but not
>faster...) than they have?
>
>Pathetic...
>
>
Alan Baker
wrote:
>Mike Zulauf <mazu...@met.utah.edu> wrote in message
>news:mazulauf-120...@du01.met.utah.edu...
>> In article <8833ll$ktr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
>> <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <Alan_Baker-965F5...@news.telus.net>,
>> > Alan Baker <Alan_...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> > > Alan Baker 229 units 11 hr 50 min 35.4 sec per unit.
>> > >
>> > > Or a little less than twice as fast as your machine.
>> > >
>> > > >Why haven't you done more work than me?
>> > >
>> > > I run it as a screensaver.
>> >
>> > That's bullshit. I have 260 blocks done to your 229, and your
>> > machine
>> > is doing the work faster? The seti client would never do a block in
>> > 11
>> > hours as a screen saver on either a Mac or a PC. How about giving the
>> > email address you registered with seti so we can see for ourselves?
>>
>> Edwin, you stupid sack of shit. You totally set yourself up for this.
>> You asked for results, he gave them. You want his email address? Try
>> the
>> one in his message!! Not everybody feels the need to use stupid aliases
>> and bogus email addresses.
>
>Okay, I tried his email address and it showed his results.
Don't bother apologizing: I forgive you anyway. <G>
>
>> What was the point of your posting? If it was to point out how many
>> units
>> you've processed - big fucking deal! If it was to show how fast your
>> system is, well then you're just showing (once again) just how pathetic
>> you really are.
>
>Perhaps you can explain to poor, pathetic, stupid, sack-of-shit-me why my
>slower system is getting more work done than these supposedly faster Macs?
>
>Everytime I post my results, all the Mac advocates have less work done
>than
>I do. This is in spite of having had months since the first time I've
>posted my results to catch up, using machines that are supposed to be
>twice
>as fast at this than my PC is. The first time I posted I had about 20
>blocks. Months later I have 264 blocks (to date) and no user of Mac OS
>to
>match my results. Why haven't they even matched my results in all the
>time
>they've had?
I told you, I just run it as a screen saver. And you know why? Because
there isn't an easy way to set it up to launch when my machine launches
(putting an alias in the Startup Items folder only brings up the
preferences) and it's just not a big enough deal for me to remember to
launch it very often. But then I'm not using it to "prove my manhood"
like you, Edwin.
>
>> Mike
>>
>> ps - my Nissan Sentra is faster than an Indy car, since very few of them
>> last for 120,000 miles!
>
>If we were running a cross country race from New York City to Los Angles,
>who would be the winner, the car (PC) that completed the whole race, or
>the
>car (Mac) that's stuck in Cleveland, but who made it to Ohio first?
I didn't realize I was trying to "win" anything.
LP
Phil Brewster <pjb...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:B4CA79D...@207.92.144.119...
> >I'd like to know why you have a paltry 15 blocks done compared to my
> >260.
> >
>
> Excuse me, but isn't the relevant benchmarking metric in these tests the
> CPU time per work unit, and not the number of units completed?
>
> IOW, 11 hours per unit is twice as fast as 22 hours per unit, no matter
how
> many units have been completed.
Sorry, this does not measure how "Fast" the computer is finishing it. "11
hours per work unit" may actually occur over 11.1 hours, or it may occur
over 500 hours.
Seti@home doesn't track how fast the computer finishes it, it only
calculates the rate per CPU cycle allocated to the process.
> IOW, Alan Baker and Bob Hoye have both provided Mac seti@home results that
> beat the Wintel numbers you posted by a wide margin, as proof of the more
> general 'Mac advocacy' point that you requested, and so now you try to
> divert attention away from that proof to the number of blocks completed,
> i.e., to the fact that you've been running seti@home for longer (but not
> faster...) than they have?
They have also admitted that they can't run it when doing actual work, and
only as a "screen saver". Now, unless they never do any work on their
computer.. the actual time Seti@home requires to finish one unit is alot
longer than what Seti reports. For example, the fastest PC that we have
here, after we have tweaked the set up a bit ( still running without screen
saver etc ) can spit out a finished workunit every ~3 1/2 to 4 ( real
time ) hours or so.
For a while, Seti@home was reporting how often a finished workunit was
recieved, but they stopped doing that.
LP
Eric Tanks <tan...@jmu.edu> wrote in message
news:38A42503...@jmu.edu...
> I suppose I could. I DO want to find other live out there (I've read
> everything Carl Sagan wrote). But would you really want me to post? I
> think my G4 might show you up
many finished work units per actual time. If you set up a G4 to do only
Seti@home ( you know the drill, low res, 8bit color, don't do anything else
on it etc ).. sure it'll be reported as faster. But it won't finish another
work unit ever 4 hours of real time..
LP
tinman <tin...@unc.edu> wrote in message
news:tinman-1102...@mac-ara-port1.cs.unc.edu...
> In article <881est$fmv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
> <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <38A42503...@jmu.edu>,
> > Eric Tanks <tan...@jmu.edu> wrote:
> > > everything Carl Sagan wrote). But would you really want me to post? I
> >
> > I invite you to "show me up" with your G4, if you can. My PC cost
> > $899. How much did you pay for your G4?
>
> time it takes your PC, I'm certain even the low end iMac will trounce your
Incorrect. It may do it in less CPU cycle time, but that does not measure in
real time. Also, we need to establish what else the computer is doing.
Chad Irby
> Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > EdWIN <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > > That's bullshit. I have 260 blocks done to your 229, and your machine
> > > is doing the work faster? The seti client would never do a block in 11
> > > hours as a screen saver on either a Mac or a PC.
> >
> > What gives you this weird idea?
>
> You answer your own question below. He couldn't get 11 hour block
> completions with the client running as a screen saver.
At least one of the posters here has mentioned 11 hour block completions run as
a screen saver on the Mac.
> > SETI@Home blocks just run faster on Macs. Live with it.
>
> Then why do Macs do less blocks than PCs? If Macs are faster, they should
> do more blocks.
We're back into that old "marketshare" thing. On a machine to machine basis,
Macs finish more blocks than PCs.
Here's the numbers for Mac vs. PC in average block time on the SETI@Home list:
1) Pentium/Windows 47377729 143080.46 years 26 hr 27 min 18.5 sec
2) Macintosh 6505059 13945.35 years 18 hr 46 min 45.9 sec
> Yet they can't even match the same number of blocks.
This is called "a lot more PCs running SETI@Home." On a per-machine basis, Macs
run the client/screensaver about eight hours faster than the average Windows
machine, or about 1.4 times as fast. Get someone to explain the numbers above
to you, since you can't seem to figure it out for yourself.
> That's because to get that speed, the Mac must do nothing else, and Mac
> advocates can't afford to do nothing else but the seti client. They're too
> busy running Photoshop, and that wants all of the Macs resources.
>
> Alan claims to be doing blocks at twice the speed my PC is capable of, yet
> he has not only not done twice as many blocks as I have, he hasn't even
> matched the number of blocks I've completed.
That's probably because he actually uses his machine, while you apparently do
nothing else with yours but post here and run SETI@Home...
Chad Irby
> Perhaps you can explain to poor, pathetic, stupid, sack-of-shit-me why my
> slower system is getting more work done than these supposedly faster Macs?
It's not. We've had a couple of guys with more completed blocks, with less
hours per completed block.
Your system is averaging out at about 22.5 hours per block. The average Mac
block finish time is about 18.75 hours per block.
It's been explained several times, with multiple people posting numbers that
were a *lot* better than yours (some of them more than twice as fast). What
part of that do you not understand?
You poor, pathetic, stupid, sack-of-shit.
evilsofa
Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
[snip]
> We're back into that old "marketshare" thing. On a machine to
> machine basis, Macs finish more blocks than PCs.
>
> Here's the numbers for Mac vs. PC in average block time on the
> SETI@Home list:
>
> 1) Pentium/Windows 47377729 143080.46 years 26 hr 27 min 18.5 sec
> 2) Macintosh 6505059 13945.35 years 18 hr 46 min 45.9 sec
Of the total 53 million or so WUs done between the two platforms, 12
percent have been done by Macs. This is at least two or three times the
generally accepted yearly market share for Macs.
I'm not counting in the remaining WUs done by all other OSes. I would
get this number but unfortunately the seti@home site appears to be down
tonight. Argh.
The other piece of data I don't have here is a breakdown of how many
Seti@Home users for each OS, and I can't remember if Seti@home ever had
this. Again, I cannot check this tonight. Argh.
--
It was only after their population of 50 mysteriously shrank
to 8 that the other seven dwarfs began to suspect Hungry.
Bob Hoye
<edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
<<<<<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >
> > > What happened to Mac advocate claims that Macs run the seti client
> faster
> > > than PCs? Where's your seti results?
> > >
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > Performa 6400 w/300MHZ-1MB L2 G3 Upgrade:
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > hoy...@osu.edu
> > Your credit:
> > Name Results Total CPU time Average CPU time
> > received per work unit
> > Bob Hoye 15 172 hr 36 min 11 hr 30 min 26.1 sec
> > _____________________
> > Your group info:
> > You do not currently belong to a group.
> >
> > You are not currently the founder of any teams.
> >
> > Your rank: (based on current workunits received)
> > Your rank out of 1701318 total users is: 496749th place.
> >
> > The total number of users who have this rank: 14700
> >
> > You have completed more work units than 69.938% of our users.
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > What else do you want to know, Eddie?
>
> I'd like to know why you have a paltry 15 blocks done compared to my
> 260.
>
I haven't been doing it very long, and about the only time it runs
is if I'm starting a large download and go to bed. But don't change the
subject. How do you explain your dismal performance?
Bob Hoye
R. Kirk McPike
>
> R. Kirk McPike <rkir...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:gMPo4.14735$Mk2.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:newscache$mhpqpf$gva@home...
> > >
> > > "WickedDyno" <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
> > >
> news:amg39.REMOVE-THIS-2...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
> > > > In article <38A32DFA...@jmu.edu>, Eric Tanks <tan...@jmu.edu>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >I just got to this news group yesterday so I don't know anyone, but
i
> > > > >have a question. Why the hell did you post this?!
> > > > >Eric
> > > >
> > > > Edwin ever does.
> > >
> > > I also wait futilely for Mac advocates to prove their claims that Macs
> are
> > > better than PCs. I wait in vain for even one concrete reason why we
> > should
> > > pay more to have a Mac instead of buying a PC.
> >
> > Maybe you shouldn't... but then, maybe for some people, it's worth it.
>
> Why is it worth it?
>
> > Some
> > people find the Mac a more comfortable environment.
>
> Why?
Because it's what their used to, because they like the look of it, the feel
of it, because their favorite program runs better on it... there are a
billion different reasons why someone can like one product better than
another. When I bought my Mac, I picked it over all of the available Windows
95 machines because I was more comfortable with the interface, could get
things done faster on it, knew my way backwards and forwards through the
System folder (and after years of using Windows, I still can't tell one damn
.dll from another because their names mean jack shit!).
People buy things and like things and are more comfortable with things due
to TASTES. Some people prefer the "taste" of a Macintosh, others prefer the
taste of "Windows." Why? It's not necessarily quantifiable, especially to
right brain people, who don't think in terms of efficiency or megahertz...
IT JUST FEELS RIGHT.
>
> >I, for one, have always
> > found it easier to write on a Mac.
>
> Given that this is a function of your word processor, not your OS, this is
a
> puzzling remark.
No, the comfort level I had with the Mac, and the subteties of the interface
made it easier for me to focus on my work.
>
> > Now that FinalDraft 5 is out, it's about
> > even, but for several years there, for whatever reason, the material I
> wrote
> > on my Power Mac was generally better than the stuff I produced on my PC.
>
> Why? Define "better" and tell why the Mac made it "better."
The Mac didn't make it better -- the fact that I found it easier to
concentrate on my work when on my Mac helped ME make it better -- the
dialogue was smoother and more natural, my spelling was better. All around,
they were better products. Because of the Mac? No. Aided by the level of
comfort I had with the Mac? Yes, definitely. When writing or creating,
comfort is everything. Comfort breeds confidence, confidence breeds success.
>
> > I finally figured out why, too... when I was on my Mac, I found it much
> > easier to concentrate on my writing... because the interface is so
simple,
> > so clean. With Windows, the GUI is completely in-your-face... things
> flash,
> > menus zip up and down, buttons jump out at you as you roll your mouse
> > around, the whole thing is designed to draw your attention.
>
> Menus "zip up and down" on the Mac too.
No, menus appear on the Mac, they don't zip from the menu header down,
unfurling like they do in Windows 98.... probably the most annoying
"feature" Microsoft ever came up with. Thank God for TweakUI.
> The menu items flash. Dialogs
> jump up in your face, often with little bombs on them.
After installing OS 8 I never had a crash that involved a bomb dialogue.
>
> If you don't want tips to show up in Windows when you move your mouse,
turn
> that feature off. Anything you're complaining about in Windows can be
> controlled to your satifaction in one way or another, right down to
> completely replacing the Windows shell.
When I'm writing, I have more important things to do than replace the entire
GUI... hell, I wouldn't even know where to begin. And a good UI stays out of
you way by default, it doesn't jump up and down screaming "LOOK AT ME! OOH!
BELLS AND WHISTLES!"
> >And when you're
> > fighting ADD as badly as I was a few years ago, those little
distractions
> > add up fast.
>
> It sounds like you're taking your personal problems out on Windows. You
> could have adjusted Windows to suit you, if you'd taken the time to find
out
> how.
>
> > Take AIM for instance... I would tend to write at night, and juggle that
> > with chatting with budies on AOL INstant Messenger. I'd write for
awhile,
> > and then take a break and chat.
> >
> > When I was writing on the Mac, andI got a message from a buddy, the
> > Application Menu would blink "IM." Very subtle, unintrusive, and since
> it's
> > at the top of the display (and when writing, most of your attention is
> > towards the bottom), it didn't really bug me. I idn't even see it,
really,
> > until I took my break, and went to AIM to see what was up.
>
> When I had AOL on my Mac, the AIM message just opened up in it's own
Window,
> interrupting what I was doing.
I'm not talking about AOL, I'm talking about AOL Instant Messenger. When a
message arrived, it arrived in the background, and blinked a wonderfully
subtle (that word again, the key to a good UI), "IM" in the menubar. Sorta
like ICQ on Windows... when a message arrives, it doesn't throw a flashing
button half the size of toledo onto the Taskbar, it just blinks a little
icon, subtlely, in the tray, away from most people's direct field of vision,
waiting to be noticed AT THE USER'S LIESURE.
>
> > In Windows, when I get an IM, a button appears on the task bar, and
> starts
> > to blink blue. It's right there, in my line of sight, and it is highly
> > distracting (for a brief time I moved the Taskbar to the top, just so I
> > could finish a screenplay, but that drove me nuts cause it made the
screen
> > look way too top heavy). Finally, I had to stop being on the net when I
> was
> > writing. So I didn't even get to put that vaunted Windows multitasking
to
> > use.
>
> You could have turned off AIM, or just used "autohide" on the task bar.
Autohide is about the most annoying feature there is... everytime you reach
down to the bottom of the screen for something, POP GOES THE TASKBAR! The
whole Taskbar is such a kludged up version of the Next Dock it's
embarassing... a true jack of all trades, master of none.
> >
> > Everyone's mileage varies, Edwin. You've made up your mind that the
added
> > cost (if any) of a Mac isn't worth it to you, but nothing you can say
can
> > prove to anyone that it's not worth it for other people.
>
> You have yet to offer any real reasons why the Mac is worth the added
cost.
It was worth the extra cost in 1996 when I bought my desktop Mac for the
added comfort, familiarity and ease of use I got with my Power Mac.
Now, in 1997, with things looking bleak, I decided it wasn't worth the extra
cost to get a PowerBook 1400 instead of my current Dell Latitude, and so now
I have a Windows machine, and I can verify that while many of my stigmas and
concerns in regards to Windows were overblown, my original surmise was
correct: the Mac is the platform I'm most comfortable using.
Sure, I can get around in Windows, but I'll never really like it. I'll never
feel as attached to my PC (which doesn't even have a name) as I did to Kira
(my belated Power Mac). I can be intrigued by the intricacies of the
underlying DOS OS, but I'll never really be enamoured with the inner
workings of Windows the way I was with my Mac. When my Mac started up, it
would smile at me, and I would smile back. When my PC starts up, it throws
some glittzy, ugly, flashy start up screen at me, which I suppose is meant
to be inspiring, but instead just feels pretentious.
With my Mac, I knew I was really in control. I knew what files in the System
folder did what, and how to prevent things from happening that I didn't
want. The whole layout of the OS is so clean, with easy to identify icons
attached to clearly-descriptive names. By contrast, the Windows and
Windows\System folders are a mishmash of random *.exes spread among a sea of
confusingly named .dlls. It would take me years to learn the function of
each one of them, and even then I'm not sure if I could go mucking around
inside there without totally fraggin the install. I have no real sense of
control.
Sure, I can do stupid things like change the colors of my windows (ooh! ahh!
bells & whistles!), I can TweakUI my interface to look a bit more like a Mac
(scrap all the desktop icons but the My Computer and Recycle Bin, move them
to the right of the screen), but I'm not really in charge of the OS... I
still get blue screens for no reason, and wierd RunDLL32 violations. Who
knows, maybe in reality I do have more control, but for someone as encased
in Right-Brain thinking as me, that doesn't matter... all that matters is
perception and feeling. And my gut insticts tell me that at all times, the
computer itself is in charge.
>
> > You want to know the truth of it all, Eddie? The Mac is better than the
> PC.
> > And the PC is better than the Mac. It all depends on who you are, what
you
> > do, and how you do it.
>
> Now give reasons why one is better than the other.
I already have. I've given you my reasons, as they apply to me. You've seen
fit to reject them, or merely don't understand them.
> Who finds either one
> better than the other, and what reasons do they have to say it's better?
We all are. Each of us, and not for each other, but for ourselves. Only I
can say which platform is better for me -- you don't get a vote, or even a
voice. Neither do Joe Ragosta or George Graves, Fnarkie or Jeremy Reimer.
They're called personal computers for a reason, Eddie. We choose the model
that best suits our PERSONALities for PERSONAL reasons that others may or
may not understand. No one can throw up some numbers about pricing, speed,
whatever and say "there! this is the best computer, everyone should buy it!"
because it doesn't work that way. It's about comfort, about familiarity,
about enjoying the experience of using a particular machine and being
willing to pay what someone else may consider an inexcusable premium for the
privelege of working with a machine that smiles back when you turn it on.
> I know the reasons for the PC. I have yet to see any for the Mac.
>
> So far you've given ADD as your reason to use a Mac, in spite of
adjustments
> you could have done to Windows. I don't want to make fun of your
> condition, but that's hardly a reason to pick the Mac over the PC.
You don't get it, Eddie. You were never a Mac person.
No more than I, even though my current computer is a PC and my next one will
be, too, will be a true Windows person.
You either get the Mac, what it stands for, and what it means, or you don't.
Sorry, Eddie. You don't get it. And that's why you keep asking the same
questions over and over again, even after being answered completely time and
again.
Kirk McPike
WickedDyno
Kirk McPike" <rkir...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote in message
>news:newscache$f5iupf$ca8@home...
<s>
>> Menus "zip up and down" on the Mac too.
>
>No, menus appear on the Mac, they don't zip from the menu header down,
>unfurling like they do in Windows 98.... probably the most annoying
>"feature" Microsoft ever came up with. Thank God for TweakUI.
I agree with just about everything you've said, except that Menus do
drop down from the Mac Menubar, they just do it quite a bit faster, so
it's less noticable. I think it would be a bit jarring to the eye if
they didn't drop down at all, just BOOM appeared there.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <am...@cornell.edu> |
|"'Cause you took the peace and love from the Rock |
| And turned it into sand. . ." -- Zeeza |
Patrick W. Gierke
<amg39.REMOVE-THIS-9...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> In article <4Lsp4.13$Zp1....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "R.
> Kirk McPike" <rkir...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote in message
> >news:newscache$f5iupf$ca8@home...
> <s>
> >> Menus "zip up and down" on the Mac too.
> >
> >No, menus appear on the Mac, they don't zip from the menu header down,
> >unfurling like they do in Windows 98.... probably the most annoying
> >"feature" Microsoft ever came up with. Thank God for TweakUI.
>
> I agree with just about everything you've said, except that Menus do
> drop down from the Mac Menubar, they just do it quite a bit faster, so
> it's less noticable. I think it would be a bit jarring to the eye if
> they didn't drop down at all, just BOOM appeared there.
I think what you are really seeing here is QuickDraw's method of
painting the screen, which means *everything* has this very fast "drop
down effect" (if you pay close attention, you should see it, even on the
faster Macs).
Correct me if I'm worng, but AFAIK QD starts painting at the upper-left
and finishes at the bottom-right.
-Gierke
--
Patrick Gierke
gierkeS...@delaware.infi.net
To email me, remove SPAMSUCKS from the address above.
LP
> EdWIN <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > That's bullshit. I have 260 blocks done to your 229, and your machine
> > is doing the work faster? The seti client would never do a block in 11
> > hours as a screen saver on either a Mac or a PC.
>
> What gives you this weird idea?
>
app and
> as a screensaver was not noticeable. It was only with the recent version
that
> you could run the application "windowshaded" and get a speed boost
(because the
> app finally got smart enough to notice when it wasn't displaying, and
stopped
> drawing the graphs).
I disagree, the REAL TIME it takes Seti@home to do a work unit varied
tremendously between running it as an app, and as a screen saver. Unless you
never use your computer!
LP
ZnU <z...@znu.dhs.org> wrote in message
news:znu-7D6124.1...@news5.bellatlantic.net...
> My average time per unit is 7 hr 44 min 59.6 sec. Your numbers are not
> very impressive, Edwin. We went through this last time.
How long in Earth hours when you are actually doing work on the computer?
LP
> In article <8833ll$ktr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
> <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > That's bullshit. I have 260 blocks done to your 229, and your machine
> > is doing the work faster? The seti client would never do a block in 11
> > email address you registered with seti so we can see for ourselves?
>
> per work unit: 7 hr 44 min 59.6 sec. G3/400.
So, assuming that you do some work on your Mac.. is it then a safe bet that
the actual time it take syour computer to crunch it, is alot longer than
this time?
tinman
> "WickedDyno" <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
> news:amg39.REMOVE-THIS-2...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
> > In article <38A32DFA...@jmu.edu>, Eric Tanks <tan...@jmu.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I just got to this news group yesterday so I don't know anyone, but i
> > >have a question. Why the hell did you post this?!
> > >Eric
> >
> > To prove that PCs are superior to Macs, naturally. That's all that
> > Edwin ever does.
>
> I also wait futilely for Mac advocates to prove their claims that Macs are
> better than PCs. I wait in vain for even one concrete reason why we should
> pay more to have a Mac instead of buying a PC.
Concrete Reason #1: Because at the same clock speed mac runs seti faster
than pcs.
('
--
______
tinman
ZnU
<LPNO...@iroadrunner.net> wrote:
> tinman <tin...@unc.edu> wrote in message
> news:tinman-1102...@mac-ara-port1.cs.unc.edu...
> > In article <881est$fmv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
> > <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <38A42503...@jmu.edu>,
> > > Eric Tanks <tan...@jmu.edu> wrote:
> > > > I suppose I could. I DO want to find other live out there (I've
> > > > read
> > > > everything Carl Sagan wrote). But would you really want me to
> > > > post? I
> > > > think my G4 might show you up!
> > >
> > > I invite you to "show me up" with your G4, if you can. My PC cost
> > > $899. How much did you pay for your G4?
> >
> > Eddie, given that my iMac does a unit in just a shade more than half
> > the
> > time it takes your PC, I'm certain even the low end iMac will trounce
> > your
> > PC. Your PC is just not that fast....('
>
> Incorrect. It may do it in less CPU cycle time, but that does not measure
> in
> real time. Also, we need to establish what else the computer is doing.
SETI@home only counts time it has control of the processor, so what else
the computer is doing is irrelevant.
--
Vote for CSMA Kook of the Month! Send mail with the name of your candidate as
the subject to <po...@znu.dhs.org>. Mail from free e-mail services will be
ignored to prevent cheating. Voting ends 2/19/2000.
ZnU <z...@znu.dhs.org> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
ZnU
<LPNO...@iroadrunner.net> wrote:
> ZnU <z...@znu.dhs.org> wrote in message
> news:znu-7D6124.1...@news5.bellatlantic.net...
>
> > My average time per unit is 7 hr 44 min 59.6 sec. Your numbers are not
> > very impressive, Edwin. We went through this last time.
>
> How long in Earth hours when you are actually doing work on the computer?
As I said, I only run it in screen saver mode.
WickedDyno
>In article
><amg39.REMOVE-THIS-9...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
>WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
>> In article <4Lsp4.13$Zp1....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "R.
>> Kirk McPike" <rkir...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote in message
>> >news:newscache$f5iupf$ca8@home...
>> <s>
>> >> Menus "zip up and down" on the Mac too.
>> >
>> >No, menus appear on the Mac, they don't zip from the menu header down,
>> >unfurling like they do in Windows 98.... probably the most annoying
>> >"feature" Microsoft ever came up with. Thank God for TweakUI.
>>
>> I agree with just about everything you've said, except that Menus do
>> drop down from the Mac Menubar, they just do it quite a bit faster, so
>> it's less noticable. I think it would be a bit jarring to the eye if
>> they didn't drop down at all, just BOOM appeared there.
>
>I think what you are really seeing here is QuickDraw's method of
>painting the screen, which means *everything* has this very fast "drop
>down effect" (if you pay close attention, you should see it, even on the
>faster Macs).
>
>Correct me if I'm worng, but AFAIK QD starts painting at the upper-left
>and finishes at the bottom-right.
>
>-Gierke
Could be.
tinman
<z...@znu.dhs.org> wrote:
Not to mention that Ediot's claims are specific to the numbers seti gens,
and the total number of units collected.
--
______
tinman
Timberwoof
tin...@unc.edu (tinman) wrote:
> In article <newscache$mhpqpf$gva@home>, "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "WickedDyno" <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
> > news:amg39.REMOVE-THIS-2...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu..
> > .
> > > In article <38A32DFA...@jmu.edu>, Eric Tanks <tan...@jmu.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >I just got to this news group yesterday so I don't know anyone, but
> > > >i
> > > >have a question. Why the hell did you post this?!
> > > >Eric
> > >
> > > To prove that PCs are superior to Macs, naturally. That's all that
> > > Edwin ever does.
> >
> > I also wait futilely for Mac advocates to prove their claims that Macs
> > are
> > better than PCs. I wait in vain for even one concrete reason why we
> > should
> > pay more to have a Mac instead of buying a PC.
>
>
> Concrete Reason #1: Because at the same clock speed mac runs seti faster
> than pcs.
Wintrolls will no doubt bring up Timberwoof's Mac/Win Dichotomy and
state that SETI@home is not a proper benchmark for testing a computer's
speed. }: )
--
Timberwoof; woofy<at>infernosoft<dot>com; http://www.infernosoft.com
Ice Hockey QA Engineer (Goalie), 1998 BMW R1100GS rider, and
not your ordinary noncomformist. "You may have the right to say that,
but I will defend to the death my right to disagree."
Timberwoof
<amg39.REMOVE-THIS-9...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> In article <4Lsp4.13$Zp1....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "R.
> Kirk McPike" <rkir...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote in message
> >news:newscache$f5iupf$ca8@home...
> <s>
> >> Menus "zip up and down" on the Mac too.
> >
> >No, menus appear on the Mac, they don't zip from the menu header down,
> >unfurling like they do in Windows 98.... probably the most annoying
> >"feature" Microsoft ever came up with. Thank God for TweakUI.
>
> I agree with just about everything you've said, except that Menus do
> drop down from the Mac Menubar, they just do it quite a bit faster, so
> it's less noticable. I think it would be a bit jarring to the eye if
> they didn't drop down at all, just BOOM appeared there.
I've got three computers in front of me here: a G3/300, a PowerBook
540c/33, and a PowerBook 100/16. My partner has an iMac/400 and a Quadra
840/33. We tested this question. The menus appear instantly.
The first time you look at the Apple menu after booting up the computer,
it appears to scroll downwards because the OS has to read the contents
of the Apple Menu Items folder and build the menu. However, thereafter
it appears instantly.
The scrolling down effect some people report is, I believe, an optical
illusion because the menus are anchored at the top of the screen. We
could build some Director movies that simulate this, but it snot worth
the effort. }: )
Timberwoof
"Patrick W. Gierke" <gierkeS...@delaware.infi.net> wrote:
> In article
> <amg39.REMOVE-THIS-9...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
> WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
> > I agree with just about everything you've said, except that Menus do
> > drop down from the Mac Menubar, they just do it quite a bit faster, so
> > it's less noticable. I think it would be a bit jarring to the eye if
> > they didn't drop down at all, just BOOM appeared there.
>
> I think what you are really seeing here is QuickDraw's method of
> painting the screen, which means *everything* has this very fast "drop
> down effect" (if you pay close attention, you should see it, even on the
> faster Macs). Correct me if I'm worng, but AFAIK QD starts painting at the upper-left
> and finishes at the bottom-right.
Yes and no. QuickDraw does fill in bitmaps from top to bottom. However,
such changes are done to the bitmap during the vertical retrace
interrupt, so you don't see it happening. Otherwise, every change would
look awful. (Read your Inside Macintosh again. :)
Chad Irby
> The scrolling down effect some people report is, I believe, an optical
> illusion because the menus are anchored at the top of the screen. We
> could build some Director movies that simulate this, but it snot worth
> the effort. }: )
It's somewhat more complicated than that. I just ran a VCR record of my Mac's
menus, and the boxes are drawn pretty much instantly, but then the text is added
after that, making it look more like a "drop down" effect.
Karl Knechtel
: Phil Brewster <pjb...@nospam.com> wrote in message
: news:B4CA79D...@207.92.144.119...
: > >I'd like to know why you have a paltry 15 blocks done compared to my
: > >260.
: > >
: >
: > Excuse me, but isn't the relevant benchmarking metric in these tests the
: > CPU time per work unit, and not the number of units completed?
: >
: > IOW, 11 hours per unit is twice as fast as 22 hours per unit, no matter
: how
: > many units have been completed.
: Sorry, this does not measure how "Fast" the computer is finishing it. "11
: hours per work unit" may actually occur over 11.1 hours, or it may occur
: over 500 hours.
: Seti@home doesn't track how fast the computer finishes it, it only
: calculates the rate per CPU cycle allocated to the process.
How is that relevant? You pay employees for the time they spend on the job
site, not for total time elapsed from beginning to completion of their
current project. If a computer is faster at something, and is given less
opportunity to do that thing, *it is still faster*.
Karl Knechtel {:-#>
da728 at torfree dot net
"Well, Jim, we can see that you've managed to make a complete ass of
yourself in a few short posts. Don't know if that qualifies you as a
MacTroll or not. Most likely not." -- doom127
Timberwoof
Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> Timberwoof <bo...@infernoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > The scrolling down effect some people report is, I believe, an optical
> > illusion because the menus are anchored at the top of the screen. We
> > could build some Director movies that simulate this, but it snot worth
> > the effort. }: )
>
> It's somewhat more complicated than that. I just ran a VCR record of my
> Mac's
> menus, and the boxes are drawn pretty much instantly, but then the text
> is added
> after that, making it look more like a "drop down" effect.
ooohh! Science! Are you some kind of usability tester god? :-) }: )
DOn't let the Wintrolls find out that you can actually do real sciene on
these things; they'll all puck blood.
Phil Brewster
>
>Phil Brewster <pjb...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:B4CA79D...@207.92.144.119...
>
>> >I'd like to know why you have a paltry 15 blocks done compared to my
>> >260.
>> >
>>
>> Excuse me, but isn't the relevant benchmarking metric in these tests the
>> CPU time per work unit, and not the number of units completed?
>>
>> IOW, 11 hours per unit is twice as fast as 22 hours per unit, no matter
>how
>> many units have been completed.
>
>Sorry, this does not measure how "Fast" the computer is finishing it. "11
>hours per work unit" may actually occur over 11.1 hours, or it may occur
>over 500 hours.
>
>Seti@home doesn't track how fast the computer finishes it, it only
>calculates the rate per CPU cycle allocated to the process.
>
Sorry if it wasn't clear that I was talking about 'CPU time per work unit'.
LP
> In article <newscache$mhpqpf$gva@home>, "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > "WickedDyno" <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
> >
news:amg39.REMOVE-THIS-2...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
> > > In article <38A32DFA...@jmu.edu>, Eric Tanks <tan...@jmu.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >I just got to this news group yesterday so I don't know anyone, but i
> > > >have a question. Why the hell did you post this?!
> > > >Eric
> > >
> > > To prove that PCs are superior to Macs, naturally. That's all that
> > > Edwin ever does.
> >
> > I also wait futilely for Mac advocates to prove their claims that Macs
are
> > better than PCs. I wait in vain for even one concrete reason why we
should
> > pay more to have a Mac instead of buying a PC.
>
>
> Concrete Reason #1: Because at the same clock speed mac runs seti faster
> than pcs.
Well, clock speed is mostly irrelevent when comparing two chips in the same
family.
Second, not a single person has mentioned how fast their Mac finishes a
Seti@home work unit, they have only measured cycle time.
But, for reference, I have seen a Dell 210 with 450mhz PIII spit out a
finished workunit every ~4 1/2 hours of real time.
Where is this G4-450 that spits out a finished workunit every ~4 1/2 hours.
It'll take alot longer in real time, especially if you do not scuttle the
comptuer and don't use it one bit..
Chad Irby
> But, for reference, I have seen a Dell 210 with 450mhz PIII spit out a
> finished workunit every ~4 1/2 hours of real time.
Running what OS?
Timberwoof
Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> Timberwoof <bo...@infernoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > (No, Wintroll, do not even think of suggesting that proper
> > multitasking alows a CPU to complete more instructions per second!)
>
> You're making a mistake here.
>
> That's *exactly* what LP thinks. He is just *sure* that if you run one
> process
> on a single processor NT box, and it takes 1 hour to complete, that you
> can run
> two processes, and each of them will also take an hour to complete.
Omigoshgolly! You mean that's *not* how NT multitasking works? And here
I was, loading up on multiple instances of browsers running
http://www.infernosoft.com/timberwoof/motorcycle/Flat-TWIN-7.html, and
watching as each one slowed down as I opened up anotehr instance. And I
thought I was doing something wrong in some obvious but nonintuitive
user multitasking setting somewhere. }: ) }: )
> It gets better! If you put two processors into the machine, each can run
> one
> process and get things done twice as fast as a single-processor machine.
> But if
> you run a *dozen* copies of the same process, there's a magical NT
> processor
> multiplier that gives each of them a lot more attention, and makes more
> CPU
> cycles to fill in the gap.
>
> So if you generate a hundred processes running on an NT box, you can get
> a
> hundred times as much work out of the machine, without having to worry
> about
> that silly "OS overhead" thing...
Goodness Gracious! Goodness Gracious! You mean that NT has *overhead*?
::thudd::
LP
> "LP" <LPNO...@iroadrunner.net> wrote:
>
> > But, for reference, I have seen a Dell 210 with 450mhz PIII spit out a
> > finished workunit every ~4 1/2 hours of real time.
>
> Running what OS?
NT4 SP5.
Of course, Seti@home reports it at ~8 1/2 hours.. but only 4 1/2 hours on
earth passes before it finishes another work unit.
Remember, Seti@home doesn't report how long in earth hours that it takes a
computer to complete a unit. That's a shame really.
Oh, to head off someone before they start.. you can get a dual-PIII500
Precision 210
starting at under $1800 with a 3 year warranty direct from Dell. Guess what
the cheapest G4 ( 350 )
with 3 year Applecare costs? $1850 direct from Apple..
The G4 has DVD, but the Precision has a better videocard. Otherwise, they're
pretty much csimilar in hardware. So they are very comparable systems.
Chad Irby
> Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > "LP" <LPNO...@iroadrunner.net> wrote:
> >
> > > But, for reference, I have seen a Dell 210 with 450mhz PIII spit out a
> > > finished workunit every ~4 1/2 hours of real time.
> >
> > Running what OS?
>
> NT4 SP5.
>
> Of course, Seti@home reports it at ~8 1/2 hours.. but only 4 1/2 hours on
> earth passes before it finishes another work unit.
Oh, in other words, it was a Dell 210 the *two* 450 MHz PIII processors, instead
of the one you mentioned above.
> Remember, Seti@home doesn't report how long in earth hours that it takes a
> computer to complete a unit. That's a shame really.
Yeah, but it's really more of a shame that none of the PCs mentioned in this
thread have been multiprocessor Pentiums, until now.
Chad Irby
> (No, Wintroll, do not even think of suggesting that proper
> multitasking alows a CPU to complete more instructions per second!)
You're making a mistake here.
That's *exactly* what LP thinks. He is just *sure* that if you run one process
on a single processor NT box, and it takes 1 hour to complete, that you can run
two processes, and each of them will also take an hour to complete.
It gets better! If you put two processors into the machine, each can run one
process and get things done twice as fast as a single-processor machine. But if
you run a *dozen* copies of the same process, there's a magical NT processor
multiplier that gives each of them a lot more attention, and makes more CPU
cycles to fill in the gap.
So if you generate a hundred processes running on an NT box, you can get a
hundred times as much work out of the machine, without having to worry about
that silly "OS overhead" thing...
--
Gerard S.
|>
|> > (No, Wintroll, do not even think of suggesting that proper
|> > multitasking alows a CPU to complete more instructions per second!)
|>
|> You're making a mistake here.
|>
|> That's *exactly* what LP thinks. He is just *sure* that if you run one
|> process
|> on a single processor NT box, and it takes 1 hour to complete, that you
|> can run
|> two processes, and each of them will also take an hour to complete.
|
|I was, loading up on multiple instances of browsers running
|http://www.infernosoft.com/timberwoof/motorcycle/Flat-TWIN-7.html, and
|watching as each one slowed down as I opened up anotehr instance. And I
|thought I was doing something wrong in some obvious but nonintuitive
|user multitasking setting somewhere. }: ) }: )
|
|
|> one
|> process and get things done twice as fast as a single-processor machine.
|> But if
|> you run a *dozen* copies of the same process, there's a magical NT
|> processor
|> multiplier that gives each of them a lot more attention, and makes more
|> CPU
|> cycles to fill in the gap.
|>
|> So if you generate a hundred processes running on an NT box, you can get
|> a
|> hundred times as much work out of the machine, without having to worry
|> about
|> that silly "OS overhead" thing...
|
|
|::thudd::
|
|--
|Timberwoof; woofy<at>infernosoft<dot>com; http://www.infernosoft.com
|Ice Hockey QA Engineer (Goalie), 1998 BMW R1100GS rider, and
|not your ordinary noncomformist. "You may have the right to say that,
|but I will defend to the death my right to disagree."
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Let me see if I got this multitasking concept understood .... If one woman can
make one
baby in nine months, nine women can make one in ....?
Gerard S.
Bob Hoye
<pjb...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 6:35 AM, LP <mailto:L...@iroadrunner.net> wrote:
> >
> >Phil Brewster <pjb...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >news:B4CA79D...@207.92.144.119...
<<<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>>>
> >> IOW, Alan Baker and Bob Hoye have both provided Mac seti@home results
> >that
> >> beat the Wintel numbers you posted by a wide margin, as proof of the
> >more
> >> general 'Mac advocacy' point that you requested, and so now you try to
> >> divert attention away from that proof to the number of blocks completed,
> >> i.e., to the fact that you've been running seti@home for longer (but not
> >> faster...) than they have?
> >
> >They have also admitted that they can't run it when doing actual work, and
> >only as a "screen saver".
YOU said that, not me. I CAN run it when doing actual work, but I
rarely do. It's not quite that important to me. I'm not on a mission.
It wasn't a contest where conditions were posted on when you had to
have SETI running on your computer. I run it when I feel like it.
> > Now, unless they never do any work on their
> >computer.. the actual time Seti@home requires to finish one unit is alot
> >longer than what Seti reports. For example, the fastest PC that we have
> >here, after we have tweaked the set up a bit ( still running without
> screen
> >saver etc ) can spit out a finished workunit every ~3 1/2 to 4 ( real
> >time ) hours or so.
> >
So there's a PC out now that can do it faster than my 4 year old
computer with an upgrade card. I'm shocked! Actually, this whole thing
started with Edwin the wonder boy posting 22 hr. SETI times and
challenging, several times, for a Mac user to match that. I still am
not sure what he was after; maybe if he has said, "Bet you can't double
this one!" it would have made sense.
<<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>>>>
Bob Hoye
Sascha Bohnenkamp
>
> Name
> Edwin E. Thorne
>
> thor...@juno.com
>
> Results received
> 260
>
> Total CPU time
> 5884 hr 18 min
>
> Average CPU time per work unit
> 22 hr 37 min 54.9 sec
>
> Your rank: (based on current work units received)
>
> Your rank out of 1701318 total users is: 55808th place.
>
> The total number of users who have this rank: 235
>
> You have completed more work units than 96.706% of our users.
1287 Results
2.68 years
18 hr 14 min 57.9 sec
Your rank out of 1717634 total users is: 6723rd place.
The total number of users who have this rank: 12
You have completed more work units than 99.608% of our users.
so what?
Gary Connors
>
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > Performa 6400 w/300MHZ-1MB L2 G3 Upgrade:
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > hoy...@osu.edu
> > Your credit:
> > Name Results Total CPU time Average CPU time
> > received per work unit
> > Bob Hoye 15 172 hr 36 min 11 hr 30 min 26.1 sec
> > _____________________
> > Your group info:
> > You do not currently belong to a group.
> >
> > You are not currently the founder of any teams.
> >
> > Your rank: (based on current workunits received)
> > Your rank out of 1701318 total users is: 496749th place.
> >
> > The total number of users who have this rank: 14700
> >
> > You have completed more work units than 69.938% of our users.
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > What else do you want to know, Eddie?
>
> I'd like to know why you have a paltry 15 blocks done compared to my
> 260.
You know, you really have to wonder why someone feels a compelling need to
go in a public forum and make a complete ass out of themselves merely
because they are so pigheaded, any sign of reconsilation is construed as
weakness. Granted, I enjoy getting people flustered, but at least I try
to be tactful about it, so that they don't know I'm trying to do it. Ed,
if you are out of 2nd grade, you would know exactly why he has less work
orders. It is because one of two reasons:1) You have set up multiple
computers with Seti on it, in the vague hope that someone won't notice the
fact that RATE, that is Work_Unit/Time/Computer is somewhat meaningful in
understanding benchmarks and not how many Work_Units completed or 2)You
make a conscious effort to always run Seti as much as possible on your
machine (and he does not) for the same reason as #1. If you think you
actually impress anyone other than yourself, you are a fool. If you think
you have any credibility, even amoung WinTrolls, you are bigger fool.
Gary Connors
> I also wait futilely for Mac advocates to prove their claims that Macs are
> better than PCs. I wait in vain for even one concrete reason why we should
> pay more to have a Mac instead of buying a PC.
Don't lie, it's not becoming. If you were interested in finding the truth,
your tactics would
reflect such a desire. You are not. You are merely interested in getting
people flustered, wasting bandwidth, and having a laugh. This is your life
Eddie. Think about it.
Gary Connors
>
> > Timberwoof <bo...@infernoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > It gets better! If you put two processors into the machine, each can run
> > one
> > process and get things done twice as fast as a single-processor machine.
I have to make a comment here. I make 3-D Tomograms from EM data for a
living. Most of my Jobs are shared are run on one of 4-Dec alpha's upstairs
(dual 533-1GB/1GB/2GB/512 ram). Until recently I ran two jobs/machine (one on
each processor) and got realword results that clearly showed that 1
Job/machine ran just as fast as 1/processor (two jobs on machine). This is
called correct multitasking and has NOTHING to do with overhead.
Note: I said until recently. Our coder was able to multithread our apps so
that 1 Job shares the two processors and runs verly little under 2x as it
running on one processor (this is due to the fact that loading and unloading
of data is NOT multithreaded).
Chad Irby
> I have to make a comment here. I make 3-D Tomograms from EM data for a
> living. Most of my Jobs are shared are run on one of 4-Dec alpha's
> upstairs (dual 533-1GB/1GB/2GB/512 ram).
> Until recently I ran two jobs/machine (one on
> each processor) and got realword results that clearly showed that 1
> Job/machine ran just as fast as 1/processor (two jobs on machine). This is
> called correct multitasking and has NOTHING to do with overhead.
> Note: I said until recently. Our coder was able to multithread our apps
> so that 1 Job shares the two processors and runs verly little under 2x as it
> running on one processor (this is due to the fact that loading and
> unloading of data is NOT multithreaded).
You should pass these results to the NT guys here. They seem to think that when
you add processors, speed *multiply*, not add. For example, if you were to run
*four* processes on those two processors, you should expect to get speeds much
higher than you might expect.
This is, of course, wrong.
The best one could hope for would be a situation like yours, where one process
uses a lot of CPU time and finishes faster.
Quantum Leaper
"whistler @twcny.rr.com (Paul E. Larson)" <blahblah> wrote in message
news:A0mp4.711$W5.1...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
> >IOW, 11 hours per unit is twice as fast as 22 hours per unit, no matter
how
> >many units have been completed.
> >
> Your credit:
> Name Results
> received Total CPU time Average CPU
time
> per work unit
> Paul Larson 53 698 hr 58 min 13 hr 11 min
17.3
> sec
> PII-450 w/ 128mb of memory and Win98...... BLAH
My PII 400 is under 10 hours per work unit.