Update of my Wintel Seti@home results.

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Edwin

unread,
Feb 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/10/00
to
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

unread,
Feb 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/10/00
to
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:

--
Eric Tanks
Computing Support
James Madison University

All things Zep.

Chad Irby

unread,
Feb 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/10/00
to
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.

--

Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
ci...@cfl.rr.com \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."

Leon Hanson

unread,
Feb 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/10/00
to
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" ;-)

WickedDyno

unread,
Feb 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/10/00
to
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.

--
| Andrew Glasgow <am...@cornell.edu> |
|"'Cause you took the peace and love from the Rock |
| And turned it into sand. . ." -- Zeeza |

Edwin

unread,
Feb 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/10/00
to

"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

unread,
Feb 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/10/00
to

"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

unread,
Feb 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/10/00
to

"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.

Edwin

unread,
Feb 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/10/00
to

"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?

> --
>
> Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
> ci...@cfl.rr.com \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."

Alan Baker

unread,
Feb 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/10/00
to
In article <newscache$m0pqpf$wqa@home>, "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com>
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

unread,
Feb 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/10/00
to
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.

How about because it will be just one more way that I can say I'm not
anything like you?

Alan Baker

unread,
Feb 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/10/00
to
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>

Patrick W. Gierke

unread,
Feb 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/10/00
to
In article <newscache$3ipqpf$gva@home>, "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com>
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

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to
In article <newscache$595qpf$5j3@home>,

"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 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

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to
In article <newscache$595qpf$5j3@home>, "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.

MY Hero!

--
** REALITY IS FOR ACCOUNTANTS **

Chad Irby

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to
"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.

Andrew Irvine

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to
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?

--
Andrew Irvine
Your mouse has moved.
Windows NT must be restarted for the change to take effect.
Reboot now? [ OK ]

Alan Baker

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to
In article <cirby-7E4929....@news-server.cfl.rr.com>, Chad
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

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to

> "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

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to
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: (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


hoy...@osu.edu

R. Kirk McPike

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to

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

R. Kirk McPike

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to
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
> >
> > 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

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to
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!
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

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to
FYI, I don't think the government sponsors SETI anymore. I think it gets all of
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

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to
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.


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

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to
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.

> --
> 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

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to
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?

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

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to
In article <cirby-7E4929....@news-server.cfl.rr.com>,
Chad 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.

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

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to
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? 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

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to
Alan Baker <Alan_...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:

> 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

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to
"R. Kirk McPike" <rkir...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Methinks there are far more pressing concerns that our government could be
> spending money on.

It's not a government-sponsored project.

Chad Irby

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to
fretwiz <fre...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> "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.

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to
Edwin posted the following first-level quoted material to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:

>> >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

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to
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:
>
> > "WickedDyno" <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
> > news:amg39.REMOVE-THIS-
2B428F.183...@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.

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

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to
In article <slrn8a8fgb....@jasons.dyn.kpn.cx>,

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

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to
In article <hMPo4.14736$Mk2.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
"R. Kirk McPike" <rkir...@earthlink.net> 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.

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

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to
On Thu, 10 Feb 2000 18:31:08 -0600, "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:

>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

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to
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? 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

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to
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.

>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.

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to
EdWIN posted the following first-level quoted material to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:

>> >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

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to
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....('

[snip]

--
______
tinman

fretwiz

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to
In article <8820e2$tc4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
<edwin_e...@my-deja.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

unread,
Feb 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/11/00
to
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...


>> >> 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

unread,
Feb 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/12/00
to
EdWIN <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> 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

unread,
Feb 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/12/00
to
In article <881est$fmv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
<edwin_e...@my-deja.com> blabbed on:

> 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

hoy...@osu.edu

EdWIN

unread,
Feb 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/12/00
to
In article <Alan_Baker-965F5...@news.telus.net>,
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

unread,
Feb 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/12/00
to
In article <110220000346283841%ho...@osu.edu>,

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: (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.


> Bob Hoye
>
> hoy...@osu.edu

Phil Brewster

unread,
Feb 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/12/00
to
On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 12:58 AM, EdWIN <mailto:edwin_e...@my-deja.com>
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

unread,
Feb 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/12/00
to
In article <B4CA79D...@207.92.144.119>, "Phil Brewster"
<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

unread,
Feb 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/12/00
to
Speaking of "results", how much ETI have you found so far? ;)

Jochen Lippert

--
Wo bleibt eigentlich mein iBook?!?

fretwiz

unread,
Feb 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/12/00
to
In article <B4CA79D...@207.92.144.119>, "Phil Brewster"
<pjb...@nospam.com> wrote:

(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

unread,
Feb 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/12/00
to
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?

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

unread,
Feb 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/12/00
to
jlip...@vossnet.de (Jochen Lippert) wrote:

> Speaking of "results", how much ETI have you found so far? ;)

Well, we have Edwin...

ZnU

unread,
Feb 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/12/00
to
In article <newscache$2ipqpf$gva@home>, "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com>
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

unread,
Feb 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/12/00
to
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

> 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

unread,
Feb 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/12/00
to
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.

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

unread,
Feb 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/12/00
to
In article <mazulauf-120...@du01.met.utah.edu>,
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

unread,
Feb 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/12/00
to
In article <mazulauf-120...@du01.met.utah.edu>,
mazu...@met.utah.edu (Mike Zulauf) 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. 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

unread,
Feb 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/12/00