...I think everyone understands.

I'm a bit unsure about that, as some still claim the 5.5 did "level the playing field", while it did the opposite.

What the client did or didn't do isn't relevant, nor are the motives of those who used it. It wasn't forbidden by the lab and the science results were valid and helped the research. I only wish to stop this line of posting since it doesn't help where were at now after Dr. Baker has stated that there will be no back-crediting.

That's what I think, and that's what I always thought.
But the lack of words of discouragement, even if no real enforcement was possible, still bugs me.

5.5 was inflating the credits, the credits recorded 'til now are more or less worthless for any competition, and the project has the possibility to change that (at least they stated so).

I probably will like the new system, it will probably be far better, and I thank the project team for implementing it. I only don't understand why they won't go the whole way.

Saenger, please don't add a level of suspicion. I just read a post at the Einstein board where some people find the credit too high and put an accusation that that will drain too much users to Eisntein.
We can say that for every project if we want.

Each project don't want to leave CPU power and have to navigate trough all icebergs.

That's what I think, and that's what I always thought.
But the lack of words of discouragement, even if no real enforcement was possible, still bugs me.

5.5 was inflating the credits, the credits recorded 'til now are more or less worthless for any competition, and the project has the possibility to change that (at least they stated so).

I probably will like the new system, it will probably be far better, and I thank the project team for implementing it. I only don't understand why they won't go the whole way.

From Seanger with poke at other users removed:

Post from Thierry with deleted comment removed:

Saenger, please don't add a level of suspicion. I just read a post at the Einstein board where some people find the credit too high and put an accusation that that will drain too much users to Eisntein.
We can say that for every project if we want.

Each project don't want to leave CPU power and have to navigate trough all icebergs.

That's what I think, and that's what I always thought.
But the lack of words of discouragement, even if no real enforcement was possible, still bugs me.

5.5 was inflating the credits, the credits recorded 'til now are more or less worthless for any competition, and the project has the possibility to change that (at least they stated so).

I probably will like the new system, it will probably be far better, and I thank the project team for implementing it. I only don't understand why they won't go the whole way.

As Ethan said, the only thing we can have is a new equal credits. It's too late to remove the inflation due to opti.client. It's the only way they have to not loose users. You have to accept that, I think.

From Seanger with poke at other users removed:

While I understand the deletion of the one sentence from a "I want to have it calm and cozy here" point of view, it is still my opinion, and that of a lot of people on the BOINC team boards I frequent. So please give it at least to the others in the project team that your actions are percieved in that way.

They could eliminate the "optimized" clients from the process of figuring out how much to grant for each series.

Saenger, please don't add a level of suspicion. I just read a post at the Einstein board where some people find the credit too high and put an accusation that that will drain too much users to Eisntein.
We can say that for every project if we want.

Each project don't want to leave CPU power and have to navigate trough all icebergs.

...I think everyone understands.

I'm a bit unsure about that, as some still claim the 5.5 did "level the playing field", while it did the opposite.

What the client did or didn't do isn't relevant, nor are the motives of those who used it. It wasn't forbidden by the lab and the science results were valid and helped the research. I only wish to stop this line of posting since it doesn't help where were at now after Dr. Baker has stated that there will be no back-crediting.

The whole discussion is about this.
I understand you don't want to discuss it.
But as you so vehemently insist of not discussing it (and it still is an issue), I must suspect you have something to hide as the project: You didn't say somethimg against the use of 5.5, because it gave you an advantage over the other BOINC projects.
I definitely hope that's untrue, but strangling the discussion will only add to the suspicion.

[b]"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me[/b]

What are we actually talking about here? I have the 5.5.13 BOINC manager, as the problems with crunching Seti main 5.15 WU's collided with being a Seti Beta tester, crunching 5.17 WU's in the 5.4 BOINC manager, has been solved in the 5.5.11 and now 5.5.13 BOINC managers. Are we talking about the same BOINC manager here?

"Optimized" Crunch3r 5.5.0 versus stock client, usually 5.4.9 or 5.4.11 now.
Dev clients also have the 5.5.x in it, but they don't inflate the benchmarks.

There was a time coincidence between the not discouraging of this client and the need for more crunchers because of CASP7. Some (including me) saw a connection between this at that time. Dr. Baker has even stated that he still has no problems with the inflated credits, but it won't be an issue any more in the future thanks to the new credit system. I only hope the credit/hour ratio will be adjusted according to the normal client, not the inflated one.

[b]"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me[/b]

I have a question: What does Crunch3r think about using his optimized client on R@H?

I have a question: What does Crunch3r think about using his optimized client on R@H?

There's no credit war... if i really go for the credits i'd join a project that uses a quorum of 1 and use one of my previous released boinc clients (5.5.0, which are mirrored without my permission!!) which were only to be used with S@H to compensate the faster sience app.