Undoubtedly true. We can't walk on water. The benefit of it, would be a long-lasting one.k1wi wrote: I'd suggest that the reason a new points system hasn't been implemented is because it suffers the critical flaw in that it will be a change, and leave some folders worse off as a result.
Personally, I liked the idea of "more science in less time, equals more points". Then problem with new features, etc., cause no concern. Better features that increase the work done per day, get more points. It doesn't mean older PC's get fewer points, but it does reward those who are upgrading their systems as they do so.
@mdk that was an interesting read about Rotman's BS turn around. Thanks for that. Martin's idea's of integrating to solve problems, was very interesting.
It's too complex, actually. There are a CRAZY number of hardware choices out there. The list of various GPU's alone is absolutely stunning. We need something much simpler and able to encompass not only today's hardware and power costs, but those in the coming years, as well.gimpy wrote: Is this TOO simple? X points pre hour of X hardware???? If it takes the "bench machine" x hours to complete the WU...so what? These are hypothetical points to satisfy man's(my, if that makes you feel bettr) greed or estimation of accomplishment for his efforts...See greed. Yes I'm human and envy noones accomplishments but it seems this "donor" program is promoting one up-manship? Read: Free enterprise system (greed).A man will spend a fortune to be seen as the "better man". If F@H wants to progress....need find a way to settle mans vanity equally? or perish? My P.C runs 24/7,uses same power and the cost still same as when I bought it.
The power costs are best left up to us the donor, to work out. FAH can't get into the details of our power bills, for sure.
The benchmark machine is just to give a guideline for setting the base points for any new project's work unit. We can't have the same amount of points given to every wu. That would be hugely unfair.
Picture it like this: We have a big load of bricks at the bottom of a hill, and they have to be hand-carried up to the top of the hill (no road there yet). If you are giving $1 for every brick we carry up, that sounds fair. If you are giving $10 per hour, no matter how many bricks are carried up, that sounds quite unfair.
Wouldn't you want to base the pay according to the number of bricks that were carried up by that person? In a nutshell, that's what "points for science" idea is all about. It works well until you set up huge gaps between the projects (bigadv, in this case). Maybe there was a good reason to affix that high number of points to it, but there is a serious downside to it, as we see here with SMP.
All the complexities that Tim mentioned, become no problem, using that simple "more points for more science, quicker", idea.
As folders, we need to stay calm, and understand that older PC's will not be able to make more points, than they do today. From FAH, we need a more even-handed points system that does not include these sharp "push them off the cliff", kind of adjustments. Donors definitely become emotionally attached to their PC's that they've worked hard to buy and sometimes, hand build, expressly for FAH. FAH may not have wanted that kind of emotional attachment or PC's built just for FAH, but that's human nature, and FAH has benefited from it, hugely. Pande Group needs to respect that, and I believe that they do, but these planned adjustments are VERY severe, and very difficult for those affected, to deal with.