Folding Forum

Any word from pg so far?

Other than the previously stated posts by Dr, Vijay (viewtopic.php?p=253960#p253960) and Dr. Kasson (viewtopic.php?p=253980#p253980), no new information related to the bigadv change has been announced.

craigyas wrote:Any word from pg so far?

Word about what specifically?

I would expect NO word in addition to the already promulgated news. Silence here is considered golden and a way to marginalize the masses of angry folders. Eventually we will forget and move on. They hope.

7im wrote:

craigyas wrote:Any word from pg so far?

Viper97 wrote:I would expect NO word in addition to the already promulgated news. Silence here is considered golden and a way to marginalize the masses of angry folders. Eventually we will forget and move on. They hope.

7im....
A more detailed roadmap... extending the date of these raises.... the deadlines that will be used.... stuff like that
specifically actual implementations...


Viper97...
Hopefully they will break the cycle..... so many company's and groups use this tactic, and it's a shame.

I wouldn't expect much in the way of corespondence until after the Christmas/NY break. My university for one shuts down completely for two weeks (they have to shut down in order to force academics to take some of their leave).

Maybe after the break they can consider all the posts that have been left and formulate a comprehensive response. Given the range of criticism/opinions I would prefer a patient response and they can't after all give the off the hip comments we're free to make.

craigyas wrote:Any word from pg so far?

They do what we should do too: enjoy the holidays ...

It's clear that that expectation hasn't been communicated well and without that, I can see how donors would be upset, and that makes me worried that the bigadv experiment has been handled poorly on our part. Moreover, from these posts, I am also worried that it is just intrinsically difficult for us to have such an experiment running and still maintain fairness to all donors (those running bigadv and those not). Considering that the requirements for bigadv will be increasing in time, maybe what would be best is for us to try to lay out further in advance the schedule for changes?

I have spent some time reading threads from 2008-2011.
I find it disturbing that I find very similar statements in these threads.

If donors raised a huge hue and cry when the previous adjustment was implemented with little or no notice...how can this be news several years later.
this "experiment" has been running for how many years?
Has not the intrinsic difficulty of maintaining fairness between the two levels of points been continuously debated the entire time?

6 years is a very, very long time to have these issues constantly raised, and then have the "worry" that it may have been handled poorly.

sorry, but reading some of those past threads really has me questioning. Amazing how much they do cover the exact same topics, and amazing how little has changed.

Trouble is now the changes are costing the donors a ton of money.
A hex core AMD CPU costs 700$ Some buy use for less than that. 12 core 16 core AMD CPUs cost 1000-1300 each, some buy used some buy new.
Mother boards run 400-700$ or more a few used mostly new. UP to 16 sticks of EEC memory ect..... Intel chips most often cost more than AMD CPUs. We are not talking about 150$ video cards becoming obsolete.
I guess depending on how this all works out, many donors will have to decide how much more they are willing to pay to play for a set amount of time.
Thing is we need to know what that time frame is. And is it worth the price any more.

I keep seeing "Well they do not recommend buying hardware just to fold on"
Well I wonder how much folding would really get done if everyone turned off ALL their computers when they are not using them for e-mail and games and normal everyday use.

mdk777 wrote:

It's clear that that expectation hasn't been communicated well and without that, I can see how donors would be upset, and that makes me worried that the bigadv experiment has been handled poorly on our part. Moreover, from these posts, I am also worried that it is just intrinsically difficult for us to have such an experiment running and still maintain fairness to all donors (those running bigadv and those not). Considering that the requirements for bigadv will be increasing in time, maybe what would be best is for us to try to lay out further in advance the schedule for changes?

I have spent some time reading threads from 2008-2011.
I find it disturbing that I find very similar statements in these threads.

If donors raised a huge hue and cry when the previous adjustment was implemented with little or no notice...how can this be news several years later.
this "experiment" has been running for how many years?
Has not the intrinsic difficulty of maintaining fairness between the two levels of points been continuously debated the entire time?

6 years is a very, very long time to have these issues constantly raised, and then have the "worry" that it may have been handled poorly.

sorry, but reading some of those past threads really has me questioning. Amazing how much they do cover the exact same topics, and amazing how little has changed.

Maybe This time

Grandpa_01 wrote:

mdk777 wrote:

It's clear that that expectation hasn't been communicated well and without that, I can see how donors would be upset, and that makes me worried that the bigadv experiment has been handled poorly on our part. Moreover, from these posts, I am also worried that it is just intrinsically difficult for us to have such an experiment running and still maintain fairness to all donors (those running bigadv and those not). Considering that the requirements for bigadv will be increasing in time, maybe what would be best is for us to try to lay out further in advance the schedule for changes?

I have spent some time reading threads from 2008-2011.
I find it disturbing that I find very similar statements in these threads.

If donors raised a huge hue and cry when the previous adjustment was implemented with little or no notice...how can this be news several years later.
this "experiment" has been running for how many years?
Has not the intrinsic difficulty of maintaining fairness between the two levels of points been continuously debated the entire time?

6 years is a very, very long time to have these issues constantly raised, and then have the "worry" that it may have been handled poorly.

sorry, but reading some of those past threads really has me questioning. Amazing how much they do cover the exact same topics, and amazing how little has changed.

Maybe This time

I can not control what they do. But I can control what I do.
Well most of the time anyway.

Grandpa_01 wrote:

mdk777 wrote:

It's clear that that expectation hasn't been communicated well and without that, I can see how donors would be upset, and that makes me worried that the bigadv experiment has been handled poorly on our part. Moreover, from these posts, I am also worried that it is just intrinsically difficult for us to have such an experiment running and still maintain fairness to all donors (those running bigadv and those not). Considering that the requirements for bigadv will be increasing in time, maybe what would be best is for us to try to lay out further in advance the schedule for changes?

I have spent some time reading threads from 2008-2011.
I find it disturbing that I find very similar statements in these threads.

If donors raised a huge hue and cry when the previous adjustment was implemented with little or no notice...how can this be news several years later.
this "experiment" has been running for how many years?
Has not the intrinsic difficulty of maintaining fairness between the two levels of points been continuously debated the entire time?

6 years is a very, very long time to have these issues constantly raised, and then have the "worry" that it may have been handled poorly.

sorry, but reading some of those past threads really has me questioning. Amazing how much they do cover the exact same topics, and amazing how little has changed.

Maybe This time

Think Tampa bay will win the Superbowl first.
But right now I am just wondering what I can spend all the cash I am saving on my power bill.From not running folding on 4 computers .
But you never can tell they mite pop in say something .But my guess is they do not read these forums so good luck with that.

Bill1024 wrote: Well I wonder how much folding would really get done if everyone turned off ALL their computers when they are not using them for e-mail and games and normal everyday use.

That would < 10kPPD for me ... The rest is dedicated stuff; against the expectation. Guilty on that charge

Bill1024 wrote: I keep seeing "Well they do not recommend buying hardware just to fold on"
Well I wonder how much folding would really get done if everyone turned off ALL their computers when they are not using them for e-mail and games and normal everyday use.

Something of a non sequitur there- buying kit purely to use for folding isn't the same as leaving equipment purchased for other reasons running 24/7.

I am inviting everyone who has concerns about the change in BA requirements, to PM me with their list of what steps to recommend to PG, to resolve the issue. In an ideal world, I'd prefer that PG ran the project, and worked points any way they wanted, any day they wanted, and we did the folding -- period! Sort of "The pilots fly the plane, and the passengers stay out of the cockpit", idea.

However, that analogy doesn't work here, clearly. It's too stressful on the BA donors, and likely too expensive to maintain, for many.

I'd like each list to be prioritized, so the #1 change you want, is #1 on your list, etc. I'll post up the result of the change requests, again, in a prioritized order.

Let's see if there might be room for a compromise effort on this matter. Like all compromises, it won't have everything either side wants, but it appears it would be good for us and for PG, to put some serious effort into making this a reality.

This is a problem that will be heating up right through February and/or April, so why not work on fixing it?

Your comments are welcome, of course.