Additional question on devs according to run time preferences: here at RALPH, is it better to prefer testing larger number of workunits (producing less decoys for each one, 1-5), or rather somewhat more decoys (5-15-...) from each WU, at the expense of the number of tested WUs?

Or does it really not matter?

Peter

So are there any issues with the 64bit apps or shall I go ahead and release them on Rosetta@home?

but in any case I like the idea of throwing out 10% of the highest standard deviation.

Could you tell me why do you think the value of the deviation should be 10%, the constant?

Okay here is one proposal:

Send each type of WU to at least 60 hosts. Discard the results with the lowest and highest 10% claimed credit and take the arithmetic average of the remaining hosts as fixed credit/model for production runs on Rosetta.

But doesn't this way cut fair highest and lowest results at high rate? There may be some people who runs R@H on Pentium(I, II) or Kentsfield now. Especially a few users use genuine Kentsfield as testing already.

If the way would be applied, how about distributing WUs to same/similar spec's machine? This way could help the server to distinguish original claimed results from ones modified. Using coefficients figured of machine's spec, etc. I fear, however, this might be issue of client frameworks.

If thinking realistically, changing "quorum" from 1 to 3 is the easiest and more effective way applied overall. changing it to 5 isn't good:(

Another screensaver issue for the to-do list:
If the screen is an odd shape the graphic is in the upper left corner rather than centered in the available space.

when you say odd shape do you mean unusual resolutions?

some examples if you would be so kind :)