JohnC wrote:Well, you can contact Scott and ask him about mentioning this on front page or whatever... You can do it through e-mail or Twitter.
Khali wrote:My apologies if some of my posts come across as mean, grumpy, negative, etc. I don't mean it that way but some times it comes across that way due to my heath issues. Being pretty much confined to my home can be depressing and it comes out from time to time.
JohnC wrote:...the popularity of this project has significantly declined over time due to various reasons - there weren't any "revolutionary" discoveries based on the processed data plus many people got frustrated due to lack of necessary and speedy optimizations for the GPU portion of the client...
Krogoth wrote:There have been quite a number of findings that are a direct result of F@H project.
http://folding.stanford.edu/home/faq/faq-diseases/, for a brief overview
http://folding.stanford.edu/home/papers, if you want to dig into the actual research papers.
The F@H client is very mature and GPU portion is so much better than it was back in the early days of GPU folding (HD 4xxx/88xx familes). The UI front-end is very friendly and provides more than enough options for 99% of the power users.
BIF wrote: They just don't know and don't keep up with the results and the improvements
BIF wrote:seems to be very well done and is quite reliable.
JohnC wrote:Tell me, how often do you visit ...
JohnC wrote:You're doing pretty well even without extra systems, don't worry much about it...
JohnC wrote:Join what? TR Team? I might already be there I just prefer to use my own unique name.
fuzzhead wrote:I put another GPU on Frank. It does about 100K ppd.
That should help some. I will put on more later
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests