I know this has been addressed in passing in other threads,including those regarding credit lowering, but I'd like a clear answer. I have an older machine with an Athlon-XP-M 2400+ CPU. My WUs used to take 1.5-4.5 hours, now they take 9-10 hours. What's up with that? Besides, I'm crunching for science, not credits (everybody has their thing), and I also crunch for Einstein and Cosmology. Of the three projects I personally view MW as the least worthy of my CPU cycles. So I'd like an Admin to make a case for me to stick with MW.

I know this has been addressed in passing in other threads,including those regarding credit lowering, but I'd like a clear answer. I have an older machine with an Athlon-XP-M 2400+ CPU. My WUs used to take 1.5-4.5 hours, now they take 9-10 hours. What's up with that? Besides, I'm crunching for science, not credits (everybody has their thing), and I also crunch for Einstein and Cosmology. Of the three projects I personally view MW as the least worthy of my CPU cycles. So I'd like an Admin to make a case for me to stick with MW.

Whilst you are waiting for admin to make a case, please note that they have increased the length, and credits, of WUs due to a demand from the masses. If your WUs are taking longer, then your are getting more credits for them, and they are producing more scientific value. There has been some credit adjustment to bring MW into line with other projects, but that is another argument. Personally I think I deserve far more for my efforts ;)

---

Thanks for the reply, Ice. I also meant to mention that I'm using astronomy_0.20_SSE. I read somewhere in the forum that that might be ~10% faster than the stock 0.19 app. And while I'd like to hear from an Admin, I'd be pleased to hear from anybody, but especially you and Cluster Physic. But anybody, really. BTW I haven't noticed any increase in credits to accompany the longer WUs.

Edit: I meant Cluster Physik, no offense intended.