Anytime I change an app on my Mac, I always reinstall the manager because it fixes up the permissions just as fast as editing them by hand or terminal.

Yeah, a reinstall will work too. I'm comfortable in the Terminal, so I find setting the permissions manually is faster, but others may just find a manager reinstall faster/easier.

---

Thanks! got it working with a boinc reinstall

There may yet be a LOT more performance to squeeze out of OS X. I just bootcamped Vista 64 and been running it in my Mac Pro for a week. Under OS X (10.5.6) it was crunching about 6-7k daily, maybe 8000+ on a good day. But after I put Vista 64 (and using optimized app under 6.6.18) the MP is pulling 15-19k a day! I'm not knocking on jedirock's efforts, they are truly appreciated, but there may be some more performance that can be gained from OS X - unless OS X itself has some limiting factor that we don't know about.

There may yet be a LOT more performance to squeeze out of OS X. I just bootcamped Vista 64 and been running it in my Mac Pro for a week. Under OS X (10.5.6) it was crunching about 6-7k daily, maybe 8000+ on a good day. But after I put Vista 64 (and using optimized app under 6.6.18) the MP is pulling 15-19k a day! I'm not knocking on jedirock's efforts, they are truly appreciated, but there may be some more performance that can be gained from OS X - unless OS X itself has some limiting factor that we don't know about.

Yeah, I know. I'm not sure if the big speed increases are from code tweaks that I don't know about, or if because some of the optimized apps for Windows and Linux are compiled using the Intel compiler, icc. I'm using gcc, because I can't afford icc.

---

There may yet be a LOT more performance to squeeze out of OS X. I just bootcamped Vista 64 and been running it in my Mac Pro for a week. Under OS X (10.5.6) it was crunching about 6-7k daily, maybe 8000+ on a good day. But after I put Vista 64 (and using optimized app under 6.6.18) the MP is pulling 15-19k a day! I'm not knocking on jedirock's efforts, they are truly appreciated, but there may be some more performance that can be gained from OS X - unless OS X itself has some limiting factor that we don't know about.

Yeah, I know. I'm not sure if the big speed increases are from code tweaks that I don't know about, or if because some of the optimized apps for Windows and Linux are compiled using the Intel compiler, icc. I'm using gcc, because I can't afford icc.

It's mostly the compiler. Do you know that you can get a 30 day evaluation version of the ICC for OSX for free? As a private user (for a non commercial purpose as here) you can get even an unlimited license (without support) for the Linux version.

There may yet be a LOT more performance to squeeze out of OS X. I just bootcamped Vista 64 and been running it in my Mac Pro for a week. Under OS X (10.5.6) it was crunching about 6-7k daily, maybe 8000+ on a good day. But after I put Vista 64 (and using optimized app under 6.6.18) the MP is pulling 15-19k a day! I'm not knocking on jedirock's efforts, they are truly appreciated, but there may be some more performance that can be gained from OS X - unless OS X itself has some limiting factor that we don't know about.

Yeah, I know. I'm not sure if the big speed increases are from code tweaks that I don't know about, or if because some of the optimized apps for Windows and Linux are compiled using the Intel compiler, icc. I'm using gcc, because I can't afford icc.

It's mostly the compiler. Do you know that you can get a 30 day evaluation version of the ICC for OSX for free? As a private user (for a non commercial purpose as here) you can get even an unlimited license (without support) for the Linux version.

I know I can get a 30-day trial, but what good does that do me? And speedimic has the Linux end covered anyway.

---

Hello again just wanted to know what SSE version is being used for core 2 duos?

Hello again just wanted to know what SSE version is being used for core 2 duos?

Should be everything from SSE to SSSE3 for the Intel 64-bit app. The 32-bit app is the same, but drops the SSSE3 so it's just SSE to SSE3.

---

The question that comes to mind is how much difference is there between the Linux app and the OS X app. Crunch3r seems to have a good fix for releasing the optimized AP apps for both Linux and OS X.

---

The question that comes to mind is how much difference is there between the Linux app and the OS X app. Crunch3r seems to have a good fix for releasing the optimized AP apps for both Linux and OS X.

I believe Crunch3r also has the Intel compiler. If he does have MW compiles for OS X, it'd be interesting to compare their speed and what ICC can actually do compared to GCC.

---

I will post over on his forums and see if he can look at your code.

Do you have a link to your source code?

He did an earlier build of an optimized app before recent changes.

---

I will post over on his forums and see if he can look at your code.

Do you have a link to your source code?

He did an earlier build of an optimized app before recent changes.

It's the stock source with a tweaked Makefile, which isn't going to help him if he's using icc.

---

it'd be interesting to compare their speed and what ICC can actually do compared to GCC.

Just compare the Linux stock app (compiled using gcc) and speedimics Linux versions available at zslip.com (using icc), preferably the 64bit versions (as both use SSE2 then). Quite a difference without code changes.

There may yet be a LOT more performance to squeeze out of OS X. I just bootcamped Vista 64 and been running it in my Mac Pro for a week. Under OS X (10.5.6) it was crunching about 6-7k daily, maybe 8000+ on a good day. But after I put Vista 64 (and using optimized app under 6.6.18) the MP is pulling 15-19k a day! I'm not knocking on jedirock's efforts, they are truly appreciated, but there may be some more performance that can be gained from OS X - unless OS X itself has some limiting factor that we don't know about.

I seriously wonder how you would pull out that much of credit a day when I'm even having trouble getting new WUs regardless of Windows or Mac, let alone maintaining enough WU cache for one day without babysitting my tower every 2 - 3 hours...

I seriously wonder how you would pull out that much of credit a day when I'm even having trouble getting new WUs regardless of Windows or Mac, let alone maintaining enough WU cache for one day without babysitting my tower every 2 - 3 hours...

Alberto was running this when we had a steady supply of units.

The Windows app is 256% faster than that for OSX on Intel at the present moment.

So getting an RAC of approx 16,000 would be very plausible.

---

Mars rules this confectionery war!

Alberto was running this when we had a steady supply of units.

The Windows app is 256% faster than that for OSX on Intel at the present moment.

So getting an RAC of approx 16,000 would be very plausible.

Even if there's a steady stream of WUs, there aren't enough to last even few hours without hitting the Update button, are they...?

I'd just wished the WUs were larger with rather longer datelines so that my offline tower can crunch on them for days without resorting to backup projects. The problem here is that I can only download a maximum of 6 WUs per processor for any given instance.

Even if there's a steady stream of WUs, there aren't enough to last even few hours without hitting the Update button, are they...?

I'd just wished the WUs were larger with rather longer datelines so that my offline tower can crunch on them for days without resorting to backup projects. The problem here is that I can only download a maximum of 6 WUs per processor for any given instance.

I left my Mac Pro running 24-7 for a week to try out Vista 64. The MP also has 8 cores, so it had somewhat ample WUs available. I've since throttled down to a more normal few hours a day, so my daily credits have diminished accordingly. I haven't tried 6.6.20 on OS X yet since I've been running Vista almost exclusively of late, so I don't know if things have gotten better. I guess I was lucky with my MP in getting WUs, because some of my other computers weren't getting WUs at all.