I was afraid this was going to happen. Essentially, Stanford's program is closed due to lack of funding.

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOU: You need to change a setting in your Windows based program. I'll show you how in the next post. It's easy, but we're starting from a very low position on the totem pole.

Look at it this way -- we're still doing good work, important work, for scientists who need computing power. And remember how excited we would get when we would vault 200 spots in a week as a team? Well, we get to do that again.

WHAT HAPPENED: Stanford started this nifty program to make use of distributed computing technology. There was a competing private project called Folding@Home. They formed an alliance maybe a year or so ago when Stanford began running low on resources.

The big shift began when Stanford stopped supporting its software and switched everyone to Folding. (You remember when we all did that, right?) Using the software, you could configure whether you wanted to work on Stanford or Folding projects.

When a Stanford project was unavailable, your client automatically selected a Folding project. That's how I ended up with some points, and even my parents' computer (definitely configured for Stanford) has Folding activity.


We stuck with Stanford and kept climbing the ladder there because all the other teams bolted for Folding. I can't access the Stanford threads anymore. I'm sure they are still there, but the site is simply overburdened.

This has been rumored for a long time, but I was hoping that the school could free up the resources. It's certainly not the end of the world. One good thing is that Folding has terrific resources to map progress.

Stick with it, guys. Make a difference.

Read the next post to learn how to upgrade your existing software

OR.....

If you prefer, Folding released a new client that is almost identical to the existing client, but has some other features. I URGE you to download that client, which was released in December. You can get the download at:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/pandegroup...nload.html

(Erik & Andrea, there are Mac versions, but the only Mac I know is served at a restaurant with a clown mascot and has two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce and cheese)

I have already switched clients and the new install was done in a flash and read my existing user id and team number.

SIMPLE, EASY AS PIE WAY TO CONFIGURE YOUR WINDOWS GENOME CLIENT


1) Look in the bottom right corner of your display, near the clock. You should see an icon that looks like a red gear. You may have to expand this section by clicking on the arrow near the clock to display all the running programs.

2) Place your mouse over the gear icon and RIGHT-CLICK once.

A small menu will appear above your cursor.

3) Scroll down to the third option, Configure.

4) LEFT-CLICK once.

The program will display its settings in a box it calls the Control Panel.

That box has three tabs across the top labeled "User", "Connection" and "Advanced"

5) Point your mouse cursor at the tab labeled "Advanced" and LEFT-CLICK once.

DON'T PANIC! You're only changing one setting!

6) You should see four sections: "Graphics", "Scientific Core", "Client Type" and "Deadlines".

7) Point your mouse cursor at the box labeled "Client Type".

8) LEFT-CLICK once.

9) Change the option from "Genome at Home" to "Folding at Home"

10) LEFT-CLICK the "OK" button at the bottom of the screen.

That's it --- you're done! Wasn't hard, was it?

Send me a PM if you need a hand.

By the way, don't feel bad. I dropped from #500 and something on the project to number (are you ready for this?) 203,741

Okay, updated the configuration and went to the team page to check and see where I was. I don't even appear on the page. :confused: I keep it running almost around the clock and I've been there in the past. Can anyone else see me?

Deb, let's get one work FAH (Folding@Home) work unit completed first. Many of our team members are not there yet.

If you're using a newer version, you can right-click the icon, select status and start poking around for what project you're working on, stats, etc. No more bookmarks!

:clap:

I already had the updated client, but I never discovered that status feature.

Way cool!

Of course, it would be nice if the Folding pages weren't unavailable right now so that I could see something besides an error page. :laugh:

Sara
Who was minutes away from breaking the top 500 on GAH :sobsob:

How do we know if we have the updated client or not?

--naomi

Okay, I followed your instructions. Let's hope it all works smoothly!

murasaki Wrote:How do we know if we have the updated client or not?

--naomi

If you have downloaded since December 8, you likely have the new client. One way to check:

Right click the red gear icon.

Scroll to "About" - if you don't have an "About" setting, you're a version behind.


Left click the About selection.

The current version is 4.00 with a build date of December 8.

I'm at 3.24 - how do I upgrade?

And I’m at 3.25 (OSX).

emeleel Wrote:I'm at 3.24 - how do I upgrade?

The latest downloads are at this link:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/pande...g/download.html

That URL doesn’t work. Try this one:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/pandegroup...nload.html

BTW, I installed the 4.0 clent. Strange. This is the link to my team statistics but my personal statistics link shows me as belonging to a completely different team. And even though I had been running the 3.25 client on a G4 for most of the last several months, I’m not shown as having completed any work units for either team. :confused:

Thanks for the details! I will check it out when I get home to see if I need to update.

I cannot recall when I did this last, nor what version I am plugging away on right now!

Okay, I think I've got the new software installed at home. I'll have to do my work account after spring break. Thanks for the help!

--naomi

Quote:User taurusmoon
User Rank 47699

Boy is that humbling. :laugh:

Updated!!

go team!!!!!

User Rank 36873

I used to be somebody! :sobsob:

I'm really a dog then.... 184639

New problem: I apparently have both versions installed on my computer. How do I get rid of the old one (I don't see any uninstall options) so that the new one will run? When I first boot up, I get a message that I have two versions and must hit okay (no other options) so the first one can run.

--naomi

I did some playing around and I have the new version running, but when I went to add/remove programs, only one version of the program shows up and I can't tell which version it is so I don't want to try to remove it yet.

Any suggestions?

--naomi

The easiest way to stop the program from running the older client (although it will still be left on the hard drive) is to go to your start menu and look under All Programs.

Scroll to Startup, and you will see a list of everything that is run when you boot your computer. You can simply use your delete key to remove anything from there.

I don't know why the program isn't showing on your Add/Remove Programs option in Control Panel, but I use Norton for that so I'm probably not the best to try to tackle that one.

Okay, next problem. I thought I had the 4.0 version running; I don't. I got rid of the 3.24 in the startup menu like you said. I clicked on the 4.0 version and got it started. When I go to the About window, it still says 3.24 on it. Should I get rid of this one too and download again?

--naomi

To check the "My Folding" and other stats that are on your c drive (check the address line for c:/), you have to replace the http:// with File:/// to view it. This is a bug in their software.

These folding units take forever to process.

I feel like I'm waiting for water to boil. :laugh:

This is just too weird. Dennis, have you seen this?:

Quote:User slick
Team Overclockers Australia (id # 24)
Score 20295 (certificate)
User Rank 3940
WU 1086 (certificate)

Overclockers Australia?
Plus, it has you working 9 processors. Did you leave any machines running at your old job with the wrong team number? That's an awful lot of crunching being miscredited. :faint:

Now for the next puzzlement... Anyone have any clue why our team isn't ranked? I know for a fact that we're pretty rank.

I have seen it and don't understand it. I never DL'd the program at the old job cause they said something about firing those that did stuff like that.

I just came up with a theory!

Someone in Australia had the name slick for Folding. When you upgraded your software back when we were forced to use the Folding console for processing Genome work, you naturally chose the "upgrade" option and not the "register" option since you already had an account.

The upgrade option allows you to put in your user name without othe system checking to see if someone else already had it. So, of course, you went with the name you've been using all along. One that, if my theory is correct, had already been in use on the Folding project.

So, whatever you've cranked under our number is being assigned to our team. But, your identity has been merged with some other Slickster on the other side of the world and your totals have been combined.

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

Now, if we could somehow get that other Slick to change team numbers. :satan:

I asked a couple of questions in Genome thread yesterday, got a smartass response (the guy thought we were worried about losing a month's worth of stats), and I exploded.

Put it this way. I never delete my own threads. I actually deleted the one I posted at 2 this morning because I flamed the program, the group, the guy, his dog, his wife's best friend and questioned the financial connections between the university and this group. Oh, and I think I suggested he had something to do with Dr. King and RFK.

I was not pretty.

Here's what it boils down to. When our team was converted to a FAH team from GAH, the programmer doing the import became the owner of the group. We can't change the group name or anything. The suggestion on the board was to simply start fresh with the "consolation" that our work had been done "for science".

I did not use any bad words.

But I did suggest that I might look into alternatives.

Up to you guys. Do you want me to find a similar medical-based distributed computing project that might be more stable?

joubert Wrote:Up to you guys. Do you want me to find a similar medical-based distributed computing project that might be more stable?

I would be more than willing to follow you anywhere, George.

If this program is so unstable, I think our resources could be better used somewhere else. I don't know of any other programs (my dad does a seti program that's a similar concept, but they are looking for transmissions from outer space - he's really not Art Bell in disguise :laugh: ), but lead the way and I'll go with you.

Lynn

I don't know if the computer program is unstable. I am just concerned about the project itself. Something weird in my gut, some silly hunch, tells me that either the project or its work is going to be sold off to a biotech company or otherwise kept out of the public domain without huge amounts of money changing hands.

I dunno. That's why I'm asking the group.

I'll trust your gut instinct.

Lord knows I've probably lead you astray more than once with my own gut.

Joubert Wrote:I don't know if the computer program is unstable. I am just concerned about the project itself. Something weird in my gut, some silly hunch, tells me that either the project or its work is going to be sold off to a biotech company or otherwise kept out of the public domain without huge amounts of money changing hands.

I dunno. That's why I'm asking the group.

Syntax error. By "program" I mean the project.

I agree with Sara....if your gut tells you to get out, I'll go along with it.

Joubert Wrote:Up to you guys. Do you want me to find a similar medical-based distributed computing project that might be more stable?

Steve and I shall follow you like little lambkins, George.

Even to school, though it might be against the rules.

Julie

I'm with the group. Lead away, George.

Go for it. We will follow.

Hello All,
I've had a strange feeling about Folding since the split. It just feels as if they've gone from a true academic scientific project to a university department doing contract work for some corporation. If it really is "for science" I don't mind starting from scratch. I would however, be very upset if our efforts were to benefit some company's bottom line. We've seen another CA University selling body parts recently. I hope Stanford is not selling its network of volunteers and their competative nature.
Even though I'm kind of a "fake" EA person, if you guys decide to move your efforts, I'll tag along.

Marguerite

mmoranski Wrote:Even though I'm kind of a "fake" EA person...

Marguerite

You seem real enough to me.

taurusmoon Wrote:

You seem real enough to me.

Yeah! And you have some really good lookin' numbers!