On Monday 30 October 2006 04:48, Tim Sloane wrote: > On 10/29/06, david eddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > We don't need "eye candy" - at least not time consuming stuff.
I agree, _we_ don't _need_. > > I recall this being discussed ad nauseam on the Mersenne Forums a long > time ago. A screensaver, which would always take up some cycles, goes > against the spirit of the project. Who says? Is this just your personal opinion, or is it written down somewhere? > This project is to make the most > efficient use of spare CPU cycles, Yes ... > and using a screensaver to run the > program goes against that idea. I don't follow. So long as the screensaver is not compulsory, then, if having it available induces extra people to donate their spare cycles, surely the converse is the case. Even if the screensaver were to waste 50% of the donated CPU cycles, then we'd still be getting the other 50% which are at the moment going to waste. The real question is, whether the effort associated with generating screen-saver versions (or front ends) is worth the contributions from the extra users we'd bring in. I don't know how to answer that question, but I think it is fair to point out that the really successful distributed computing projects (in terms of numbers of contributors) have all been screensaver based, or have had screensaver options. Regards Brian Beesley _______________________________________________ Prime mailing list [email protected] http://hogranch.com/mailman/listinfo/prime
