Forum
To complement the recent news that Sony Playstation 3s are capable of running
distributed computing software (reported here in 'CD Freaks Distributed Computing Team Forum'), the chief of Microsoft's Xbox 360 has made a few encouraging noises that the MS platform might soon join the initiative. Reported in an article on gamesindustry.biz, Peter Moore says "If we truly believe that we
can in some way marshal the resources of a much larger installed base of Xbox 360 owners, with a processor that's of equal power to the PS3, then you have my commitment that we'll look at that."
Distributed computing applications are essentially the use of consumer's computer CPU processor activity to help biomedical research number-crunching projects. Huge calculations are needed to estimate the way that biological proteins fold, and is critical to understanding how diseases are caused by aberrations of the normal protein shape. Whilst super-computers could be employed, another approach is to break the calculations down into much smaller chunks and get the rest of the population's computers or games consoles to help whilst they're not doing anything else in particular.
Despite the positive aspect of his earlier view, Moore's ending statement is more
sanguine. "I'm not quite sure yet whether we're seeing real tangible results from
the PlayStation 3 Folding@home initiative. We continue to look at this and see
whether there's real value,". Sadly it seems that Microsoft Entertainment division
is unable to look further than the end of its own nose when considering the
possible benefits and doing some lateral thinking. I refer you to a report quoting Stanford University's view on the value of the PS3 contribution, and from which readers can draw their own conclusions about how successful the PS3 initiative has been. The phrase "Wake up and smell the coffee, MS", springs to mind.
Next: Microsoft fixes iPod corruption bug in Vista
Previous: OCZ Technology enhances SDHC memory family with new speed class 6 rated cards (Press Release)
distributed computing software (reported here in 'CD Freaks Distributed Computing Team Forum'), the chief of Microsoft's Xbox 360 has made a few encouraging noises that the MS platform might soon join the initiative. Reported in an article on gamesindustry.biz, Peter Moore says "If we truly believe that we
can in some way marshal the resources of a much larger installed base of Xbox 360 owners, with a processor that's of equal power to the PS3, then you have my commitment that we'll look at that."
Distributed computing applications are essentially the use of consumer's computer CPU processor activity to help biomedical research number-crunching projects. Huge calculations are needed to estimate the way that biological proteins fold, and is critical to understanding how diseases are caused by aberrations of the normal protein shape. Whilst super-computers could be employed, another approach is to break the calculations down into much smaller chunks and get the rest of the population's computers or games consoles to help whilst they're not doing anything else in particular.
Despite the positive aspect of his earlier view, Moore's ending statement is more
sanguine. "I'm not quite sure yet whether we're seeing real tangible results from
the PlayStation 3 Folding@home initiative. We continue to look at this and see
whether there's real value,". Sadly it seems that Microsoft Entertainment division
is unable to look further than the end of its own nose when considering the
possible benefits and doing some lateral thinking. I refer you to a report quoting Stanford University's view on the value of the PS3 contribution, and from which readers can draw their own conclusions about how successful the PS3 initiative has been. The phrase "Wake up and smell the coffee, MS", springs to mind.
Next: Microsoft fixes iPod corruption bug in VistaPrevious: OCZ Technology enhances SDHC memory family with new speed class 6 rated cards (Press Release)Want to submit your own news? Click here
Posted by Afterburner (guest) on Sunday 13 May 2007 18:20
Yeah, but still the Xbox360 sucks, there is much more power in the Playstation 3
Posted by Hypnosis4U2NV on Sunday 13 May 2007 19:32
Yea but at $600 Im sure people wont mind the 360.. Besides, I had a look at both and the 360 is better in my opinion, granted that I dont own either one..
Posted by ivid on Sunday 13 May 2007 20:53
Well I for one don't mind letting my 360 be used for medical research that could possibly lead to, for example, a cure for my mothers diabetes.
Or even by NASA for analysis of radio waves from deep space for signs of extra terrestrial signals like those NASA screensavers that use a PC to do it whenever the screensaver kicks in.
This message was edited at: 15-05-2007 03:47
Or even by NASA for analysis of radio waves from deep space for signs of extra terrestrial signals like those NASA screensavers that use a PC to do it whenever the screensaver kicks in.
This message was edited at: 15-05-2007 03:47
Posted by u_n_s97 on Monday 14 May 2007 20:52
Not that, but drugs will come for free then ? Or what ? We use our power, our systems, our bandwidth and they will earn the BIG money which those drug companies already earn... 
So what then ? Let's face one thing: nothing is for free. They used to learn that aswell. Give the machines for FREE and then we'll use that for THEIR research, or give use the drugs for free and that's ok then. But would be great to see that THEY offer anything for free for us. But I bet we will NEVER see such a thing. These gigant companies want to reasearch using OUR resources. What a joke... They should buy themselves then 1 million PS3's if those have so powerfull computing power and that's it...
Don't get me wrong, I am NOT against research, but I hope these powerfull machines are NOT for sale for 600 bucks just to have extra power to research something that I have to buy once more... This idea and bussines model suck big time.
regards, Stephen
This message was edited at: 14-05-2007 20:53
So what then ? Let's face one thing: nothing is for free. They used to learn that aswell. Give the machines for FREE and then we'll use that for THEIR research, or give use the drugs for free and that's ok then. But would be great to see that THEY offer anything for free for us. But I bet we will NEVER see such a thing. These gigant companies want to reasearch using OUR resources. What a joke... They should buy themselves then 1 million PS3's if those have so powerfull computing power and that's it...
Don't get me wrong, I am NOT against research, but I hope these powerfull machines are NOT for sale for 600 bucks just to have extra power to research something that I have to buy once more... This idea and bussines model suck big time.
regards, Stephen
This message was edited at: 14-05-2007 20:53
Posted by ivid on Tuesday 15 May 2007 03:46
Well I for one don't mind letting my 360 be used for medical research that could possibly lead to, for example, a cure for my mothers diabetes.
Or even by NASA for analysis of radio waves from deep space for signs of extra terrestrial signals like those NASA screensavers that use a PC to do it whenever the screensaver kicks in.
This message was edited at: 15-05-2007 03:47
Or even by NASA for analysis of radio waves from deep space for signs of extra terrestrial signals like those NASA screensavers that use a PC to do it whenever the screensaver kicks in.
This message was edited at: 15-05-2007 03:47
Posted by u_n_s97 on Tuesday 15 May 2007 09:50
@ivid: yeah you are right, but I suspect when something is found, I doubt you will get the cure for free, though it was your or others' resources that helped finding it... And this is sad. That's why I don't belive in this type of research at all...
regards, Stephen
regards, Stephen
Posted by imkidd57 on Thursday 17 May 2007 13:13
@u_n_s97: With all due respect, perhaps you need to read around a bit and understand what the difference is between a public-funded non-profit research group at Stanford University, and a commercial drug company. Then look at which one of these is running this project and read their declaration here:
//quote//
"Who "owns" the results? What will happen to them? Unlike other distributed computing projects, Folding@home is run by an academic institution (specifically the Pande Group, at Stanford University's Chemistry Department), which is a nonprofit institution dedicated to science research and education. We will not sell the data or make any money off of it."
"Moreover, we will make the data available for others to use. In particular, the results from Folding@home will be made available on several levels. Most importantly, analysis of the simulations will be submitted to scientific journals for publication, and these journal articles will be posted on the web page after publication. Next, after publication of these scientific articles which analyze the data, the raw data of the folding runs will be available for everyone, including other researchers, here on this web site."
//endquote//
(Source: http://folding.stanford.edu/faq.html)
Thus I'm afraid most of the arguments you put forward are nonsense, as multinational drug companies are not involved in F@H and anyway, the data is far from being at the stage where chemical drug therapies could even be considered. What is being sought is an understanding about how the folding of proteins works: and not all things that are useful in this world are measured by money or with an eye on the commercial applications that could follow.
To take up your real point of dissatisfaction though: whether we like it or not, modern drug development is mainly in the hands of commercial companies, because they are the only ones willing to invest with the huge sums needed to bring something sufficiently finished to a population. If you don't like that fact, then maybe you should take your protests to the government who runs your country, rather than misguidedly attacking a world-class research initiative which is directly funded out of the public purse.
To get back to the point: the F@H project is successful precisely because people recognise that whatever their background, they can personally and directly contribute to a major scientific project. It doesn't involve handing over money to anyone, or to be linked to tax-breaks or whatever other cost-sapping incentives. Your machine just does some of the much-needed calculations in its spare time. I really fail to see that when you get your facts straight, how you can argue that this is not a worthwhile project and a model for future projects to benefit the whole world.
//quote//
"Who "owns" the results? What will happen to them? Unlike other distributed computing projects, Folding@home is run by an academic institution (specifically the Pande Group, at Stanford University's Chemistry Department), which is a nonprofit institution dedicated to science research and education. We will not sell the data or make any money off of it."
"Moreover, we will make the data available for others to use. In particular, the results from Folding@home will be made available on several levels. Most importantly, analysis of the simulations will be submitted to scientific journals for publication, and these journal articles will be posted on the web page after publication. Next, after publication of these scientific articles which analyze the data, the raw data of the folding runs will be available for everyone, including other researchers, here on this web site."
//endquote//
(Source: http://folding.stanford.edu/faq.html)
Thus I'm afraid most of the arguments you put forward are nonsense, as multinational drug companies are not involved in F@H and anyway, the data is far from being at the stage where chemical drug therapies could even be considered. What is being sought is an understanding about how the folding of proteins works: and not all things that are useful in this world are measured by money or with an eye on the commercial applications that could follow.
To take up your real point of dissatisfaction though: whether we like it or not, modern drug development is mainly in the hands of commercial companies, because they are the only ones willing to invest with the huge sums needed to bring something sufficiently finished to a population. If you don't like that fact, then maybe you should take your protests to the government who runs your country, rather than misguidedly attacking a world-class research initiative which is directly funded out of the public purse.
To get back to the point: the F@H project is successful precisely because people recognise that whatever their background, they can personally and directly contribute to a major scientific project. It doesn't involve handing over money to anyone, or to be linked to tax-breaks or whatever other cost-sapping incentives. Your machine just does some of the much-needed calculations in its spare time. I really fail to see that when you get your facts straight, how you can argue that this is not a worthwhile project and a model for future projects to benefit the whole world.
Related news
Related reviews/articles
Get the latest news via RSS 
