between 14 and 19 hours on a g4 867 640mb ram. average times seem to be 17 to 19 hours. a g3 400 (firewire) powerbook i had was consistent on 29 hours. seti osx on the 867. seti os9 was on the powerbook.
There seems to be a huge difference in times! Do you set set it up to process data with a blank screen + only when the screensaver is on? This should not make a huge difference, especially not nearly 6 hours extra! I'm lost.
I used to use SETI, but I found it horrifcly slow. It has been working for 9hrs & 19 minutes and has only done 48 percent. I don't know how some guy managed to push our 24 packets in a weekend!?! I also have a G4 867 but I only have 384 Ram.
it use to take around 11 hours in phase 1. earlier this year they started sending out phase 2 units that took the powerbook around 28 hours instead of 11 hours. an SGI onyx would do 24 units on a weekend. think they do a phase 2 unit in around an hour.
iBook 500 w/256mb RAM takes 20-hours on the average to process running in the background.
Unlike the PC version, macSETI seems to not like anything else running for it to work. In the past hour, it only crunched about 1% more -- and all I was doing was reading online news and posting comments here.
Run overnight and when I'm not around, it works out to one work unit per day.
As much as I like the ibook I am not very impressed at how long it takes to process a unit! Is this to do with the mac version of seti, I cant believe that the mac is slower than pc's!! Afterall, a v.good time for a desktop should be around 10 hours!
My pc (a Toshiba 4080xCDT laptop @ 366mhz & 192mb RAM) whips through a unit in about 11 hours, so I think it must be a programming thing. Perhaps all those built-in math routines in Pentiums has something to do with it, while the RISC might be difficult for some people.
Then again, isn't SETI programmed in C++, and the same code is on all machines? Might then be a question of compiler optimization.
Those without gaussians (bell-curve signals) are obviously going to go through processing superfast, and those with loud noise are going to be processed even faster, often within a few minutes before getting another WU.
Remember: it's doing all these calculations over a range of doppler shift values, and all that math takes time. Those running the program as a strict screen-saver will wait an eternity for just one WU to process, even though the total processor time for one will amount to a few hours. Running it overnight as a standalone program is the only way to go.
Which, BTW, is how I'm up to 777 WU's processed -- since the program started back in '99.