On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 01:31:13PM -0600, Aaron Blosser wrote:
>Egads...I'm not telling *anyone* to NOT use slow computers...I'm
>"suggesting" they use < p166 for double-checks or factoring.
And do you have a good reason to suggest that? Honestly, what does a
few months' (or even years') latency mean? Nothing. I run my P60 happily,
and didn't switch to double-checking until recently. The fact that
there are PIII-550s out doesn't degrade the performance of my P60,
and bigger exponents don't, either.
>>They can still outperform a couple of Pentiums.
>This is an excellent illustration of my point.
What? I don't think so :-)
>I'd rather see computing power applied to a project with some thought given
>to how that computing power can best be used. A 486, with it's rather
>pitiful FP performance, should be given something to do that will stick with
>integer ops, just for example. It makes little sense to have a 486 doing LL
>testing when it would be flexing it's power best by doing factoring.
In that case, every PPro, PII and PIII should be doing factoring only,
because they really excel at factoring. (Benchmark for yourself and
see.)
>I hope I'm being clear that I don't consider slower computers useless
>entirely...just useless for doing LL tests in the range of exponents
>currently being assigned.
Not useless, just slow. I still think it makes perfect sense.
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://members.xoom.com/sneeze/
_________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
