On Monday 27 October 2008 09:48, George Woltman wrote: > >> And there are a lot of technical reasons why I don't > >> want to move to v25 mostly that it is far too aggressive on system > >> resources.
That's what I found when I tried the "alpha". On my uniprocessor/hyperthreaded P3200C running linux kernel 2.6.x it tried to run two instances, like a dog compared with a single instance of v24. And the system was so heavily loaded as to be practically useless for anything else. BTW I don't even remember an announcement that v25 was released - just an announcement of the enhancements when the alpha became available, none of which appeared to have any advantages to end users, especially those with older processors. This is not the same as the problems which arose when v16 (?) "ran out of exponents" because of limitations in the end user software. The server software should be transparent to users, and I think there is an obligation to retain backwards compatibility when the end users are volunteers. Even if it is in our long term interest to migrate to a new version, forcing people to do so at a time which may not be convenient to them is not, IMHO, a sensible way to proceed. Regards Brian Beesley _______________________________________________ Prime mailing list [email protected] http://hogranch.com/mailman/listinfo/prime
