On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 23:21:54 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Anyone remember the really old drives that needed to be told to park their
>heads? I seem to remember having to do that to my 286's 20MB HD.
>
"remember" ? I still *use* one... in an old Amstrad-1640 PC (8MHz 8086 CPU)
Its 20MB HD is s
OK, so I know this might not be that warmly welcomed here, but a
few people have expressed concerns that while finding new Mersennes
is interesting, it has very limited practical value.
A while ago I heard about another distributed project called Casino-21
that would use people's PCs to run clima
(much snippage dealing with factoring on behalf of non-PC machines)
>Then again, if
>one turned a MP machine to factoring, GIMPS might soon
>run out of factoring assignments, which would not please
>those with 486s and other slower CPUs whose only useful
>contribution to GIMPS is factoring.
>
>Ch
Brian Beesley writes (re. Mfactor):
> I found that Mfactor on a 21164 was significantly
> faster than Prime95 on a system which runs LL tests at
> about the same rate. However the operational
> inefficiencies caused by driving Mfactor manually
> were outweighing this even before an improved LL
>
Well, it wasn't strictly a double post - my browser crashed just as I was
sending the second, and I wasn't sure whether it'd been sent, so I rewrote
it.
Nathan
__
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>From: George Woltman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "David Campeau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Mersenne: V20 beta #4 (will the beta never end?)
>Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 11:43:46 -0400
>
>Hi,
>
>At 07:47 AM 4/20/00 -0400, David Campeau wrote:
>>Seeing that not every time a s
>From: George Woltman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "David Campeau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Mersenne: V20 beta #4 (will the beta never end?)
>Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 11:43:46 -0400
>
>Hi,
>
>At 07:47 AM 4/20/00 -0400, David Campeau wrote:
>>Seeing that not every time a s
Hi,
At 07:47 AM 4/20/00 -0400, David Campeau wrote:
>Seeing that not every time a stage 1 gcd will result in a factor found, are
>we not better to wait until the end of stage 2? This way, we could factor
>deeper.
Brian Beesley's timings showed that running the Stage 1 GCD will
save time in the l
Based upon what I have seen so far, I want to add a vote for the addition of a side frame. Since the Header/Menu contains so many links, its really the only nice way of handling it.
All in favor of a side frame please speak up.
Alan
On 19 Apr 2000, at 21:00, George Woltman wrote:
Date sent:
On 20 Apr 00, at 7:47, David Campeau wrote:
> Seeing that not every time a stage 1 gcd will result in a factor found,
> are we not better to wait until the end of stage 2? This way, we could
> factor deeper.
>
> Perhaps this could be yet another option?
Maybe I'm guilty here; the very first pre
Hi all,
Seeing that not every time a stage 1 gcd will result in a factor found, are
we not better to wait until the end of stage 2? This way, we could factor
deeper.
Perhaps this could be yet another option?
some preleminary data (on my machine at home):
Total P-1 test = 91
Stage 1 factor = 2
S
11 matches
Mail list logo
