A interesting note, and I forgot to include this in my original post, but
the computer that I encountered the illegal sumouts on was a 500MHz K6 PC.
Perhaps this is a problem when running those software modems on a K6 based
machine??
- Jeramy
Original Message - From: "Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTE
I don't really know how much help this will be since I don't know your exact
situation and am not a expert by any means, but here goes!
First, the software modem may be a culprit. I have had problems with ones
of the HSP variety. Most show up as 'HSP Micromodem56' or something very
similar on y
Brian J. Beesley wrote:
>
> I fail to see how reducing the check-in interval would have any
> impact on the "problem". Those people who are checking in every 28
> days aren't running into the 60-day expiry deadline.
For one, the reduced check in time would allow the closer watch of "suspect"
user
Martijn wrote:
*SNIP*
> Another solution that will work: Have as default a 7 day check in period
> at most and only a grace period
> of 7 days (not 60). Let the user set the check in period to a higher
> value only via the expert menu and
> after results have been checked in. That way abandoned ex
Make that a broke college student who forgets to use his spell checker :-)
Its been a long week ... ;-)
HAPPY WEEKEND EVERYONE!
-Jeramy
- Original Message -
From: Jeramy Ross
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: GIMPS parties (was: expired
Same here. Cali is a bit far to travel for a
broke colege student in Oklahoma :)
Perhaps there is a better, more centrally located
area.
- Jeramy
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 1:40
PM
Subject: Re: Mers
- Original Message -
From: "Brian J. Beesley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Older designs are more resistant to overheating because there is a
> lower probability of electrons released by excess temperature from
> making their way through to an adjoining circuit. The circuits are in
> much closer
An extra case fan is always a good idea and helps more than just your
processor. Due to the narrow nature of the question I didn't bring up this
point, but it is always a good point to bring up! Thanks John!
Jeramy
- Original Message -
From: "John R Pierce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> thi
First, it is quite normal for a processor to run hot enough to prevent one
from being able to touch it for over 2 secs or so. When Intel first
introduced the PII, a common joke in computer science circles was that Intel
had successfully marketed the most expensive egg frier to date ;-) To find
Steinar,
I have seen this problem occur when there was a problem in one of the
chipset chips. These chips can (In some, but not all cases) generate a good
bit of
heat when running a resource intensive program such as mprime, AND if there
is a small flaw that has occured (Which can occur after
Nathan Russell wrote:
*snip*
> This frankly makes me wonder how much longer there will be a place in
> GIMPS for slower machines. I'm not saying that's a bad thing - after
> all, 486s and original pentiums were the workforce when GIMPS began,
> and I wouldn't feel comfortable with the amount of
will, and those of us whom dislike the idea of
having a screensaver taking *any* cycles away from prime95 can stick with
the good ol' interface we have grown to love. ;-)
Jeramy Ross
_
Unsubscribe & list info
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Jeramy Ross wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 07 Jan 2001, Russel Brooks wrote:
> > >
> >
>http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/Main.asp?UID=35947505&SectionID=30&SubSectio
> > nID=90&ArticleID=23815
> > > >
> > &g
> On Sun, 07 Jan 2001, Russel Brooks wrote:
>
>http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/Main.asp?UID=35947505&SectionID=30&SubSectio
nID=90&ArticleID=23815
> >
> >While I am the geek brother mentioned in the article I make no claim as
> >to the accuracy of the article.
Then on Sun, 07 Jan 2001, Pierre Ab
*SNIP*
>The question is, if compression involves a one-time, five-minute
> cost on the part of the developer and saves everyone a few seconds of
> download time and a few K of HD space, then why not? Why have bloated
code?
> I sure like looking at 200K executables instead of megabyte and larger
>
*SNIP*
> A question for readers. Prime95 currently uses about 8MB (exponent
> around 11 million). How would you feel if the P4 optimized version
> used 13MB? 23MB? 33MB?
33MB shouldn't be too unreasonable. I, like Nathan, have 128MB and 70MB of
that is set to be available in Prime95 and h
This 'Wonderful' compression technology maybe "Awesome"; however, MY main
objection or perhaps philosophy towards all of this is that Prime95 is
not a large
piece of code. It takes a relatively small amount of time to download over
a modem
compared to other software items that we modem users
17 matches
Mail list logo
