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 PROTECTED]
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
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"
users
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:
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
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]
- 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
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
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
hose 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 -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Jeramy Ross wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jan 2001, Russel Brooks wrote:
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/Main.asp?UID=35947505SectionID=30SubSectio
nID=90ArticleID=23815
While I am the geek brother mentioned in the article I make no claim
as
to the accuracy
On Sun, 07 Jan 2001, Russel Brooks wrote:
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/Main.asp?UID=35947505SectionID=30SubSectio
nID=90ArticleID=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 Abbat wrote:
*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
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
