That is funny i have also been running XP for quite some time, lets see the 10 to 14 day average is 5h48m. seems just slightly faster than win me or 98 was, but it varies some. I don't remember exactly what the average is based on but several days. I would go into task manager and look at the processes tab, i have found if i leave netscape on certain web sites that it can command 70+ %, most do not but once i happened to take a look at the processes and noticed it was using more than it should, closed that page then seti was taking about 97 to 99 % of the cycles. If you have a screen saver turned on you can set priority of seti up one notch and that will keep the screen saver from monopolizing the clock cycles too much. i would not set the priority more than 1 step up though or it can make the system quite unresponsive... I do not wish to get into a war about M$ OS, I run Win 95, Win 2K Adv Server, and Mandrake Linux, on one box Win 95 was faster than win 2k on others win 2k is faster, most seem to be similar. To get to task manager you can simply push ctr + alt + del also the performance tab can clue you in on memory issues as can the processes tab. Hope that can help you some. N�XDW [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Could be, but it's probably XP. After all, it's officially the worst O/S to > come out of microsoft yet. And I've been crunching away 7 hour units steady > for almost a year with win98. > > Quoting Jack Ardisana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I used to do a WU in about 10-12 hrs back when I had Win98 installed and > > for the first couple of WU I did on XP I was getting around the same > > time. All of the sudden I'm getting WUs that take 60+ hrs to complete, > > is this because of the WU or my computer? == Unsubscribe instructions: http://www.talkspace.net/mlists/setiathome.html This list sponsored by talkspace.net: building space communities online. Mailing list services provided by klx.communications -- www.klx.com
