I do not know much about apple etc., but from what i understand os x is essentially unix, perhaps you could try the unix client and see if it will run on it?
"Howard L Ritter, Jr" wrote: > I stand corrected on the Athlon issue--force of habit when thinking about > AMD, inattention to detail, etc. The 380 MHz CPU chip is indeed a K6, > actually a -III, which I think was a rarely used chip that Compaq, maker of > my Win laptop, seemed not to want to pursue despite its putative advantages > over the -II. > > The slowdown is essentially identical under OS X v.10 and v.10.1, which I > just installed, discovered to be just as slow as v.10, and was prompted to > write about. > > Thanks to all who have responded. I had been letting seti@home run as a > screensaver because my computers are idle most of the time and the one > minute the program spends running the graphics before screen-blanking is a > tiny fraction of the typical duty cycle, and because I had thought > (incorrectly?) that if it runs as an app, it won't blank the screen (though > the screen goes dark due to Windows' own conservation measures, I've been > under the impression that a running app doesn't know this and continues to > produce a graphics output, thus slowing down its pure computational > function. Not so?) I'll have to look into this. I'll run a unit or two on > each machine as an app and see what happens. > > Thanks again, > > --howard (1822 work units and counting) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Evan T. Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2001 11:56 AM > Subject: Re: S-L-O-W MacOS X performance! > > > > > Did you patch it to version 10.1 (or whatever the newest iteration of OS X > > is) yet? I know the original release of OS X had pretty miserable > > performance with a lot of stuff, native OS X applications I believe, but > > read that the newer revisions fixed at least some of those early problems. > > If you've already patched it all the way up, I don't know what else to say > > except to echo t-pot's suggestion that you should just run SETI@home all > > the time rather than just as a screen saver. You mentioned already that > > you're running a blank screen saver instead of displaying the SETI@home > > progress, which is good, because using the actual SETI@home screen saver > > sucks up a lot of CPU just displaying the graphics. > > By the way, I doubt heavily that your 380MHz AMD machine is an Athlon, but > > is probably a K6-2. > > > > Evan > > == > 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 == 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
