> NT was available for Alpha, MIPS R4000, and PowerPC
> processors.

Yes, IBM ported it. But NT was not strictly Windows. It was Microsoft's attempt at OS/2 3.0 and certainly has not been supported for some years now. It was a bit of an historical odd-ball. ;)

Besides, that is still a very small range of processors in comparison to UNIX/Linux platforms. ;)

---

Be lucky

Neil

> > NT was available for Alpha, MIPS R4000, and PowerPC
> > processors.
>
> Yes, IBM ported it. But NT was not strictly Windows. It was Microsoft's
> attempt at OS/2 3.0 and certainly has not been supported for some years now.
> It was a bit of an historical odd-ball. ;)
>
> Besides, that is still a very small range of processors in comparison to
> UNIX/Linux platforms. ;)
>
>
>
One of the reasons that computers like mainframes, Apple's Macintosh and UNIX workstations are more reliable is that the hardware used is constrained. In the Windows world, well, the number of options as to what you will use as hardware is about as wide open as it can be. And some companies make better stuff, but people tend to buy less expensive stuff and well, we know the results of that ...

I think one of us is not understanding this part of Pauls post. I run a couple Sun UNIX workstations and am sure I understand what he is getting at. 3rd party hardware is scarce to non-existent. You don't go to any of the electronics chains and buy parts for them (except for some of their PCI bus systems) and then you are limited to hard drives, cd-rom drives, and possibly memory (uncertified of course).

> Yes, IBM ported it. But NT was not strictly Windows. It was Microsoft's
> attempt at OS/2 3.0 and certainly has not been supported for some years now.
> It was a bit of an historical odd-ball. ;)

?
WinXP is pretty much WinNT with Plug & Play & a new user interface.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

> I think one of us is not understanding this part of Pauls post. I run a
> couple Sun UNIX workstations and am sure I understand what he is getting at.

You are both totally ignoring the fact that UNIX and Linux run on the same hardware as Windows as well as the more esoteric and exotic machines. Not only run, but vastly improve stability and reliability on that hardware. That is my point. After 35 years of being involved with everything from handhelds to mainframes, I think I know reliability when I see it. ;)

Any way, we have been OT for long enough. Let us end it here. :)

---

Be lucky

Neil

Well, I see what both sides are trying to point out.

I would like to point out that at one time, some companies that were manufacturing components for Windows weren't very concerned about stability or reliability. Their was one component manufacture I know about that would hire summer interns who had no driver writing experience and turn them loose writing drivers for Windows. After one unlucky soul was selected at random to run there hardware, that machine was pretty useless for 6 months or so while the driver was debugged after stress failures which had to be debugged daily restarted after a fix was made to the driver.

Needless to say, after MS started making driver manufacturers checkin their source code to the Windows source tree in order to be included in the box, driver quality started to improve greatly since manufacturers started to take things more seriously. One funny comment I heard about from a manufacturer was “nobody is going to use our component in a multi-processor box, it’s going to be a $30 dollar video card.” I kid you not, some admin put that card in a machine that was going to be a headless server and it crashed due to driver failure. He went back to the stock VGA driver that MS provides, and then his system ran fine.

I believe manufacturers making drivers for various Unix(s) take stability and reliability more seriously, and that is why they have a history of being more stable and reliable.

If it weren’t for having to install updates for security related items, my machine would never have to be rebooted.

The rates of fixes being released for Win2k3 have been dropping in recent months though, that is a very good sign. I can’t wait to see how Windows Longhorn shapes up in the security department.

---

----- Rom
BOINC Development Team, U.C. Berkeley
My Blog

Hi

Back to topic.
The Manager runs fine so far, but one thing is when he is on screen every action took around 1 - 2 seconds.
But when its in tray and will wake up to screen it tooks around 10 seconds to refresh display in transfer tab to show the results correctly.
Thats the only thing i figured out, the shutdown thing i never tried because my puter runs the hole week.


greetz
Mike

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

> I can’t wait to see how Windows
> Longhorn shapes up in the security department.
>
>

Longhorn? You mean that spyware-infested, Palladium-controlled, Big-brother piece of crap that would make George Orwell spin in his grave?

---

You will be assimilated...bunghole!

> You are both totally ignoring the fact that UNIX and Linux run on the same
> hardware as Windows as well as the more esoteric and exotic machines.

And you're ignoring the fact that that they don't support nearly as much hardware & what they do support doesn't necessarily have all the features available that it would have under Windows.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

> > You are both totally ignoring the fact that UNIX and Linux run on the
> same
> > hardware as Windows as well as the more esoteric and exotic machines.
>
> And you're ignoring the fact that that they don't support nearly as much
> hardware & what they do support doesn't necessarily have all the features
> available that it would have under Windows.
>

In fact, the reverse is true thanks to the Open Source community. However, as I said previously, we have been OT for long enough so I will not be tempted to prolong this any further.

Let's just get on with crunching. ;)

---

Be lucky

Neil

Is the comandline version of 4.66 better then in 4.19?

---

WARR - Wissenschaftliche Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Raketentechnik und Raumfahrt
(WARR - scientific working group for rocket technology and space travel)

> In fact, the reverse is true thanks to the Open Source community.

So i can send everyone i know of that can't get their hardware to work under LINUX (that does work under WIndows) due to lack of support to you?


> However, as I said previously, we have been OT for long enough so I will not
> be tempted to prolong this any further.
>
> Let's just get on with crunching. ;)

Oh, alright then.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

> Why has the version jumped from 4.1x to 4.6x ? sorry if its a dumb question
> but im using 4.19 and cant (havent experienced) any problems? so where can you
> get this alpha dn why would you?
>
The developers determined that 4.5x / 4.6x was going to take a long time to get developed and tested as there is a major source and functionality change that had to be bitten off in one step. So space was left for version numbers between the last stable version, 4.13, before 4.50 was sent to the Alpha testers. Since we are now at 4.19, as the stable public release, this was probably wise.

4.50 and later will have a BOINC daemon (CLI) that has no GUI that controls the science applications, and a BOINC Manager (GUI) that controls the daemon. The GUI is remotable, and can be replaced with third party applications that may have an interface that you like better (i.e. BOINC View). These features will be available for all platforms, and the GUI code will be (mostly) common.

---

BOINC WIKI

And Rom Walton just transferred the code from the BOINC development branch to the BOINC public branch. I guess we must be a few weeks (if everything goes well) of seeing a stable, public BOINC 4.6x.

---

SETI@home classic workunits: 1,985 CPU time: 24,567 hours



Professor Desty Nova
Researching Karma the Hard Way

How stable is 4.66 and whats its difference with 4.66 and 4.62? Has either of these got the function to auto detect out of date WU's and not run them (i.e. not wasting cpu time)

---

<BR>AMD XP3200+
<img src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/seti2/stats.php?userID=2327&amp;trans=off"><img src="http://petrus.homeftp.org/bws/counter_big.php?id=7828479">
<a href="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paulandrew.odell/">MY SITE!</a>

> How stable is 4.66 and whats its difference with 4.66 and 4.62? Has either of
> these got the function to auto detect out of date WU's and not run them (i.e.
> not wasting cpu time)
>

Each build the last week have tried to fix some bugs, so should in theory be more stable. But, even it's a bug-fix this doesn't mean can't introduce new bugs on it's own.

None of the builds have any changes to which wu to crunch next.


Since they've just forked it back to the public branch, and fixing any remaining bugs in public-branch before planned release in a fortnight, the release will maybe be v4.2x and not v4.6x...

> How stable is 4.66 and whats its difference with 4.66 and 4.62? Has either of
> these got the function to auto detect out of date WU's and not run them (i.e.
> not wasting cpu time)
>

Hi

Boinc 4.66 runs very stable, i didnt had a crash over 4 week with 4.53.
Auto detect isn´t implemented yet, but you can manually interupt or delete some units when they passed the deadline.

greetz Mike

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

The first release of 4.66 into the public branch of the CVS built and installed without drama here in Gentoo Linux - once I sorted out the missing dependency (acct_mgr.C). ;)

The file is there but it's not listed in Makefile.in or Makefile.am.

So far it appears to be running very well and the GUI manager looks great. :)

---

Be lucky

Neil

Ive been running 4.66 since yesterday and so far "touch wood" no problems....

---

<BR>AMD XP3200+
<img src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/seti2/stats.php?userID=2327&amp;trans=off"><img src="http://petrus.homeftp.org/bws/counter_big.php?id=7828479">
<a href="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paulandrew.odell/">MY SITE!</a>

> Since they've just forked it back to the public branch, and fixing any
> remaining bugs in public-branch before planned release in a fortnight, the
> release will maybe be v4.2x and not v4.6x...

You were right, Ingleside. Rom Walton just released BOINC with number 4.20.

---

SETI@home classic workunits: 1,985 CPU time: 24,567 hours



Professor Desty Nova
Researching Karma the Hard Way

Damn..

Just noticed that the measurement of dhrystones etc went down from

2000/6800 to about 2480/4600

Hope this release justifies the granted credit / system

//Vyper

---

_________________________________________________________________________
Addicted to SETI crunching!
Founder of GPU Users Group