It's too bad there isn't a DOS-based S@H client. That would really eliminate the overhead caused by Windows and other running programs, make things run a good 10-20% faster I'd estimate.

It could be possible, if any old programmers out there remember how to program for the 32bit DOS extender called DOS4GW or the 32bit DPMI/DPMS offered by most 3rd party DOS memory managers (QEMM offered it as part of QDPMI.SYS and Netroom had DPMI.EXE).

But the chances of that are slim to none, I'm sure.

---

Well, it's officially listed "over-no reply", and dead as a doornail at 591:51:58 Cpu time, 82.618 % done, and 103:25:10 to completion. I plan, to finish it, however. Should only take 4.66 more days.

The version I refer to is from an older version of the chicken app with build options set to run on things without MMX. I don't think it would work on anything 486/586, though. Just 686 and up.

As long as the Chicken himself doesn't mind I'd be happy to share the file if you decide to look at it.

Happy crunching.

---

I was able to run 2 units at the same time b-4 and now it will download 2 but only run one.... is there something I can do??

Good god, Quarterdeck Qemm386 expanded memory manager! I remember that in the 80's. With a bit of tweaking in dos 6.22 using emm386.exe and Memmaker you could get about 600k memory free. But using Qemm you could get up to 630K free.

Ah the days of UMB's.........

"Who in their right mind would ever need more than 640k of ram!?" -- Bill Gates, 1981

Yes, the good old days...

But the quote is an Urban Legend. Gates never said it. Google on it for more info. The fact is, that no one has claimed to have witnessed it.

'course people also claim he did say it, but now he won't own up to it.

There might be a chance with an old Linux distro...!

Happy (slow) crunchin',
Martin

Martin, any recommendations as to which I should try? I have two gigs available on drive D and 1 gig on E

GBytes? Multi-GBytes?... How's about just a few MBytes?...

Take a look at:

Peanut Linux, Damned Small Linux ("DSL"), Puppy Linux, or even a minimal install of Gentoo.

Also try DistroWatch search and select whatever search criteria you wish.

For example, searching for "old computers" and "no desktop":

The following distributions match your criteria:

1. Core GNU/Linux
Core is designed and constructed around one simple philosophy: to be the absolute minimum of what is required for a Linux operating system. Core is designed to be the basis for a larger, more complete operating system constructed by the end user. It contains only what is necessary to boot into Linux and download, compile and install other software packages.

2. Neat-GNU/Linux
Neat-GNU/Linux is going to be like any other GNU/Linux distribution with a couple of differences, the most notable is the installation procedure, but also by keeping the number of packages at a minimum, hence the name; Neat. The installation is not done by copying precompiled packages but by actually compiling packages from source and then install them to the system. By making the list of software as small as possible we hope to create a system that is easy to maintain, that requires little space on the hard drive(s) but at the same time is fully functional. We will also try to include configuration scripts for some administrative tasks, like setting up the network, to make it easier to administrate. Update: As of December 2002, the Neat GNU/Linux distribution is no longer available. [Oooops! Shame but then again, you can likely do the same with Gentoo.]

3. P!tux Linux
P!tux Linux is an operating system of the Linux family, based on Slackware Linux distribution and on kernel 2.2.x. It can be installed both on an ext2 filesystem (on a dedicated partition) or on a DOS filesystem (as a loopback device). It can be installed from DOS, Linux, in umsdos mode or via FTP. Basic installation requires a 486 PC with 8 MB RAM and 105 MB minimum hard disk space. During the installation another 150 MB will be used.


Good luck,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Well, it's officially listed "over-no reply", and dead as a doornail at 591:51:58 Cpu time, 82.618 % done, and 103:25:10 to completion. I plan, to finish it, however. Should only take 4.66 more days.

Sorry to see it didn't make the deadline. You could try Beta, as the deadlines are a bit more flexible there (it would probably take about a year to do an Astropulse WU, if it had enough memory).

I beleive there are some BOINC projects that it might manage, perhaps others could suggest a suitable one.

Revising everything said in this thread i sifted through my stock pile of old ps/2 rams to check whether i can raise the 64 mb ram with sticks of larger capacity (manual says 256 mb max total) to be able to take advantage of the optimized client.

I revived an old pentium 166 mainboard which allowed me to test the stick one by one.

But i was out of luck: that board will only accept 16 mb stick or 64 mb sticks, the 32 mb sticks (the largest i found) he doesn't take.

Anyhow, i just occurred to me that in the early 90'ies a mainboard with 256 mb must have been a hell of board, seeing that like 2 years ago that was about the standard for mainstream computers.

---

There might be a chance with an old Linux distro...!

Happy (slow) crunchin',
Martin

Martin, any recommendations as to which I should try? I have two gigs available on drive D and 1 gig on E

GBytes? Multi-GBytes?... How's about just a few MBytes?...

Take a look at:

Peanut Linux, Damned Small Linux ("DSL"), Puppy Linux, or even a minimal install of Gentoo.

Also try DistroWatch search and select whatever search criteria you wish.

[...]

3. P!tux Linux
P!tux Linux is an operating system of the Linux family, based on Slackware Linux distribution and on kernel 2.2.x. It can be installed both on an ext2 filesystem (on a dedicated partition) or on a DOS filesystem (as a loopback device). It can be installed from DOS, Linux, in umsdos mode or via FTP. Basic installation requires a 486 PC with 8 MB RAM and 105 MB minimum hard disk space. During the installation another 150 MB will be used.[/i]

Two other links to look at are:

DeLi Linux stands for "Desktop Light" Linux (All on a test computer that is a 486 laptop with 16 MB RAM!)

Linux distros for older hardware


Let us know what you go with!

Good luck,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

I didn't even collect data for yesterday, or post any new charts. I did spend time trying to get this puter attached to my network. I was unsuccessful. I tried using the network setup disk, but it too didn't work. I can reach the internet however.

anyway, here's the update. This update occured 48 hours 45 minutes (wall clock) after my last one, but cpu time is 44 hours, 34 min, so, I've been playing with the network issue for many hours. drat

... anyway, here's the update...

Looks consistent.

Has it still got a chance to sneak in for credit?

Or is that the next part of this nail-biter?? :-)

Good luck,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Quorums been met, validation's done, credit's been issued. This work unit is dead. Nail bitin is over. It's just for data at this point.

Only a few days left.
I've been playing with network setup and other things requiring reboot, so wall clock time's been lost.

Only a few days left.
I've been playing with network setup and other things requiring reboot, so wall clock time's been lost.

673:56:24 cpu time 93.146%

Probably a bit of CPU time too, BOINC doesn't have the vxd needed to get true CPU time on Win9x. So the raw prediction of total run time has increased from 29.87 days to 30.15 days over the last 3 readings. Or maybe the effect is mainly the extra time used during startup plus having to go back to the last checkpoint on each restart. Whatever, it looks like about 5 days over deadline.

                                                             Joe

It's too bad there isn't a DOS-based S@H client. That would really eliminate the overhead caused by Windows and other running programs, make things run a good 10-20% faster I'd estimate.

It could be possible, if any old programmers out there remember how to program for the 32bit DOS extender called DOS4GW or the 32bit DPMI/DPMS offered by most 3rd party DOS memory managers (QEMM offered it as part of QDPMI.SYS and Netroom had DPMI.EXE).

But the chances of that are slim to none, I'm sure.

Good god, Quarterdeck Qemm386 expanded memory manager! I remember that in the 80's. With a bit of tweaking in dos 6.22 using emm386.exe and Memmaker you could get about 600k memory free. But using Qemm you could get up to 630K free.

Ah the days of UMB's.........

"Who in their right mind would ever need more than 640k of ram!?" -- Bill Gates, 1981

I remember getting exactly 634K using QEMM on my 486 DX4-100. The most I got out of MS Memmaker was 615K, that wasn't enough to efficiently run 7Th Guest; so, a Mechanical Engineering Major and a Computer Science Major in my Dorm helped me tweak the thing with QEMM. We went through three or four configurations and struck gold with the 634K on QEMM and then let her be. 7Th Guest ROCKED!!! So did QEMM. I still have that system, too. (Sitting in a box in the garage; but last time I had her out she still ran, that was 1998... She might still run.)

---

TimeLord04
Have TARDIS, will travel...
Come along K-9!
Join Calm Chaos

It's too bad there isn't a DOS-based S@H client. That would really eliminate the overhead caused by Windows and other running programs, make things run a good 10-20% faster I'd estimate.

It could be possible, if any old programmers out there remember how to program for the 32bit DOS extender called DOS4GW or the 32bit DPMI/DPMS offered by most 3rd party DOS memory managers (QEMM offered it as part of QDPMI.SYS and Netroom had DPMI.EXE).

But the chances of that are slim to none, I'm sure.

Good god, Quarterdeck Qemm386 expanded memory manager! I remember that in the 80's. With a bit of tweaking in dos 6.22 using emm386.exe and Memmaker you could get about 600k memory free. But using Qemm you could get up to 630K free.

Ah the days of UMB's.........

"Who in their right mind would ever need more than 640k of ram!?" -- Bill Gates, 1981

I remember getting exactly 634K using QEMM on my 486 DX4-100. The most I got out of MS Memmaker was 615K, that wasn't enough to efficiently run 7Th Guest; so, a Mechanical Engineering Major and a Computer Science Major in my Dorm helped me tweak the thing with QEMM. We went through three or four configurations and struck gold with the 634K on QEMM and then let her be. 7Th Guest ROCKED!!! So did QEMM. I still have that system, too. (Sitting in a box in the garage; but last time I had here out she still ran, that was 1998... She might still run.)

Yeah QEMM Ruled! While MS Memmaker just drooled.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

706:20:06 cpu time, 96.636 %, 23:46:07 to completion.

I ran Process Explorer with boinc manager open and found:
(boinc5.8.16)
procexp 20%
boincmgr 21-30% fluctuating
boinc.exe 1.18-2.24% fluctuating

I shut down the manager and see

boincmgr 11-23% fluctuating

As a comparison I looked at my Celeron 500 256Mram (both machines win98se) and see:
(boinc 5.9.12)
procexp 3-5% fluctuating
boincmgr 3-5% running, (2.42-3.08 not running)
boinc .38-.48%

interesting. Shutting the manger down doesn't save much.

Maybe I'll try older boinc versions (NO, not pre 5.2.7, silly). And maybe changing the "priority" setting. I forgot about that trick. I wonder if a "service" install Vs. the current "Single" install might help?

IIRC, you can't install as a service on 9x. Although you can run it from the command line to save the Manager overhead (which is what I do with remote GUI control).

Generally I've found that changing the priority of the CC doesn't buy any more crunch time on slugs, and can actually waste time by causing more lost heartbeat exits of the science app.

Alinator

I tried the service install on the celeron 500, and you couldn't (the msi wouldn't allow) install service or shared.