Hello All,

I am having an issue installing on a machine of mine as well.

The error is "1714 - The older version of BOINC cannot be removed"...

Now, I have never actually "installed" BOINC on this machine, I had to move exe's/dll files to it.

Now, I have gone thru via regedit and searched on BOINC and have removed each entry associated and rebooted - no change.

Any ideas?

Win XP Pro is the O/S

BOINC 5.8.5 TasksGrid sheet has facility for reordering (ascending or descending) on any column. Just click on any heading. Brilliant - I prefer to keep "To complete" or "Report deadline" both on ascending sorted order.
However it is a little disconcerting at first that, on initially opening BOINC 5.8.5 with SETI attached, many of the options ("SETI@home", etc. on left hand side) under ProjectsGrid and TasksGrid do not 'materialise' until an item is selected from the displayed list of Projects or Tasks.

Keith

Just as anti statement.

Its suprising how much idle computing power is NOT being used.
My friend is a IT Supervisor at a large legal firm.
I gave a 20 minute dissertation of applying BOINC to their various pc systems.
I made it clear this was to my benefit and credit would be sent my account.
They were very interested and many had heard of the program and several were also BOINC'rs.

But in the end I was turned down due mostly to bandwidth consumption and a few security issues.

So unfortunatly......330 plus systems locally will continue to do nothing.
Just think if I could have somehow attached into the company total of over 1000 systems the company has nationally and globally, excluding the servers and laptops.

Most of the systems are Dells...usually at 1.8ghz or better, with many higher performance machines.

You'll never get credit for the first one, the validator marked it as "invalid" meaning it wasn't near the right answer. My best guesses are in this order:

overclocked to much
to much heat
some other program (defragmentor for example) might have hosed the data.
hard drive failure/system crash

I didn't look at the second one

tony

sssh ! .... nothing has been officially announced yet

Just out of couriosity, do you have any specs of the new VIA C7-M. Google is not very verbose about that. It was announced as a Pentium-M killer, but regarding the floating point speed of it's predecessors I can hardly believe that. Is a C7-M 2GHz comparable to a Athlon XP 2000+ in terms of speed? Would be a quantum leap vor VIA.

I know, the C7 is not yet released but maybe there are some kind of "insider information" :-))

I was just joking, I have absolutely no information about the C7 other than hearing the claim you just mentioned.
Sun have no deals or technology sharing with VIA.

I dont claim to be an expert on Sun servers. But everything that I have seen show sparc cpu's just not holding any water to intels Zeon's or amd's for that matter. Why have 4 deleter's running on one server with the 4 validaters? Would it not be better to have 2 validaters running on a duel intel and pass info from one box to another? Most of the bench marks I have seen show the 400's in sun's e3500 = about zeons 800mhz in fp and int. But really the question is why have 8 things running on a duel cpu server?

Those delays seems to be more I/O related, so faster cpus won't help to speed up the process.

Apart from this, I agree that those old SPARC cpus are not very fast if you compare only one thread running on SPARC against one thread on Intel or AMD.
Nevertheless, you should be aware

a) Those CPUS are probably 5 years old or even more, so it would be more accurate it you compare it against new UltraSPARC IV+ cores.

b) MIPS and MFLOPS are only one kind of measure for cpu's, but they don't take into account cache latency, effectiveness of the processor to swap registers in only a few cpu cycles, branch prediction hit rates, ... etc.

c) Nowadays x86 architecture is restricted by some scalability issues, while SPARC scales almost linearly on Solaris up to more than one hundred cpus.
For example on x86 or x64 cpus you will notice that 32 generic processes running at the same time on one cpu will perform worst in terms of work, that only one process running in one cpu at full speed. On SPARC you will find out that each process will do about 1/32 of the work and the total work done will be the same as done by only one process running without competition.
On Intel you will find out that such a huge amount of processes (only 32!) will probably make your computer act as hung and once the processes are finished, the total work done by all of them will not be more than 2/3 of the work done by only one process running on one cpu.