PDA

View Full Version : New Thunderbird System Produces Lackluster SETI Performance-Advice Requested



paulcs
1st July 2000, 03:41
I just put together a new Thunderbird-based system today and just got the result for it's first completed WU: over eight hours.

Now, I've unfamiliar with Athlon platforms and haven't used an Abit motherboard since my old BH6/Celeron 300A days. I pretty much know my way around Asus and AOpen BIOS's, but these new Abit BIOS's are a bit of a mystery to me. I suspect I'm missing something.

Here are some specs:

Athlon Thunderbird 700 MHz (100 MHz CPU Bus)
Abit KA7-100
PC133 RAM (Timings: 2-Turbo, whatever that means, Memory Bus: 133 MHz [HCLK+PCICLK])
Soundblaster Live
IBM Deskstar 75GXP DTLA-307015 HD (on the standard IDE interface)
Linksys 10/1000 NIC
Windows 98se

I haven't really installed much in terms of software, so there isn't a whole lot running in the background.

I'm using NT Commandline 2.0.

I can complete a WU on a PIII 600 MHz Katmai-based system in about six and a half hours, and my overclocked Coppermine-based systems are almost always between five and five and a half hours.

I'm sure I screwed up somewhere. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

Sir Hitech
1st July 2000, 07:03
My Athlon Classic 700mhz on a MSI K7pro 100mhz cas2 mem does avg. 6hr 25min with nti386 or nti486 client. My Athlon Classic 1026mhz(9.5X108FSB) 144mhz/Turbo/CAS2 mem 1/3cache on a Abit KA7 doing 5hr15min-30min/WU.

Athlon T-Birds has 256k on-die L2 cache running at full speed. Classic version has 512k off-die cache running at 1/2,2/5,1/3 speed. Since Seti works better with larger cache(less swap), a Classic would be faster at the same speed cpu even it has slower cache. But I could be wrong.

Even I think a T-Bird is slower vs Classic in Seti, 8 hr/WU doesn't seem right.

Use RY bios which optimizes mem better and enable cache speed change.
increase FSB to the max(overclock http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif )(note: if you are at 112 you are running 148mhz mem with HostCLK+PCI. you are hitting the ceiling of your memory limitation. somebody explain the formula here)
disable video shadow/mask and bios shadow/mask
try Turbo/4way interleave/fast r/w turnaround/CAS2 with your mem setting
Download and Use the latest Via KX133 drivers. I will send you the files if you can't find them.

Go for it!

[This message has been edited by Sir Hitech (edited 01 July 2000).]

paulcs
1st July 2000, 09:54
Thanks.

I understand the formular. My CPU is now a 100 MHz. (I'm probably the only one. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif ) Clock + PCI Clock. I'll start overclocking as soon as I update the BIOS.

I haven't been able to access Abit's FTP sites. They're having some problems with their gateway. I do have that RAID capable BIOS Andy Drake (BXBoards) used.

I installed the latest VIA drivers right from the start (4in1 4.22, AGP 4.03).

I'm going to update the BIOS and enable 4 way interleave this morning. I learned about this feature at 4:00 AM this morning.

What's fast r/w turnaround? (Read/write, I'm sure; I'm looking for a technical explanation if possible.)

Sir Hitech, if you could email me the RY bin file, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

MegaManX4
1st July 2000, 12:25
Im sorry Paul, but I think i've bad news for you. With this motherboard you'll probably never get good Seti results. My brother has the same combo except for the ATA 100. He bought his K7A for Thunderbird compatibility, but he has a copper Thunderbird from Dresden. It never runs stable in any way, due to chipset limitation. Even if it runs stable long enough to get a result crunched, it has poor performance. The same Processor in my Board(K7M with AMD Irongate Chipset) which is compatible with Thunderbird, only need somewhat about 6 hours. Clocked at 700Mhz of course.
The problem lies, as all of you probably know, In the way the chipset comunicates with this shiny Thunderbird. The Thunderbird needs something like 210ns to send and respond signals to the Chipset. The KX133 is only capable to send/recieve signals with 250ns. The Irongate AMD Chipset only needs 200ns. This lies within the specs. I read the whole explanation somewhere at the heise.de labyrinth, but can't remember the site.
So I think, your lost with this very fine board. It is really sad that it doesn't work well with the thunderbird.

Mega

PS: Paul, can you please make a little test for me? Could you start seti CLI and then start a mp3 file? If it is choppy, than my guess is right. Please don't use Winamp but the Media Player. Thanks.


[This message has been edited by MegaManX4 (edited 01 July 2000).]

Sir Hitech
1st July 2000, 13:04
Unfortunly, I have to agree with Mega. You are throwing darts when you dealing with Slot A T-Birds and KX-133 boards. That's why instead opt for a T-Bird I went for a Classic 850 for the machine I am building for my friend. If you want T-Bird, SocketA is the way to go. It sucks that people who have a perfectly fine KX-133 board like Abit KA7 are screwed when comes to upgrading. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/frown.gif

Anyway, Paul:

Here's the bios for KA7

<A HREF="http://jabba.tlh.fdt.net/~ymc/KA7Bios/">http://jabba.tlh.fdt.net/~ymc/KA7Bios/</A>



[This message has been edited by Sir Hitech (edited 01 July 2000).]

paulcs
1st July 2000, 13:53
Thanks guys.

MegaMan, I have the Austin Thunderbird (sounds like a country & western band). I did what you asked. No choppiness, but it did get noisy when running the SETI client.

Hmmmm. Maybe there's a K7M in my future.

I'm using some very aggressive settings now, which gave my Sandra scores a nice shot in the arm. They are very high. 3DMark2000 scores remain a bit iffy, despite upgrading to Ver. 1.1. Overclocking might help a bit there.

I think I'll skip the KT133 chipset altogether and hold off on a Socket A Thunderbird until AMD releases their next chipset (which, apparently, is named after a beer!).

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

Assimilator1
1st July 2000, 13:53
MM X4

Your missing out a major point here ,to allow the T bird to run properly on the Abit KA7 board you need to adjust the pullup & pulldown strength in the bios.
This should sort it out (sorry dont know settings ,but its on there website)

------------------
I guess I won't recruit for my team here ;) TA

paulcs
1st July 2000, 14:08
Thanks for the link, Sir Hitech.

I've adjusted CPU Pull Up Strength to 2, CPU Drive Strength to 4, as per Dan's Data's suggestion.

I have corresponded with Abit about this issue. Here's what they said:

"For T-bird to boot up with KA7-100, you'd better set "CPU Pull Up Strength" to 0 & "CPU Drive Strength" to 1."

I've tried these settings with an older BIOS and less aggressive memory settings, and saw no difference when compared to Dan's suggestion. I'll experiment a bit later with Abit's settings again and see if it makes a difference with SETI.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[This message has been edited by paulcs (edited 01 July 2000).]

MegaManX4
4th July 2000, 10:18
Hey Paul,

Which FSB are you running?

Mega

Assimilator1
4th July 2000, 11:32
Paulcs

Other than the SETI time problems ,how is the T bird running on your KA7 ? .Is it satble?

------------------
I guess I won't recruit for my team here ;) TA

paulcs
4th July 2000, 13:10
I'm running at spec with the memory bus at 133 MHz.

Assimilator, it's been solid as a rock with one exception. After multiple runs of Winstone 99, the benchmarking program began crashing. I'm not sure if you have experience with Winstone 99, but the results weren't pretty. I suspect it's a software issue, however. No problems with Content Creation Winstone 2000 so far.

I've intentionally tried to stress the system since then, and I haven't had any problems, and again, I'm using some very aggressive settings.

Realworld performance is a big concern, however. It's funny, because the machine seems to boot faster than any computer I've used in a long time. Synthetic benchmark results (Sandra) are very good as well.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

MegaManX4
4th July 2000, 23:25
After some real testing my brother found his Thunderbird slower than an Athlon Classic in Seti, both at 700Mhz. The classic needs somewhat of 6hrs 40min, the Thunderbird needs 7hrs 40 min. It's a difference of a hour in the wrong direction! It seems that we see the same performance difference like Katmai to Coppermine. We need big on die caches!

Mega

Assimilator1
5th July 2000, 11:22
MMX4

That's in SETI ,what about general useage?

We pretty muched guessed that the T bird would slower than the Athlon in SETI ,at least at lower clock speeds ,you bro's PC seems to confirm that.
Like you said same prob as Katami vs Coppermine ,down to the cache size.

Paulcs

A good program I find for testing for stabilty is Unreal (I guess UT would be as good) ,leave it looping bot deathmatches ,with maximium number of bots for at least 3hrs.If it's not 100% stable (or as near as is realistic) it will kick you out of the game to the desktop usually ,or just freeze up if its a heat problem

------------------
I guess I won't recruit for my team here ;) TA

Swing
6th July 2000, 06:54
For those of you who have talked about stressing your computer to check for stability, looping 3DMark2000 does a good job. It will crash if the system is not stable.

MegaManX4
6th July 2000, 07:02
Assim,

Everything except SETI is faster with the Thunderbird. It's only a litte sad that it is so.

Mega

PS: Stability is probably best checked with prime95.

paulcs
6th July 2000, 08:25
I believe Mega is correct. I'm testing the T-bird system against an identically clocked and similarly configured PIII/P3V4X system, and the T-bird system is faster at everything I've thrown at it so far, except SETI: Quake3, Content Creation and Business Winstone 99, SiSoft Sandra's synthetic CPU and Memory Benchmarks.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

Assimilator1
6th July 2000, 11:20
The good thing about 3D 2000 & Unreal is that it stresses your graphics card too ,which Prime 95 (I believe) & SETI don't.
The extra heat output & the use of the 3D side of the graphics card can make a big difference

------------------
I guess I won't recruit for my team here ;) TA

Swing
14th July 2000, 12:36
The Tbird is getting killed because the RAM is operating at 100MHz. Wait until DDR (200 and 266) come out. The Thunderbird should kill a PIII using a FSB of 133MHz at that time.

Assimilator1
15th July 2000, 09:45
Swing

Unless you're plugging a T bird into an old AMD chipset board it will be using a memory bus of 133MHz & not 100 MHz(unless it has been set to 100MHz for PC100 RAM).
But yes the DDR boards should be awesome http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif ,can you imagine the SETI WU times?? :Q http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

cjolley
17th July 2000, 09:56
Assimilator1 is correct.
UT is my stability test of choice.
My rig will run @ an 8mz higher fsb on almost anything but UT.
UT errors on start up.
It's typical of game programmers to stress the system more than regular app programmers.
chuck


------------------
ABit BF6, P3-650@923, 256mb@142cas3, 10gb IBM@7200, SB Live Value@3.0, Pioneer 104s DVD, Mitsumi CDRW@2x2x8, Acatel 1000 ADSL@1.5mb/sec, Linksys EtherFast NIC, LG 995e, USB mouse,Matrox G400 MAX!!!! :D

Muad'Dib
18th July 2000, 13:12
As long as we're comparing seti times on Ahtlons (or at least we were), mind if I mention something? If you guys are all running seti and getting wu times of @ 6 hours, why is my athlon 700 @880 (2/5 cache) doing 9+ hours?

It's really irritating. I installed Seti originally on my old system but when I built this one, I didn't bother to reinstall it. I just moved it to the hd I'm using as a slave now. Do you think that is the problem? I am using the Home Client v.2.00.

sys specs so you can make fun of me:
Athlon 700 @ 880 (8.5x103) at 1.7 vccore
MSI K7 PRO
128 megs crap ram
I don't think you need to know more, do you?

Dimitri

Swing
18th July 2000, 13:40
Muad'Dib,

Have you tried version 2.40?

Your problem may be your "128 megs crap ram". But 6 hours is good for slow RAM, if slow is what you mean by crap RAM.

[This message has been edited by Swing (edited 18 July 2000).]

Muad'Dib
18th July 2000, 14:47
What I meant by "crap ram" is generic pc100 which will run at least 110 fsb at cas2.

Oh, and as I said, I'm running WU's at 9+ hours....

[This message has been edited by Muad'Dib (edited 18 July 2000).]

Swing
18th July 2000, 17:49
Muad'Dib,

Thanks for pointing out my error, it takes you 9+ hours to run a WU.

RAM speed is very important. I mentioned in one of my earlier topics that I am using a PIII at 800MHz (FSB is 133MHz). I dropped the CPU speed back to 690MHz and increased the rest of the FSB to 153MHz. Time to crunch WUs was about the same, so RAM speed is vital.

When DDR and motherboards that support it come out, Athlons should do much better. On average, it now takes me less than 5 1/2 hours to complete a WU.

Fast subsystems are very important, more is needed than a fast CPU to get good WU times, unfortunately.

Muad'Dib
18th July 2000, 21:19
DOH! Ok, I decided maybe it would be a good idea if I upgraded to 2.04. NOPE! Now it's taken 1 1/2 hours to do 11%! This is worse than before! Grrrrrrr

Dimitri

MegaManX4
18th July 2000, 23:02
Muadib,

I hope you're using the CLI Version,do you? Are you running any other software or screensavers?

With nearly the same setup as you(650@840 using 7,5x112) i get exact 6 hours.


Mega

Swing
19th July 2000, 06:21
Muad'Dib,

MegaManX4 has a good point. When I asked if you were using version 2.40, that is the client version. With it you cannot keep track of what percentage is finished, but I have found it much faster than the screen saver version.

And, to gain more speed, turn off everything running in the back ground that you do not need (by using the Control, Alt, Del keys).

Assimilator1
19th July 2000, 11:35
Swing

If you add the -verbose to the command line ,v2.4 WILL show you the %

Muad'Dib

My fathers Athlon 700 PC I just built does a WU in about 6.5hrs (v2.4 CLi).

Here's the specs
Athlon 700 (1/2 speed 512K cache)
Abit KA7 KX133 board
Cheapo PC133 RAM which will run at CAS2 ,fast timings in bios ,133MHz

It looks like your problems could be ,the 2/5 cache divider (cache speed holding back the cpu).Your RAM is only at 103 MHz.
What chipset is your m/brd? Can it set the memory bus seperatley? Will your RAM run at 133MHz?

BTW v2.04 a GUI version needs the 'blank screen' to be set to less than 5mins for it to produce good WU times.Then it is only SLIGHTLY slower than the CLi v2.4



------------------
I guess I won't recruit for my team here ;) TA

MegaManX4
19th July 2000, 13:54
I tested one WU with different FSB settings and come to the conclusion that every Mhz on the FSB lowers my SETI time about 4 minutes. This is on an Irongate chipset so results may differ if using PIII chipsets.

Sorry for my bad english, I'm drunk

Mega

Muad'Dib
20th July 2000, 00:34
Where/how do I get the CLI version?

I too thought it might be the cache, but then I thought that maybe there was enough speed difference to make up for it? I was getting similar results when I was running at 1/2 cache speed at 700.

Oh well, I suppose it's not that important anyway....

Dimitri

Swing
20th July 2000, 05:20
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/unix.html

Go down to

i386-winnt-cmdline.exe:

I believe most people are using that one, it will work on Windows 98 and NT.

I do not know if an Athlon will do better with:

i486-nonintel-winnt-cmdline.exe:

I do not use an Athlon, so may be someone who does will give you a better answer.

As far as using the -verbose command, I had forgotten about that. I never use it because it constantly provides visual updates. I felt that this could be extra overhead, so I stopped using it.

My time to finish a WU seems to be ok with the system I have, so I will not add any switches or commands. If it ain't broke, I'm not going to fix it.

P.S. => I roughly calculate when each WU will be fininshed each day by simply adding 5 1/2 hours to the first WU of the day, or last one done the day before. I can roughly calculate when each WU will be finished for a day and a half in advance.

It now takes less than 5 1/2 hours to finish a WU, but that number is easier than to use 5 1/4 hours as an average.

Swing


[This message has been edited by Swing (edited 20 July 2000).]

GnrlData
20th July 2000, 07:01
For everybody ou there adjusting their clock multiplier, which gold finger device are you using?

I'm in the market, so I thought I'd find out which is the best.

GnrlData

Sir Hitech
20th July 2000, 08:00
GnrlData:

If you are talking about the clock multiplier for SlotA Athlons or T-Birds then you could try liberator 2 from <a href="http://www.buyoverclocked.com">www.buyoverclocked.com</a>. Its the cheapest I could find at $25US. Its powered by the cpu so no cords to mess with and it worked pretty well for me. I have also tried Maxmizer from <a href="http://members.home.net/roadrebel/max/">RoadRebel</a>(compact, set it and forget it) and AfterBurner from <a href="http://www.outsideloop.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=olcomp&Product_Code=AFTERBURNER&Category_Code=OC-CARD">OutsideLoop</a>(easiest to use but costly). One of the MURCers, Greebe, also sells Athlon OC device, too. Give him a shout at the "General HardWare" Forum and see what he can offer you and also for some expert advice.

Make sure you have an AMD approved 300watt powersupply or you will run into lotz headaches. Been there and Done that!

Good Luck!

BTW, nice surge with your SETI wu's. You are #2 now in weekly wu's!

GnrlData
20th July 2000, 12:09
Sir HiTech:

Where do you find out the info on weekly WUs? Is there a stats page somwhere?

GnrlData

Sir Hitech
20th July 2000, 13:20
GnrlData:

Go to <a href="http://seti.matroxusers.com/">http://seti.matroxusers.com/</a> and do 7days and Total Delta WU's.

I guess those Xeon's are all running at full speed 7/24 now? I will have a dual xeon machine running SETI next month and I am trying to talk my friend(whos the Network Admin at local university) into letting me run seti on the 30+ PIII machines in the computer lab... Well, maybe wishfull thinking.. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

Swing
20th July 2000, 18:48
Sir Hitech,

You could ask your network admin to let you use one computer so that he will see that there are no slowdowns, interruptions or problems.

Then he may let you use more computers.

Sir Hitech
21st July 2000, 02:51
Swing:

I know he knows that Seti is not going to be a burden for his systems. He was running some number crunching clients on those machines sometime ago.

The key to getting my seti clients on those machines: BRIBE! http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif I have a modefied PlayStation with over forty cd's he might be interested... wish me luck!

Swing
21st July 2000, 16:25
You've go it! Good luck. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

paulcs
22nd July 2000, 11:13
Both Assimilator and Chuck mentioned that looping Unreal or UT would be a good way to stress a system. I can do this with Quake 2 and 3, but I don't know how to do this with UT. I asked on the gaming forum, and people don't know what I'm talking about.

Detailed instructions would be appreciated. Console commands, if I need any additional files to be downloaded, how I go about adding bots, etc.

I've played UT in single player mode a few times, and use it for benchmarking, but I'm not as familiar with it as I am with Quake. Any help would be appreciated, particularly from the guys who use it as a stress test.

Thanks.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

MegaManX4
22nd July 2000, 14:06
Paul,

UT is always a stress test. Even the slightest instability results in a complete failure. For "stress testing" you normally only need to run the intro, it restarts if it comes to the end, you propably know that. Some us the "UTBench" for stability testing but i found it to be not much more stressing than the intro. If the intro crashes- UTBench crashes, if intro runs then UTBench runs.
If you want to see your FPS during the intro just hit TAB and write "timedemo 1".

Mega

paulcs
22nd July 2000, 16:50
I have no problems running the intro. What I was hoping to do was stress the system to heat things up over a long period of time, while monitoring temperature.

Thanks.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

Assimilator1
22nd July 2000, 20:13
Paulcs

For UT all you need to do is to setup a Botmatch with the maximium number of bots.

Startup a practice session,tick autolevel switching ,go to bots a select 16 bots (I think thats the max number).You have to change yourself to a spectator or it won't start at the next level.
Then just start it & let it run for at least 3hrs ,if it's still running it OK after that then there's a very good chance that your system is fine http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
I guess I won't recruit for my team here ;) TA

paulcs
22nd July 2000, 22:26
Thank you!

(By the way. The bot I'm following sucks. She's constantly getting killed. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif )

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

MegaManX4
23rd July 2000, 00:37
But as i said,

if the inro runs you'll be able to run the botmatch for years!

Mega

paulcs
23rd July 2000, 02:47
Hi Megaman. I'm not testing for stability. I just want something entertaining to run as I monitor temperatures while the system is stressed. I should have been clearer.

I'm testing the cooling potential of a dual fan 450 Watt power supply for a review. I'm not running it on my Athlon system (because I think I fried my TBird http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/frown.gif ). It's on a PIII/VIA system that I've accidently run the intro on for hours (I started UT up, walked away because it takes so long to load, and forgot I had it running), and it's been rock solid.

Knock on wood.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

Assimilator1
23rd July 2000, 14:02
MMX4

I don't know about UT ,but as far as Unreal goes running the intro castle flby is OK for a quick 1/2 hr test.I used to use it to do full testing myself(3hrs)to see if it was stable ,then shortly afterwards when I was playing in a very hectic & long LAN Unreal frag fest I would find that after about 1-2hrs it would boot me out of the game.
So the next day I tried something different ,botmatch ,Max bots to simulate the LAN session ,sure enough after 1 hr it booted me out of the game ,so I then increased the cpu voltage & did the same botmatch test & it was then OK.
My point is ,the intro alone is not enough to properly stress your system to test for stabilty http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

cjolley
23rd July 2000, 15:25
I don't loop it.
If it starts and plays, even for a short time, EVERY other program will be rock stable.

For temp testing try Napster. I kid you not.

chuck

MegaManX4
24th July 2000, 00:32
To really burn the CPU, just start the MS-DOS Editor in Real Dos Mode. I'm not kidding, your CPU will really burn!

Mega

Assimilator1
24th July 2000, 17:14
Cjolley

Napster ?! ,no way ,even when it's downloading a tune it only takes 1% of cpu time on my Cel @ 550MHz ,that'll never heat up your cpu!

>>>If it starts and plays, even for a short time, EVERY other program will be rock stable<<<
Sorry mate but that's just plain wrong!, just because it starts UT DOESN'T mean your system is stable ,you need to run it for at least 3hrs ,I have come across many occasions where it will run for 5-10 mins ,but latter on crashes

cjolley
24th July 2000, 21:26
Assimilator1,
Maybe it has to do with my connection speed -> 1.2mbps?
If I download, say, 4 mp3s off of t1 sites while I'm playing an mp3, my CPU gets hotter than anything (admitedly for me it's a short list) else.
(This was on my celery-333@500, I haven't tried it on my P3-650@942)
Point taken on UT. By "short time" I meant 15 min or so.
After 3 hours, how could you tell if it's a system problem or a minor game bug?
chuck

MegaManX4
25th July 2000, 01:27
Cjolley has a good point there. Sometimes UT crashes on an un-overclocked system after some hours. Mostly on VIA Sytems.

Mega

ScooterX
25th July 2000, 07:39
Cjolley, what voltage are you running your 650 at? I just upgraded on the weekend from a Cel 300a@450 G200 to a PIII 650@900 G400. I can finally do a WU at a decent speed.

cjolley
25th July 2000, 07:50
Still 1.65.
Volts don't seem to make mine any more stable.
I put a non-stock hs/fan on it this weekend -> same thing.
It's now cooler, but same OC result.
It just gets slowly less stable from 142 to 152 fsb.
Gosh darn crappy processor! http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif
chuck

Assimilator1
25th July 2000, 11:57
Cjolley

>>>Maybe it has to do with my connection speed -> 1.2mbps?<<<<

Ah! ,that could make the difference http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif
Try this task manager program to see what cpu utilisation Napster uses. http://atm.idic.caos.it/

>>>>After 3 hours, how could you tell if it's a system problem or a minor game bug?
chuck<<<<<
Hmmm ,good question! http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif,only by repeating the test at default clock speeds could you rule that out http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

cjolley
26th July 2000, 17:50
Assimilator1,
I tried Napster 4 T1s and playing another...
Well, I must have been running seti an the background. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif
Now It looks like Napster actualy COOLS my processor.
HHMMMM.......
cjolley
(scratching head)

Maybe it was some kind or celeron thing?
Or Maybe not. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/frown.gif


[This message has been edited by cjolley (edited 28 July 2000).]