151–160 of 356 posts
For a while we were in the top 10, until much bigger companies got in on it.
Kinda sad to see it shut down, but to be fair, I haven't run it in years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment made me nod my head in agreement, laugh and also experience a wave of nostalgia. All at once.
I once overclocked one with a pencil. Just connected the solder points between some leads on the CPU package.
Tangent: I love that I can pull up forum threads from two decades ago.
In case anyone reads the headline and thinks that the SETI research center itself is shutting down, or that the project failed in some way: > "It's a lot of work for us to manage the distributed processing of data. We need to focus on completing the back-end analysis of the results we already have, and writing this up in a scientific journal paper," their news announcement stated. Maybe it's PR speak, but it does mak…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect in the very early days of cooperative computing, one could genuinely argue that there were "idle cycles" that were going to waste if a computer was powered on and not computing something. But this became more and more inaccurate throughout the 1990s as new power management technologies became a part of computer designs, and is completely wrong now. Phenomena like Bitcoin mining and feeling your laptop get w…
I would think of compute resources "going to waste" in three separate groups: - The baseline electricity the computer is using. This will get used and produce no S@H work either way (in an era where our computers didn't go to sleep) - The added electricity to do S@H work. This certainly was not idle, but also was a relatively small amount relative to an entire household's use. - The hardware itself. I would say that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I first got my i7 6-core with quad GTX-690s (2 GPUs per card), I naively let Seti@Home run rampant when the computer was idle. Room they were in got up to around 90F when I let it run 100%. Sad to see they're shutting down.
I suspect in the very early days of cooperative computing, one could genuinely argue that there were "idle cycles" that were going to waste if a computer was powered on and not computing something. But this became more and more inaccurate throughout the 1990s as new power management technologies became a part of computer designs, and is completely wrong now. Phenomena like Bitcoin mining and feeling your laptop get w…
So running distributed.net or Seti@Home was using unused processing capacity for a marginal increase in power draw. If you ran them overnight with your monitor (CRT typically) your computer was drawing less power than if you were sitting up all night on IRC or playing Quake. This changed once frequency scaling was commonplace on desktops.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hahah, I can relate so much with the 'poorerer' part, I'll raise you another one: my first '686' was a Cyrix 6x86 because those were the cheapest you could get. Eventually got my hands on a Pentium II and had to scavenge parts to replace my setup. Good times. Nowadays I just buy a laptop with everything soldered on it and complain a lot if I have to reboot it every month.
In the late 90s I had a 486sx33 with one of those Cyrix 586 upgrade chips for the math co-processor slot. It was so hot it had a fan on it! Crazy! I also maxed out the RAM to 32mb and upgrade the SRAM in my Trident video card so I could do 256 color in Windows 95. I also had a 40mb Erwin Tape Drive for backing up my 100mb HDD. It wasn't fast but it was faster than reinstalling Tie Fighter from Floppies.
Anectdata: I set up an old computer with this in 2009, but a few months later I heard about this thing called cryptocurrency mining... EDIT: The article notes that they are reaching a point of diminishing returns with the distributed nature of the SETI@HOME tasks, but I can't help wondering if things like crypto had an impact on participation with this and other @HOME-style academic projects[0]. [0]: https://boinc.be…
I'm not an expert in either this or cryptocurrency, but it always seemed like these two would be a good marriage of technologies rather than having crypto mining rigs waste resources on unproductive proof of work algorithms. Does anyone know why that wasn't feasible or didn't catch on?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Celeron 300A, the relative poorer man's Pentium
Weren't they also supported by the Abit BP6 motherboard, letting you use two of them as poorer man's Xeons?
I don't have much to add other than that this is one of my first memories of computers being useful for the world outside my own.