 |
| Pascal 2002-08-11 11:19:19 | ...still appear in results.* I think, Stephen has already seen this, because the new results.txt on the image also shows these yields. I got twice this yield within all in all six results. ___________________________ 1: Athlon TB-C, 1.2 GC/s, 256 MB DDR-RAM, Erazor x², ADSL-Flatrate, NIC Intel, Win 98 SE Mainboard MSI-6380 Rev. 1 2: Pentium III, 600 MC/s, 256 MB RAM, NIC Intel, Win 98 SE [This message was edited by Stephen Brooks on 2002-Aug-13 at 22:04.] |
| [ARS]odessit 2002-08-11 11:28:26 | hmm.. have not got 00000000 yet with this version. all have normal yields |
| Stephen Brooks 2002-08-11 13:37:25 | Remember that even if the program does read results.dat successfully, 25% of the results will still be generated on a random basis. What you have found falls within the bounds of probability and you should probably wait for more conclusive evidence before worrying everyone that this version is incorrect. (It may still later prove to be incorrect but I need something more concrete to prove this). "As every 11-year-old kid knows, if you concentrate enough Van-der-Graff generators and expensive special effects in one place, you create a spiral space-time whirly thing, AND an interesting plotline" |
| gogomaus 2002-08-12 02:36:04 | I switched to v42.1b last night, using my v4.2 result.dat (>500 K as gen-pool.This morning I watched 10 results, 6 of them poor (but not 0.000000%), 2 medium and 2 good ones > 0.8 %. A quick glance at parameter values confirmed that "gens" of my result.dat had been used. *** So compatibility has been proven succesfully. Great ! *** After collecting more runs I will try to analyze, if variability increases. At the moment I have two dominant (types of) parents. Unfortunately this will take a lot of time, as my rusty PC needs more than 2 hours for good runs (>0.8%).  |
| Stork 2002-08-12 04:37:37 | 4.2 , 4.21, 4.21a, 4.21b ????? Does b mean beta ??? I Note the results have varied quite a bit with each of these recent upgrades. I've currently left it at 4.2 ( I think ) 'til the dust settles a bit - then can someone let us know what version is the one ?? |
| [ARS]odessit 2002-08-12 07:11:48 | no, 'b' just denotes a minor revision in code since last version Intel P3-M 866 MHz Duron 1000 MHz XP 1400@1670 MHz |
| Stephen Brooks 2002-08-12 07:50:27 | [aside to Odessit] Yeesh... how'd you get a 1400+ (which is more like 1266MHz) all the way up to 1670MHz?  That is very  ."As every 11-year-old kid knows, if you concentrate enough Van-der-Graff generators and expensive special effects in one place, you create a spiral space-time whirly thing, AND an interesting plotline" |
| [ARS]odessit 2002-08-12 08:10:45 | no  This is XP 1600+ at XP2000+ 1400MHz@1670 MHz I'll change my sig Intel P3-M 866 MHz Duron 1000 MHz XP 1400@1670 MHz |
| [ARS]odessit 2002-08-12 08:13:33 | ok, less and less   Intel P3-M 866 MHz Duron 1000 MHz XP 1600+ @ 2000+ |
