Moderators: Site Moderators, FAHC Science Team
Adam A. Wanderer wrote:I would strongly urge anyone still running the old v6.x to purge it from your system and install the new v7.1.38. With this version a new age of "Launch and Forget" has arrived for F@H. However, I do wonder if v7.x will interface/mate with Windows 8 when it arrives; I plan to make the upgrade as soon as possible. Has anyone at Stanford F@H downloaded a developer's copy of Windows 8 and tried the new v7.x for potential problems?
Adam A. Wanderer wrote:The log I set for maximum verbosity in case I ran across any errors.
I would strongly urge anyone still running the old v6.x to purge it from your system and install the new v7.1.38. With this version a new age of "Launch and Forget" has arrived for F@H.
Question: Windows 8 might present an excellent chance to vastly expand the F@H program if it included F@H with an "On/Off" setting/option, especially if it could run with total invisibility, even on the "Task Manager". I don't know what we'd offer the end user for choosing to run F@H except a nice desktop background or screen saver. It might be the best thing since Play Station. Does anyone know anyone at MicroSoft we could "sweet talk" into making the addition? I know it'd cost several thousand dollars a line of code to make the addition, so MicroSoft would have to be convinced it was worth the trouble.
P.S. Is F@H any closer to a Nobel Prize yet?
Jesse_V wrote:there's a outstanding bug to make the FAHViewer work
jcoffland wrote:Jesse_V wrote:there's a outstanding bug to make the FAHViewer work
Which bug is that? The viewer works fine as far as I know. Some systems with buggy graphics drivers have problems and not all cores actually provide visualization data, but we fake it. We are working on both of these issues, see ticket #409. I've added blacking listing capability to the viewer so we can blacklist any buggy hardware that is known to BSOD but that is rare.
RadonPL wrote:When installing the latest version in Ubuntu 11.10, I get this error:
"The package is of bad quality
The installation of a package which violates the quality standards isn't allowed. This could cause serious problems on your computer. Please contact the person or organisation who provided this package file and include the details beneath.
Details:
The package doesn't provide a valid Installed-Size control field. See Debian Policy 5.6.20."
Napoleon wrote:Added some new upload results to my previous post. I actually reached about 75% of nominal full speed of my connection (150 / 200 * 100%) for a 3.3MB upload. IMHO, v7 upload speed issue is resolved.
5 18 ms 19 ms 18 ms xe-4-2-0-0.psl-peer2.hel.fi.ip.tdc.net [62.237.169.20]
6 127 ms 126 ms 126 ms ae-0.nyk2nqp2.us.ip.tdc.net [83.88.21.55]
7 219 ms 219 ms 219 ms calren-cenic.paix.net [198.32.176.33]
8 223 ms 221 ms 221 ms dc-oak-core1--paix-px1-ge.cenic.net [137.164.47.19]
9 220 ms 220 ms 219 ms dc-svl-agg1--oak-core1-10ge.cenic.net [137.164.47.122]
10 221 ms 221 ms 221 ms dc-stanford--svl-agg1-10ge.cenic.net [137.164.50.158]
11 222 ms 221 ms 220 ms boundarya-rtr.Stanford.EDU [68.65.168.33]
12 221 ms 221 ms 221 ms bbra-rtr-a.Stanford.EDU [171.64.255.129]
13 221 ms 221 ms 221 ms yoza-rtr-a.Stanford.EDU [171.64.255.144]
14 221 ms 221 ms 221 ms vspg2v.Stanford.EDU [171.64.65.64]
Return to V7.1.52 Windows/Linux
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest