In message <1003s3lpg2h5129@corp.supernews.com>, Larry <lweak@nospam.charter.net> writes

"Terry Pratchett" <tpratchett@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nWzYn8SWAeAAFAud@unseen.demon.co.uk...

In message <1003ks1li5l5369@corp.supernews.com>, Larry
<lweak@nospam.charter.net> writes
>
>
>Terry the new version of Seti driver shold take care of the conflict

issue

>in Win XP AFAIK.  It was rewritten to change the priority level of seti

so

>that it can use idle instead of low setting.
>
It currently is using the idle setting, whatever else is running.  Is
that okay?
--
Terry Pratchett

Should be ok AFAIK.  Using it on ME, XP Home and Pro with no problems.  Only
time I get a slow down is when I have had two instances of Seti running on
the same machine.  To check for that in XP use CNTL_ALT_DEL and look at the
running processes (second tab on top).

Actually, this is a follow up to the thread in general.

A lot of messing around with diagnostics this morning revealed nothing that gave us a clue, so we reinstalled the latest GUI version of SETI (which was on there before, but we did the whole thing right and downloaded it again.)  It looks like it'll complete its work unit in something under 8 hours (it's at  93% now) which is slow,  but more than twice as fast as the last 14 units.  I don't have a clue why.  We'll see what the next few units do before trying the CLI.

Terry Pratchett