unusual result processing

I own two pc's that I've installed Seti on. One is a Gateway running
win98se with a 1ghz Pentium III and 512mb or ram, and the other is an
HPrunning Win XP Home with an Athlon 3000 2.167ghz and 1gb ram. It
takes the Gateway about 10 hours to complete a work unit, while the
much faster HP takes 24 to 30 hours. I've got both set to work at all
times. Why is this, and how can I improve the HP's processing of
units?
TIA

First, dump the GUI version of the client. Using the CLI version will
improve both machine times dramatically. Your results indicate that the HP
either has a hidious video subsystem that isn't taking any of the video
processing off the CPU or that something else is running in background.
Make sure you have the latest drivers for your video on that machine and use
the Task Manager's (Ctrl-Shift-Esc) processes tab to see what's consuming
your CPU cycles.

Mike Ober.

"Jason Symes" wrote in message
om...
I own two pc's that I've installed Seti on. One is a Gateway running
win98se with a 1ghz Pentium III and 512mb or ram, and the other is an
HPrunning Win XP Home with an Athlon 3000 2.167ghz and 1gb ram. It
takes the Gateway about 10 hours to complete a work unit, while the
much faster HP takes 24 to 30 hours. I've got both set to work at all
times. Why is this, and how can I improve the HP's processing of
units?
TIA

First, dump the GUI version of the client. Using the CLI version will
improve both machine times dramatically. Your results indicate that the HP
either has a hidious video subsystem that isn't taking any of the video
processing off the CPU or that something else is running in background.
Make sure you have the latest drivers for your video on that machine and use
the Task Manager's (Ctrl-Shift-Esc) processes tab to see what's consuming
your CPU cycles.

Mike Ober.

"Jason Symes" wrote in message
om...
I own two pc's that I've installed Seti on. One is a Gateway running
win98se with a 1ghz Pentium III and 512mb or ram, and the other is an
HPrunning Win XP Home with an Athlon 3000 2.167ghz and 1gb ram. It
takes the Gateway about 10 hours to complete a work unit, while the
much faster HP takes 24 to 30 hours. I've got both set to work at all
times. Why is this, and how can I improve the HP's processing of
units?
TIA

Ok, I'm guessing I got the right cmd client for both pc's, though I'm not
rel sure since there was a few different i386-winnt version 3.08 available.
I checked the HP's resources, and I'm only using between 5% and 7% at any
given time, and I've done my best to pair down all the junk that loads on
system startup, though I do have a screen reader that I need that might be
affecting things I'd imagine. My video drivers are up to date, but my
graphics card is an integrated card, if that matters.
"Michael D. Ober" [email protected] wrote in message
...
First, dump the GUI version of the client. Using the CLI version will
improve both machine times dramatically. Your results indicate that the
HP
either has a hidious video subsystem that isn't taking any of the video
processing off the CPU or that something else is running in background.
Make sure you have the latest drivers for your video on that machine and
use
the Task Manager's (Ctrl-Shift-Esc) processes tab to see what's consuming
your CPU cycles.

Mike Ober.

Ok, I'm guessing I got the right cmd client for both pc's, though I'm not
rel sure since there was a few different i386-winnt version 3.08 available.
I checked the HP's resources, and I'm only using between 5% and 7% at any
given time, and I've done my best to pair down all the junk that loads on
system startup, though I do have a screen reader that I need that might be
affecting things I'd imagine. My video drivers are up to date, but my
graphics card is an integrated card, if that matters.
"Michael D. Ober" [email protected] wrote in message
...
First, dump the GUI version of the client. Using the CLI version will
improve both machine times dramatically. Your results indicate that the
HP
either has a hidious video subsystem that isn't taking any of the video
processing off the CPU or that something else is running in background.
Make sure you have the latest drivers for your video on that machine and
use
the Task Manager's (Ctrl-Shift-Esc) processes tab to see what's consuming
your CPU cycles.

Mike Ober.

What's using the 93-95% of your CPU? The client should be getting 98-99%
when nothing else is running.

Mike.

"jason symes" wrote in message
...
Ok, I'm guessing I got the right cmd client for both pc's, though I'm not
rel sure since there was a few different i386-winnt version 3.08
available.
I checked the HP's resources, and I'm only using between 5% and 7% at any
given time, and I've done my best to pair down all the junk that loads on
system startup, though I do have a screen reader that I need that might be
affecting things I'd imagine. My video drivers are up to date, but my
graphics card is an integrated card, if that matters.
"Michael D. Ober" [email protected] wrote in message
...
First, dump the GUI version of the client. Using the CLI version will
improve both machine times dramatically. Your results indicate that the
HP
either has a hidious video subsystem that isn't taking any of the video
processing off the CPU or that something else is running in background.
Make sure you have the latest drivers for your video on that machine and
use
the Task Manager's (Ctrl-Shift-Esc) processes tab to see what's
consuming
your CPU cycles.

Mike Ober.

What's using the 93-95% of your CPU? The client should be getting 98-99%
when nothing else is running.

Mike.

"jason symes" wrote in message
...
Ok, I'm guessing I got the right cmd client for both pc's, though I'm not
rel sure since there was a few different i386-winnt version 3.08
available.
I checked the HP's resources, and I'm only using between 5% and 7% at any
given time, and I've done my best to pair down all the junk that loads on
system startup, though I do have a screen reader that I need that might be
affecting things I'd imagine. My video drivers are up to date, but my
graphics card is an integrated card, if that matters.
"Michael D. Ober" [email protected] wrote in message
...
First, dump the GUI version of the client. Using the CLI version will
improve both machine times dramatically. Your results indicate that the
HP
either has a hidious video subsystem that isn't taking any of the video
processing off the CPU or that something else is running in background.
Make sure you have the latest drivers for your video on that machine and
use
the Task Manager's (Ctrl-Shift-Esc) processes tab to see what's
consuming
your CPU cycles.

Mike Ober.

At the time I checked the usage stats the client was disabled, so nothing
was using 93% or 95% of my resources. When I run it, then all 100% of my
resources are used, as I would imagine is normal.
"Michael D. Ober" [email protected] wrote in message
...
What's using the 93-95% of your CPU? The client should be getting 98-99%
when nothing else is running.

At the time I checked the usage stats the client was disabled, so nothing
was using 93% or 95% of my resources. When I run it, then all 100% of my
resources are used, as I would imagine is normal.
"Michael D. Ober" [email protected] wrote in message
...
What's using the 93-95% of your CPU? The client should be getting 98-99%
when nothing else is running.

In that case I go back to my original thought - you're running the GUI
client. Switching to the CLI client will dramatically improve your
throughput.

Mike.

"jason symes" wrote in message
...
At the time I checked the usage stats the client was disabled, so nothing
was using 93% or 95% of my resources. When I run it, then all 100% of my
resources are used, as I would imagine is normal.
"Michael D. Ober" [email protected] wrote in message
...
What's using the 93-95% of your CPU? The client should be getting
98-99%
when nothing else is running.