Berkeley CSUA MOTD:1998:October:05 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
1998/10/5 [Uncategorized] UID:14732 Activity:nil
10/4   *tumbleweed*
1998/10/5 [Science, Politics] UID:14733 Activity:nil
10/4    By the power of Grayskull!!!
        \_at least put some real humor here little boyz
1998/10/5-6 [Computer/HW/Memory, Computer/HW/CPU] UID:14734 Activity:insanely high
10/5    overclocked my Celeron 300A to 450 MHz. ~jctwu/pub/mendocino.
        \_ YouGo Girl
        \_ Hey, and I put nitrous in my Yugo!
           \_ the new Celerons are very well-engineered and -fab'd. My bet
              is that Intel had to cripple them to 66 MHz bus speed so as
              not to compete with the Pentium 2. -jctwu
        \_ good for you.  go away
           \_ hmmm... well, i guess this is a step in the right direction
              instead of outright deleting a post you don't agree with.
              \_ good for you.  go away
                \_Intel Celeron sucks
                      \_ good for you.  go away
                        \_ good for you.  go away
                                \_ good for you.  go away
                  \_ yes the L2 cache-less ones. read file for details.
                  \_ Even the zero cache ones easily overclock and are great
                     for gaminng where the loss of cache is usually over come
                     by the higher bus speeds.  If you're concerned about poor
                     "Business Benchmarks", well... seriously, just how fast
                     do you want MSWord to wait for you to type something?
                     Nothing wrong with Celerons, old or new.
                     \_ is it possible that they overclock MORE EASILY, due
                        to no cache? (I'm CS, not EECS, and curious)
                        \_ yes, take 150. cache increases probibility of
                           setup time violations.
                        \_ no.
                        \_ yes (non-EE). 1) You don't get any traffic on the
                           system bus between the CPU and L2 cache => easier
                           \_ you never get traffic on the system bus between
                              the CPU and L2 anyway.
                              [ CPU ]
                              [ L2$ ]          [ Mem ]
                                 |               |
                           ===========system bus=============
                           overclocking. 2) The L2 cache is usu. off-die,
                           and thus not under a heat sink / fan. The cache
                           would get super hot. -jctwu
                           \_ hmm, right. What happened to my Hennessey?
                              Anyways, reason 2 still applies. -jctwu
                              \_ Merging different things together onto
                                 a single package (ie proc + mem) usually
                                 cuts down on power consumption.  Check out
                                 U.Wisconson Gallileo and Berkeley iram.
                                 \_ Well, no dah.  Probably 1/3 of the power
                                    goes to i/o drivers.  As drivers get
                                    smaller to nonexistent, obviously power
                                    consumption goes down.
        \_old news.  btw which motherboard are you using?
          \_ abit BH6. read file.
             \_ the BH6 rocks.
            \_ what file?  says "file not found"
               \_ was there; updated (in pub dir, not ~).
                 \_ what's the whole url dodo?
                    \_ it's not a url you fool; "more ~jctwu/pub/mendocino"
                    \_ symbolic link now on <DEAD>.../~jctwu/docs/mendocino.txt<DEAD>
        \_ So you liked hardware tweaking your celeron? Feel like an
           Uber-hacker? Now try the dual-cpu-enable tweak.
1998/10/5-6 [Uncategorized] UID:14735 Activity:kinda low
10/5    screen modified to support accurate idle time reporting; search
        the manpage for "idle".  --mconst
        \_ Cool.
1998/10/5-6 [Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers] UID:14736 Activity:high
10/4    In which directory is the mail kept?  I'd rather not have
        Netscape scan all the folders in my user directory.  --pcjr
        \_ /var/spool/mail/pcjr on svr4 systems. i don't know about bsd
           system.  try typing: set | grep -i mail
           system. i think it's /usr/mail/pcjr.
           try typing: echo $mail
           ~/mail usually has your pine folders.
           \_/var/mail, actually. and also check $MAIL
        \_ What do you mean?  What mail?  Your mail spool?  Saved mail?
        \_ It's pcjr being lame again.  I suggest "man mail".
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:1998:October:05 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>