[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> X-no-Archive:yes
> At the risk of seeming to be an apologist for UD (United Devices) Agent,
> Glenn's post got me wondering about the behavior of their agent, so I did a
> bit of digging. I am running NT4SP6 on this workstation; I am also running
> Seti@Home simultaneously, so your mileage will almost certainly vary. I
> brought up Task Manager, and looked at the "ud_101.exe" task. It seems to be
> getting very little CPU, perhaps because it is competing with Seti@Home,
> which is getting better than 90% CPU time. Both tasks are set to a low
> priority. So, at least on this workstation, UD agent seems well-behaved.

I've been running both Seti@Home and UD on Win98 for the past several days.  It
seems that Seti@Home doesn't leave much (if any) CPU left over for UD.  I was
unable to see any change in the UD progress indicator until I terminated
[log in to unmask]
--
[log in to unmask]
Remainder of .sig suppressed to conserve scarce California electrons...

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *