[QUOTE=WraithX;144816]BTW, is there a way to tell it to stop working (not get additional assignments) once it has finished working on the current assignment?[/QUOTE]

Yes, in prime.txt add the line:
MaxExponents=0
or change the number if the line allready exist, then restart prime95. Now prime95 will finish your current work in worktodo.txt and then stop.

I have a 4 core machine, and am running a seperate test in each core. The worker window numbers the CPU's 0, 1, 2, and 3, but the Worker thread settings window numbers them 1, 2, 3, and 4. Not a big deal but is a little confusing.

This is because in Windows cpu's are numbered from 0 and up. In Windows Task Manager in the Processes tab if you rightclick on a process and choose "Set Affinity" you can see they are called CPU 0, CPU 1, CPU 2, CPU 3 on a quad core.

[quote=ATH;144867]This is because in Windows cpu's are numbered from 0 and up. In Windows Task Manager in the Processes tab if you rightclick on a process and choose "Set Affinity" you can see they are called CPU 0, CPU 1, CPU 2, CPU 3 on a quad core.[/quote]


I realize that. All I was saying is that it should be consistant, whether it is 1234 or 0123, it should be the same in both places.

[QUOTE=Bent;144878]...it should be consistant, whether it is 1234 or 0123, it should be the same in both places.[/QUOTE]

I have sympathy for your view, but I'm inclined to leave it as is. Numbering worker windows from zero is just silly from a human user interface point of view. Humans number things from one. If I change the CPU numbering to 1 to 4, it will be inconsistent with the OS which numbers them from 0 to 3.

Also, if you ran two multithreaded workers would you have the workers numbered 0 and 2 (because they use CPUs 0&1 and 2&3)?

Did anyone see the initial memory setup problem i posted?

[QUOTE=adminc;144831]
not sure if this is what is supposed to happen but when first running the program, it seems to ask twice for the memory limits. It first asks for the limits, and then says 8mb of memory is not enough, asks me for the mem limits again and then gets them right.[/quote]

Mprime has always done this. Actually it doesn't say 8MB is not enough, it says are you sure you want to leave the settings at the minimum.

[quote]
Also when asking for the priority at which I want t run, it gives bounds from 1 - 10. On Linux though I believe its actually called the "nice" value and functions differently than in windows. Perhaps you could look into this.[/QUOTE]

The program's 1 - 10 is translated into Linux's 0 to 19 (or is it -19 to 0). This keeps it consistent with the Windows program's numbering. Anyway, leave it set to 1.

George, any idea on when the next stable version will be released?

[quote=Prime95;144889]Mprime has always done this. Actually it doesn't say 8MB is not enough, it says are you sure you want to leave the settings at the minimum.



The program's 1 - 10 is translated into Linux's 0 to 19 (or is it -19 to 0). This keeps it consistent with the Windows program's numbering. Anyway, leave it set to 1.[/quote]


The reason I posted this, is because the nice value didnt actually change for me even when I set the priority to 1.

(the nice stayed at 0)

[QUOTE=adminc;144895]The reason I posted this, is because the nice value didnt actually change for me even when I set the priority to 1.

(the nice stayed at 0)[/QUOTE]

You need to check the priority of the worker threads. The main UI thread and the communications thread are not affected by the priority setting.

[QUOTE=adminc;144882]Did anyone see the initial memory setup problem i posted?[/QUOTE]

My bad. You were correct - the software is asking the 8MB question even if you initially set memory to a larger value. It will be fixed in the next update.