> The Prime95 program we now use does do something
> we don't understand and does not do anything useful.
I've been using the NT service version since it was released and have *zero*
problems with it. It works as advertised...nothing more and nothing less.
Change a winning formula for no good reason and you're gonna piss people
off. Sure you could add yet another program interface, but I'd hate to see
development bog down because of so many interfaces. I'm not sure I know what
you mean by 'does not do anything useful.' I find the program greatly useful
for changing the options within the program. :-)
> I think a screensaver could be written in such a way
> that it also chunks up cycles that are spilled when
> the machine is used normally.
That would be fine, but it certainly doesn't offer any advantages over what
I have now. I've never been a big fan of screensavers and don't plan on
changing now. And unless there's definitely expressed interest in this
change, there really is no point in what amounts to a 'make-work' project.
> Furthermore the small image floating over the black
> screen should be a little attractive.
I'd much prefer to see my desktop and any open applications. Maybe that's
not so attractive, but it's actually *useful.* Why would I want to cover my
work for something that amounts to an ad for something that I already have
installed?
> If Prime95 is a screensaver, we all know what is does
> do (It prevents the screen from burning in
I've had exactly two monitors in the last eight years and neither one had
anything close to burn-in artefacts. Besides privacy, security, and novelty,
there's no need at all for screensavers these days on a machine that someone
actually uses, IMO.
> and at the same time it tries to win $50,000 from a
> bunch of math geeks)
I'm already doing that without a screensaver.
Rick.
-----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.alienshore.com/
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
