Mersenne Digest Tuesday, August 1 2000 Volume 01 : Number 764 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 08:53:34 -0700 From: Eric Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Better late then never? Hi! All, I apologize if some of the following message are a little late, but I've been "out of commission" recently. At least they're better late than never.... Eric _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 08:59:10 -0700 From: Eric Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Rambus Memory Intel benchmarks show little advantage to Rambus! A new series of benchmarks have emerged that show Rambus memory provides less oomph than cheaper, standard high-speed memory. And the odd part is that the tests come from Intel, the major proponent of Rambus. In benchmark tests conducted by Intel, computers equipped with standard high-speed memory and Intel's 815 chipset outperformed similarly configured PCs with Rambus memory and the corresponding 820 chipset from the company. Full story at: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-2242968.html [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: << Direct RDRAM >> <HOLY WAR>Everyone knows (rather, should know) that RDRAM memory >provides a minor speed boost compared to SDRAM, and the much >higher cost of RDRAM is completely unjustified. I've heard that >Dell is switching back to SDRAM in its computers now, which is a >Good Thing(TM).</HOLY WAR> _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 08:59:15 -0700 From: Eric Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: And the winner is.... RE: Statistical Analysis of Prime Exponent Mersennes After much private debate, I'm providing the following I have inquired and received information about. Please, don't flame me or ask me to explain further, as I'm only the messenger and don't have all the answers myself... Q: Can all the data be posted to the list? A: HA! Not likely. The current size of 1.43TB of "raw" data which must be "interpreted" (taking 25+ times the space) is too large. I don't know about others, but I don't have the 20+ years to download the data over a 56K modem if posted to the list... Q: What algorithms are used? A: 'A variety of standard algorithms and methodologies used in traditional and non-traditional statistical analyses. Used in large number of complex, unique and even 'unusual' relations.' Q: Is the code and/or program available? A: 'No. Major chunks of code are proprietary, licensed, patented [or pending] or 'otherwise' restricted from distribution. Typical PC unable to run; Lack of memory or storage.' Q: Can you provide data on M727, M751, M#39, M#40, M*10M-digit? A: 'Here is info.' ACTUAL (REAL-LIFE INTERPRETED) DATA: M727 - 94.3716% probability - 2 factors M727 - 52.8693% probability - 3 factors M727 - 6.0014% probability - 4+ factors M727 - 91.1834% probability - 313-bit min. factor size M727 - 93.0447% probability - 428-bit max. factor size M727 - 21.7336% probability - highly composite factors M751 - 83.8467% probability - 2 factors M751 - 74.2974% probability - 3 factors M751 - 19.5801% probability - 4+ factors M751 - 87.2999% probability - 281-bit min. factor size M751 - 81.0003% probability - 526-bit max. factor size M751 - 30.1716% probability - highly composite factors M#39 - 53.7390% probability - range=10987349-11013853 M#39 - 64.0127% probability - range=10914203-11092621 M#39 - 81.6073% probability - range=10793527-11204183 M#39 - 97.3391% probability - range=10526447-11390453 M#40 - 61.4726% probability - range=13430227-13501387 M#40 - 77.3902% probability - range=13359163-13592549 M#40 - 86.0715% probability - range=13231913-13684399 M#40 - 96.5507% probability - range=13092361-13973117 M#43 - 58.3097% probability - range=41976841-42057331 M#43 - 71.6352% probability - range=41901683-42138559 M#43 - 79.7464% probability - range=41753977-42302809 M#43 - 93.4218% probability - range=41564021-42516373 NOTE: Highly composite means 6 or more factors of the factor - 1... Eric _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 09:52:44 -0700 From: Eric Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: P-1 Database Wanted: Brave Souls Re: P-1 Testing small exponents Besides exponents in the 200,000 - 500,000 range that are available, new ranges in the 751 - 100,000 are now available! Note, however, the smallest exponents have been tested to some degree already. As a result, they will take a good degree of time to test. Some save files are available though! If you're interested in P-1 testing some small exponents, let me know. For exponents under 30,000, bounds of at least B1 => 1E8 (100M) and B2 => 4E12 (4B) are requested... Eric _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 09:54:15 -0700 From: Sylvain PEREZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:53:50 +0200 Hello from Paris... Got one problem maybe some Prime95 Guru can help me. I'm working with Prime 95 20.4.1 on different 3 machines. I baught 2 days ago 2 new cpus and motherboard. Well, everything's running well, thanks to the Microsoft software well known ease of installation, upgrade and general reliability (jokes, here, hum). On 2 machines I have a regular "benchmark" LL time : - - NT4, PIII 350, L2, 256 Mb, blah blah, P 9851099 => 0.260 iteration time which seems to be ok (George's bench gives 0.269) - - Win98 (first regular version), Celeron 466, blah blah, P 9260113 => 0.290 it time (George's is 0.282) On the 3rd machine, it seems to be abnormal : - - Win98 (same as above) - - Pentium III 650, 1.65 V, L1 and L2 activated (I verified the BIOS) - - 128 Mb ram, 20 gigs UDMA 4 - - MB: Asus CUV4X (agp 4x bus, not a cheap one), Xentor 16Mb video ... - - No abnormal process running (same antivirus as other machines, etc.) - - P 9264797 => 0.231 (George's gives 0.190) This seems to me a very high it time (closer to George's PIII 500). CPU temp is 60C (far from 82C maximum), not overclocked, etc. So I ran ZD benchmarks WinBench 99, it gives : WinBench 99/CPUmark 99 - - 34 for the Win98 Celeron 466 - - 34.9 for the NT PIII 450 - - 57.2 for the Win98 PIII 650 WinBench 99/FPU WinMark - - 2490 for the Win98 Celeron 466 - - 2270 for the NT PIII 450 - - 3500 for the Win98 PIII 650 As I see from the ZD benches, it seems to me this PIII 650 is proportionnaly "as expected" compared to both other cpus. That's why I don't understand this machine is processing Prime iterations so slowly. Note : I correctly checked the PIII and put 650 value (24 hours) in the Prime cpu options. I did reboot, does not change. I also reboot in "no failure mode" (don't know the exact term in english), it doesn't change anything. Questions are (at least, sorry for the long text) : - - can someone confirm the it time with a PIII 650 ? - - someone has any CPU time with an Asus CUV4X mamaboard ? - - what should I check ? any idea ? Thank you for any info. Sylvain Perez _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 03:01:38 +0200 From: Sylvain PEREZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Mersenne: Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:53:50 +0200 > > On the 3rd machine, it seems to be abnormal : > > > > - Win98 (same as above) > > - Pentium III 650, 1.65 V, L1 and L2 activated (I verified the BIOS) > > - 128 Mb ram, 20 gigs UDMA 4 > > - MB: Asus CUV4X (agp 4x bus, not a cheap one), Xentor 16Mb video ... - No > > abnormal process running (same antivirus as other machines, etc.) - P > > 9264797 => 0.231 (George's gives 0.190) > 1) All systems using SDRAM & the Intel 820 chipset seem to be very > disappointing. The 820 chipset was designed to use RDRAM and the > required "translation" in the memory bus slows things down somewhat. This cheaper version of this Asus CUV4X MB uses the VIA 82C chips : I am now very happy not having paid the extra 100 $ to buy the Asus Intel's version, which as you say may have given the same result ! > 2) A PIII-650 has 100 MHz memory bus speed, just like a PIII-500. > Since Prime95 drives the memory bus quite hard, perhaps one shouldn't > expect too much speed increase. Especially when you have the 820 > chipset MTH bottleneck in the circuit. I understand. I didn't think at Prime95 so much using the bus (in fact, in Paris the Metro is far more convenient). I was also not aware that a new MB could make a bottleneck to a not-so-recent processor... I do appreciate Asus for years because they are very reliable (imho), but now i'm kind of deceived. > 3) The smaller cache in the PIII-650E relative to the "old" PIII-650 > (which ran at 2.0V with 512K L2 cache at 0.5x core speed) will result > in increased loading on the memory bus, which may more than offset > the clocks saved by the improved cache design. Ho ho, another tricky point here. It seems to me this 256K PIII wind up beeing another kind of "light" version of a serious cpu. Decreasing cache size may be just like gluing a tape on the border of a large 21" screen to make a 15" of it ? George also talked about sdram speed, it may be the point too. > Commercial benchmarks exercise the graphics & disk subsystems as well > as the memory subsystem (in fact a lot will run in the L2 cache); the > extra raw speed will definitely help boost these benchmark figures, > even if Prime95 speed remains depressed. OK i'll check if I can find some serious testing around the memory/cache/bus/sdram ... in fact, we got it, it's called Prime95, thanks to George. By the way, why not making a special version of Prime (with no net connection), that does only the testing of a number of iterations on some different numbers (defined in the ini file), and either give this program as a "comparative mesurement" of machines, and/or have a site that takes the users measures and publish "average" result depending of materials ? So we could know if a solution is good before we buy... > I've switched to Athlon since the Athlon memory bus design is > superior even if the cache is slower. My Athlon 650 is turning in > Prime95 performance equivalent to George's PII-400 scaled up to 750 > MHz. Congratulations Brian. But in fact, even if I run my 5 machines 24h, they don't serve me for Prime95 only (i'm poor). This PIII 650 seems to be quite good for 3D calculations, PAO and graphics (along with a good agp card). So, i'm not so complaining. Even if understand in a general meaning it may be closer say to a 555 then a 650... Sylvain Perez PS: my fault, I forgot to put an objet to the initial email, this gives the present awfull title of this thread. _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 23:20:08 -0700 From: "John R Pierce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: ot: p3 motherboards (was Re: Mersenne: Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:53:50 +0200) > > 1) All systems using SDRAM & the Intel 820 chipset seem to be very > > disappointing. The 820 chipset was designed to use RDRAM and the > > required "translation" in the memory bus slows things down somewhat. The new Intel i815 chipset uses PC133 SDRAM natively, for coppermine support up to 1GHz or whatever. They benchmark similiarly to a 440BX based motherboard when both run at the same clock speed (i.e. both at 100Mhz, or both at 133MHz with the BX overclocked). > This cheaper version of this Asus CUV4X MB uses the VIA 82C chips : I am > now very happy not having paid the extra 100 $ to buy the Asus Intel's > version, which as you say may have given the same result ! Try the new Asus CUSL2. From all reports, this is a winner. Said i815 chipset, uses PC133 SDRAM. 6 PCI slots, no ISA slots. has AGP Pro 4X (the kind that actually works correctly in 4X mode with advanced graphics cards like the Geforce family), unlike the VIA stuff). The chipset has a lame built in Intel graphics controller, this is probably adequate for 17" monitor business systems, but is easily disabled by simply installing a AGP card for higher resolutions or gaming. > > 2) A PIII-650 has 100 MHz memory bus speed, just like a PIII-500. > > Since Prime95 drives the memory bus quite hard, perhaps one shouldn't > > expect too much speed increase. Especially when you have the 820 > > chipset MTH bottleneck in the circuit. > > I understand. I didn't think at Prime95 so much using the bus (in fact, in > Paris the Metro is far more convenient). I was also not aware that a new MB > could make a bottleneck to a not-so-recent processor... I do appreciate > Asus for years because they are very reliable (imho), but now i'm kind of > deceived. Prime95 has a working set of about 5MB now when doing lucas lehmer tests on current range numbers. These CPUs only have 256k cache. about 5 or 10 times a second, the CPU is walking through the 4MB FFT arrays a NUMBER of times, including both reads *and* writes in rather complex patterns. Its my understanding from what George has told us repeatedly that the LL tests positively HAMMER the memory bus to keep the FPU pipeline busy. > > > 3) The smaller cache in the PIII-650E relative to the "old" PIII-650 > > (which ran at 2.0V with 512K L2 cache at 0.5x core speed) will result > > in increased loading on the memory bus, which may more than offset > > the clocks saved by the improved cache design. > > Ho ho, another tricky point here. It seems to me this 256K PIII wind up > beeing another kind of "light" version of a serious cpu. Decreasing cache > size may be just like gluing a tape on the border of a large 21" screen to > make a 15" of it ? > > George also talked about sdram speed, it may be the point too. > > > Commercial benchmarks exercise the graphics & disk subsystems as well > > as the memory subsystem (in fact a lot will run in the L2 cache); the > > extra raw speed will definitely help boost these benchmark figures, > > even if Prime95 speed remains depressed. > > OK i'll check if I can find some serious testing around the > memory/cache/bus/sdram ... in fact, we got it, it's called Prime95, thanks > to George. By the way, why not making a special version of Prime (with no > net connection), that does only the testing of a number of iterations on > some different numbers (defined in the ini file), and either give this > program as a "comparative mesurement" of machines, and/or have a site that > takes the users measures and publish "average" result depending of > materials ? > > So we could know if a solution is good before we buy... > > > I've switched to Athlon since the Athlon memory bus design is > > superior even if the cache is slower. My Athlon 650 is turning in > > Prime95 performance equivalent to George's PII-400 scaled up to 750 > > MHz. > > Congratulations Brian. But in fact, even if I run my 5 machines 24h, they > don't serve me for Prime95 only (i'm poor). This PIII 650 seems to be quite > good for 3D calculations, PAO and graphics (along with a good agp card). > So, i'm not so complaining. Even if understand in a general meaning it may > be closer say to a 555 then a 650... > > Sylvain Perez > > PS: my fault, I forgot to put an objet to the initial email, this gives the > present awfull title of this thread. > > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm > Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 23:19:26 -0400 From: Pierre Abbat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Mersenne: Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:53:50 +0200 >I understand. I didn't think at Prime95 so much using the bus (in fact, in >Paris the Metro is far more convenient). But you wouldn't want it searching all the arrondissements for primes, as then it would go at a snail's pace. phma _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 06:25:51 -0700 From: Stefan Struiker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: ot: p3 motherboards (was Re: Mersenne: Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:53:50 +0200) > > Try the new Asus CUSL2. From all reports, this is a winner. Said i815 > chipset, uses PC133 SDRAM. 6 PCI slots, no ISA slots. has AGP Pro 4X (the > kind that actually works correctly in 4X mode with advanced graphics cards > like the Geforce family), unlike the VIA stuff). The chipset has a lame > built in Intel graphics controller, this is probably adequate for 17" > monitor business systems, but is easily disabled by simply installing a AGP > card for higher resolutions or gaming. For a good review of the ASUS CUSL2 and how it compares to other popular mobos (overclocking stats are included), see: http://www.gamepc.com/reviews/hardware_review.asp?review=cusl2&page=1 GamePC uses P95 as their 24-hour burn-in torture test before shipping every unit. Best Regards, Stefanovic _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 17:32:25 +0200 From: Sylvain PEREZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: p3 motherboards (was Re: Mersenne: Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:53:50 +0200) > The new Intel i815 chipset uses PC133 SDRAM natively, for coppermine support > up to 1GHz or whatever. They benchmark similiarly to a 440BX based > motherboard when both run at the same clock speed (i.e. both at 100Mhz, or > both at 133MHz with the BX overclocked). So that new component seems to be very interesting, especially moneywise for Intel, but not for the buyers. > > This cheaper version of this Asus CUV4X MB uses the VIA 82C chips : I am > > now very happy not having paid the extra 100 $ to buy the Asus Intel's > > version, which as you say may have given the same result ! > > Try the new Asus CUSL2. From all reports, this is a winner. Said i815 > chipset, uses PC133 SDRAM. 6 PCI slots, no ISA slots. has AGP Pro 4X (the > kind that actually works correctly in 4X mode with advanced graphics cards > like the Geforce family), unlike the VIA stuff). The chipset has a lame > built in Intel graphics controller, this is probably adequate for 17" > monitor business systems, but is easily disabled by simply installing a AGP > card for higher resolutions or gaming. OK, but I don't buy motherboards like bread (you know the "baguette" you eat with "camembert" here). Thanks for the info, I'll check this one. > Prime95 has a working set of about 5MB now when doing lucas lehmer tests on > current range numbers. These CPUs only have 256k cache. about 5 or 10 times > a second, the CPU is walking through the 4MB FFT arrays a NUMBER of times, > including both reads *and* writes in rather complex patterns. Its my > understanding from what George has told us repeatedly that the LL tests > positively HAMMER the memory bus to keep the FPU pipeline busy. Mmmmh, I'm sure George no fool is man, but if my FPU works faster than my bus I would have appreciated less usage of the bus ... > > George also talked about sdram speed, it may be the point too. Replay to myselft, I've done some researches... Yes memory was a major bottleneck in this case. I checked the BIOS, having originaly let it set the SDRAM configuration at "Defined by SPD" or something. In this configuration, it gave CAS latency, RAS precharge and RAS to CAS delay of 3T each. In fact, I noticed this configuration corresponded to an 8ns SDRAM. But mine is 7ns, so I input manually a config for the 7ns SDRAM, which makes only 2T at those delays. Then Prime iteration went from 0.234 down to 0.219 (very approx 10 percent less). I do conclude it's a kind of bugg in the BIOS because it should have detected the 7ns (only) 128M bank that is on the machine. I may have some complaining to Asus if I get the time to. Later, still being deceived not to acheive those 0.190 given in George's benchmark, I put up the speed from 100 to 112 Mhz, so now my first (and light) overclocked machine is going well to its 729 Mhz, with no special cooler. Now iteration time is 0.196, i'm feeling kind of happier (life is stupid, no ?). But because the weather becomes pretty hot here, i'll watch carefully to the cpu temp, so I won't be obliged to glue a sticker "Intel Outside" after being blowned out from the box by its own explosion. Thanks also John for the object field correction. Sylvain Perez > > _________________________________________________________________________ > > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm > > Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm > Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 17:39:04 +0200 From: Sylvain PEREZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: ot: p3 motherboards (was Re: Mersenne: Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:53:50 +0200) > For a good review of the ASUS CUSL2 and how it compares to other > popular mobos (overclocking stats are included), see: > > http://www.gamepc.com/reviews/hardware_review.asp?review=cusl2&page=1 > > GamePC uses P95 as their 24-hour burn-in torture test before shipping every unit. What a strange idea you have! Me, I do use plenty of games in order to make a carefull hardware testing __before__ I use my computers for Prime95 ;) Hopefully, summer always gives us many free time to make hardware testing... Sylvain Perez > Best Regards, > Stefanovic > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm > Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 18:35:29 +0200 (CEST) From: Henrik Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: ot: p3 motherboards (was Re: Mersenne: Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:53:50 +0200) On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Stefan Struiker wrote: > For a good review of the ASUS CUSL2 and how it compares to other > popular mobos (overclocking stats are included), see: > > http://www.gamepc.com/reviews/hardware_review.asp?review=cusl2&page=1 > > GamePC uses P95 as their 24-hour burn-in torture test before shipping every unit. They may be ok there, but boy, how they write bad html. :) [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] GamePC [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [header-reviews.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [layout_r06_c07.gif] [layout_r06_c08.gif] [layout_r06_c09.gif] [layout_r06_c10.gif] [layout_r06_c11.gif] [layout_r06_c12.gif] [layout_r06_c13.gif] [layout_r06_c14.gif] [layout_r06_c15.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [layout_r09_c01.gif] [layout_r09_c02.gif] [layout_r09_c03.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [layout_r10_c05.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [leftbar_r01_c1.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [leftbar_r03_c1.gif] [shim.gif] [leftbar_r04_c1.gif] [shim.gif] [leftbar_r05_c1.gif] [shim.gif] [leftbar_r06_c1.gif] [shim.gif] [leftbar_r07_c1.gif] [shim.gif] [leftbar_r28_c1.gif] [shim.gif] [leftbar_r08_c1.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] [leftbar_r10_c1.gif] [shim.gif] [leftbar_r11_c1.gif] [shim.gif] [leftbar_r12_c1.gif] [shim.gif] [leftbar_r13_c1.gif] [shim.gif] [leftbar_r15_c1.gif] [shim.gif] [leftbar_r16_c1.gif] [shim.gif] [leftbar_r17_c1.gif] [shim.gif] [shim.gif] - -- Henrik Olsen, Dawn Solutions I/S URL=http://www.iaeste.dk/~henrik/ Thomas Covenant: I am the savior of The Land. Linden Avery: Can I help? Thomas Covenant: Over my dead body.(dies) (Linden Avery saves The Land.) The Second Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, Book-A-Minute version _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt ------------------------------ End of Mersenne Digest V1 #764 ******************************
