From owner-freebsd-isp Sat Nov 16 12:19:16 1996 Return-Path: owner-isp Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA16432 for isp-outgoing; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 12:19:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from etinc.com (et-gw-fr1.etinc.com [204.141.244.98]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA16424 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 12:19:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from ntws (user@ntws.etinc.com [204.141.95.142]) by etinc.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA15085; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 15:25:15 -0500 Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 15:25:15 -0500 Message-Id: <199611162025.PAA15085@etinc.com> X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "Jacob Suter" From: dennis@etinc.com (dennis) Subject: Re: Router Purchase - the bottom line Cc: isp@freebsd.org Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >> This is really funny! We're talking about systems stability, >overheating, etc >> and your running your processor 20% out of spec. Talk about bad >moves... >> Note that running your processor over spec is not highly >recommended to >> ISPs who are concerned about long-term stabilty. > >According to what I have read, this chip was designed to actually run >160, but they didn't want it to compete with the more expensive >K5/6x86/P5 chips. So, they marketed it as the cooler 133 solution >(which is only P66-P75ish speed).. > >I don't know what bug crawled in your ass lately, but its really >beginning to be annoying. Dont take it personally...it just seems funny that anyone who is worried about minor cooling issues would run a processor at such a dangerous temperature. Its not a big win financially, and seems like its not worth the risk. The irony is that people who are spending thousands of extra dollars because they 're worried about a hard drive failure might just be likely to pay the extra few dollars for a Pentium with proper cooling db