Unified Installer v0.2

[Jim_S]

Will the new Unified Installer v0.2 support my AMD SSE's?

Jim_S

[arkayn]

Yep..

System requirements:
Win32 edition:
  - Windows NT/2k/XP/Vista/Windows7RC - 32 Bit
  - Minimum CPU - x86 compatible, with SSE level instruction support.
  - Boinc 5 or 6 series, (v6.6.20+ recommended for Cuda Installs)
  - attached to, and successfully processing seti@home project work.
  - special requirements for nVidia Cuda Multibeam application.

[Jim_S]

Thanks for the quick reply.
I just wasn't sure because the choices box still says Intel only.

[cryptokid]

off topic, will this support classic pentium 3 900?

[Josef W. Segur]

off topic, will this support classic pentium 3 900?

Yes, there are SSE builds for both MB and AP included.
                                                                          Joe

[Pepi]

Why Unified Installer v0.2 still have old cuda 2.2 dll? Can someone update cuda dll in package?

[Jason G]

Hi Pepi,
  When that installer was made those DLLs were not released (as in non-beta proper release), and were not available for, or compatible with drivers available for all platforms supported by the installer. 

The installer does happen to be in a long process of being updated, but for future please keep in mind that the installer is meant as a baseline installation for the widest user base, rather than the most advanced possible.  That is a reliable foundation for your further customisation/ tweaking to your specific needs.  It's for these reasons the installer is careful not to block / take over complete customisation of your applications, since rapid development progress guarantees things become outdated more quickly than new installers can be made.

Dropping the DLLs available from the download area over the old ones, I don't personally see as a big deal, given that there are risks associated with respect to heat and driver compatibility, that could catch many users by surprise.  I would expect users that understand these requirements/risks, to be able to readily apply the DLLs if desired.

On the flip side of the decision to update those in the next release, I expect there will be some that won't read the warnings/instructions anyway, though I do agree we should push things further where we can.

Again.  Please consider the installer as a baseline/foundation, rather than your perfectly desired setup.  There are more customisations possible than are easily accomplished in a simple setup script ... but does that mean we should leave the less experienced users out in the cold ? (after all that's what this was made for. As an alternative to the advanced traditional procedures,  a simple setup rather than none. )

Regards, Jason

[Pepi]

You are angry at me without any (valid) reason
Your installer ( or whatever wrote them) is perfect and good choice. But since 2.3 DLL make increase of about 30% and as I know all cards support that I was seen no reason for NOT updating installer to cuda 2.3
But since you are boss, I agree with your answer.
Thanks for reply

[Pappa]

You are angry at me without any (valid) reason
Your installer ( or whatever wrote them) is perfect and good choice. But since 2.3 DLL make increase of about 30% and as I know all cards support that I was seen no reason for NOT updating installer to cuda 2.3
But since you are boss, I agree with your answer.
Thanks for reply

Jason is not angry, he was only trying to explain.

Some Users have to be "responsible" for what they do. The Unified Installer was created to help "Without Breaking Anything." Beyond that the Lunatics Crew has provided other things that enhance the Unified Installer even further. To Move things ahead, but create No Harm to anyone.

So the question become do you have the at least 190.xx drivers installed? Not everyone does.  Then you are welcome to in drop in the Cuda  2.3 DLL's to solve your problem.

Regards

[Jason G]

You are angry at me without any (valid) reason
Your installer ( or whatever wrote them) is perfect and good choice. But since 2.3 DLL make increase of about 30% and as I know all cards support that I was seen no reason for NOT updating installer to cuda 2.3
But since you are boss, I agree with your answer.
Thanks for reply

Not angry at all Pepi.  The questions that you asked were reasonable, so I prefer to answer them in the most complete way I can. 

Iif you are sure of the driver version you have, and the card can handle the extra workload without heat issues, There is no reason not to drop the DLL's over your installation, the next installer will have those DLL's as I described. 

As Al describes, foisting them on everyone is not an option, so the installer will need to be more complex to handle the option by informed choice.  This takes time.

Sorry if my explanations sound sometimes too direct or something, I seem to be getting a bit of that lately.

Merry Christmas.

Jason

[Pepi]

Thank you both!  English is not my language, so way I read it is different from way you wrote to me

You can make new installer and wrote : require at least 190.xx drivers for correct working

Merry Christmas to all!

[Claggy]

Thank you both!  English is not my language, so way I read it is different from way you wrote to me

You can make new installer and wrote : require at least 190.xx drivers for correct working

Merry Christmas to all!

They won't do a new installer with just the Cuda 2.3 dll's, as there are other issues to fix as well,
like the issue with loosing your Cuda 6.09 work when using the installer, because there's no 6.09 entries in the app_info,
and the problems with different platform tags, and loosing work because the platform's changed.
and that all takes time, to write, test, fix, test, then release.

Claggy

[Jason G]

.... because there's no 6.09 entries in the app_info,
and the problems with different platform tags, and loosing work because the platform's changed.
....

quite right!, LoL, you should see the size/complexity of my practice app_infos for x64 platform, that need to migrate smoothly from stock OR previously optimised installations.  The other issue I've had feedback on, is that there are actually proprietary systems where <190.38 drivers are the 'certified' ones to use, with newer nVidia ones having issues on those systems.  In that case we'll need to keep both as options, with 2.2 as 'safe default' and 2.3 as optional.

[ScitechGrid]

Am using stock v6.09 instaed of optimized apps now, seem to be pretty similar runtimes

[VoidPilot]

You are angry at me without any (valid) reason
Your installer ( or whatever wrote them) is perfect and good choice. But since 2.3 DLL make increase of about 30% and as I know all cards support that I was seen no reason for NOT updating installer to cuda 2.3
But since you are boss, I agree with your answer.
Thanks for reply

Not angry at all Pepi.  The questions that you asked were reasonable, so I prefer to answer them in the most complete way I can. 

Iif you are sure of the driver version you have, and the card can handle the extra workload without heat issues, There is no reason not to drop the DLL's over your installation, the next installer will have those DLL's as I described. 

As Al describes, foisting them on everyone is not an option, so the installer will need to be more complex to handle the option by informed choice.  This takes time.

Sorry if my explanations sound sometimes too direct or something, I seem to be getting a bit of that lately.

Merry Christmas.

Jason

J.

Typo or subconcious...use of IIF
...am an Access users hence the question on if and only if...IIF

VP