<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
	<channel>
		<title>Increase calculation speed of LottoSync</title>
		<link>https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/104666</link>
		<atom:link href="https://www.lotterypost.com/rss/topic/104666" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<description>Lottery Post Forum Topic: Increase calculation speed of LottoSync</description>
		<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
		<generator>Lottery Post RSS Generator</generator>
		<item>
			<title>Reply #6</title>
			<link>https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/104666/312153</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/104666/312153</guid>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Jan 2005 12:31:27 GMT</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>Todd</dc:creator>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Vick,  Thanks very much for digging up all that info; that&#x27;s exactly what I was trying to describe.  People should really take heed of that warning, because they can really screw up their PC if they change the wrong thing in the registry editor.</p>]]></description>
			<category>Todd</category>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Reply #5</title>
			<link>https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/104666/312138</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/104666/312138</guid>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Jan 2005 09:17:51 GMT</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>vick</dc:creator>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>This seems to apply to only MUCH older processors [not the new processors of the last 2 to 3 years]. After doing a quick google search that&#x27;s what people are saying.: According to the notes on regedit.com: Note: This tweak is only useful for older processors with the cache locatedexternal to the CPU.   &#x27;So it seems the best course of action is to leave it alone!&#x27;This from microsoft for win 2000 which probably applies to XPhttp://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/Windows/2000/server/reski... &#x5b;&#xa0;<a href="https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/104666/312138">More</a>&#xa0;&#x5d;</p>]]></description>
			<category>vick</category>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Reply #4</title>
			<link>https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/104666/311905</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/104666/311905</guid>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2005 21:53:58 GMT</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>hosni</dc:creator>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Quote: Originally posted by MillionsWanted on January 4, 2005Here&#x27;s an interesting link for for users of LottoSync who think it takes to long to calculate:Level2 cache This trick might help. Shouldn&#x27;t hurt to try.Thanks for the input MW. Sure enough, my L2 Cache was sitting at 256 KB.......0. Changed L2 to 512.......200 and voila, noticable speed increase.      Platinum John, hosni@lotterypost.com</p>]]></description>
			<category>hosni</category>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Reply #3</title>
			<link>https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/104666/311832</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/104666/311832</guid>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:40:07 GMT</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>MillionsWanted</dc:creator>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Quote: Originally posted by Todd on January 4, 2005 I think that&#x27;s bogus information.  Windows XP doesn&#x27;t touch the processor&#x27;s internal cache.  Processors do indeed have an internal cache, and if anything, it would be manipulated through BIOS settings, not through the operating system.I found several places that describes this feature. There&#x27;s some exceptions. Sometimes WinXP finds the L2 cache value during installations, other times it doesn&#x27;t.This link Adjust level 2 cache setting gives a bet... &#x5b;&#xa0;<a href="https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/104666/311832">More</a>&#xa0;&#x5d;</p>]]></description>
			<category>MillionsWanted</category>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Reply #2</title>
			<link>https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/104666/311822</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/104666/311822</guid>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:22:05 GMT</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>Todd</dc:creator>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>By the way, that&#x27;s no cut on you MillionsWanted, I just want to be sure people don&#x27;t go messing with their operating system&#x27;s registry unnecessarily, because it is dangerous unless you know what you&#x27;re doing.</p>]]></description>
			<category>Todd</category>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Reply #1</title>
			<link>https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/104666/311821</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/104666/311821</guid>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:20:34 GMT</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>Todd</dc:creator>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>I think that&#x27;s bogus information.  Windows XP doesn&#x27;t touch the processor&#x27;s internal cache.  Processors do indeed have an internal cache, and if anything, it would be manipulated through BIOS settings, not through the operating system.</p>]]></description>
			<category>Todd</category>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Increase calculation speed of LottoSync</title>
			<link>https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/104666</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/104666</guid>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2005 18:56:02 GMT</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>MillionsWanted</dc:creator>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Here&#x27;s an interesting link for for users of LottoSync who think it takes to long to calculate:Level2 cacheThis trick might help. Shouldn&#x27;t hurt to try.</p>]]></description>
			<category>MillionsWanted</category>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

