If the executable was locked at the time of installation (due to av-scanning or whatever else the system may have been doing), any installer would ask the OS to replace the locked file at next boot.
It's a shame you didn't just reboot.
I have 5.1 on a few machines, I'll mess around with the installer a little bit and report back.

You cannot use the default "0.000" values. Try populating the values with correct voltages.

Also, make sure you don't use comma as your decimal point as some cultures do. Should you do that, JaSON will massacre the poor, unsuspecting cgminer and no mining will be done that day.

That's precisely what it is.
Unless you're appending that option at the very end, you'll need a comma too:
That should be obvious but I'm pointing it out anyway for the sake of the less technical crowd. JSON takes no prisoners.

Since you're stealing "borrowing without permission" electricity from your school (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60120.msg699968#msg699968) there's really not much need for excessive finesse:

GPU core clocks? Maximum stable. Use increments of 20.
Memory clocks? Lowest not impacting your mining speed, most likely 300.
Voltage? Some additional voltage might allow you to overclock higher but leave it for now.
Concentrate on finding maximum stable gpu core clock.

Hey, if LinuxCoin (or any other ready-to-go distro) can't get through the boot-up there's definitely something wrong with the hardware.

Of course they would, what kind of question is that? You're connecting through their infrastructure.
The odds of being caught... are inversely proportional to the admin's laziness

Note, however, that should the admin take a glance at the AP's control panel (eg. for troubleshooting some issue) your machines will stand out like nudists in a convent - mostly due to nonstandard ports and constant connections.

Awesome news! At current speed, in a year that'll bring you just below 0.4 BTC!
You're going to be stinking rich in only ...uhhh.... an eternity or so.

Begging everyone you know to do some mining for you? Why do you even bother posting such nonsense?

Don't worry I fully expect MtGox's new AML policies to help alleviate the problem of overcrowding as some users re-discover there actually are other exchanges out there.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60074.0

Proceed only if you know what you're doing.
If you make a mistake messing around with the cards trying to fix those fans, you can forget your RMA privileges. If you can't fix the issue yourself, you're two cards down.

Life would just be too good if one was able to go with non-standard solutions and expect reliability, you know.

The reliability of using PCIE cards in PCIE connectors has been paid for by enourmous work by the designing and standardizing teams of the biggest hardware manufacturers.

<!-- Before it gets any worse -->
</thread>

Your outta work, broken and your life's hinge factor is being able to buy those 25$ worth of Bitcoins using granny's CC? Come on...

OTOH, there's work to be found here almost constantly.
Try this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=59949.0. 10 BTC bounty right there.

Search for the keyword bounty and sort most recent first to find any other bounties.

The client is able to establish those 7 or 8 connections, isn't it?
Don't worry about the port, it's just the current client being notoriously dead-slow.
Bitcoin client 5.2 is currently being tested and will achieve up to 40x faster download speeds.
Be sure to upgrade when the stable version is released.

I fully agree that this is the path of least resistance. Just fully uninstall the driver (make sure AMD APP libraries are removed) and install older versions, perhaps 11.9 and SDK 2.5.


88 is pretty darned high if you ask me, even for an inherently flawed product as the 69xx series is. They weren't meant to be built in 40nm you know.
Definitely not the temp to do serious mining at.
Still, it does not necessarily have to be the cause of your crashes.

Not necessarily. A stress test might use more memory and clock it higher than a miner does but at the same push the core SPs a little less.

You tried to flash an unstable card? Good heavens, you're either extremely brave or just crazy! Welcome to the club 

The fact of the matter is, windows uses hardware slot/port enumeration when ID-ing and configuring newly installed hardware.
Whether it's a GPU or a flash drive, changing the slot/port results in Windows discovering a new device. The drivers are already there so at least that is not a problem.

This approach looks goofy when you have 4 usb slots easily accessible and connect the same flash drive to the random port each time. Eventually, Windows will have quadrupled the device information.

However, this approach can be used for your advantage: should your device stop working correctly in one port due to some glitch that results in Windows "Not being able to find the correct driver" for a hitherto well-known device, you can always trivially reconnect it somewhere else and restore its functionality.
Of course, you could delve into the registry, find the faulty entry and delete it but such approach is not for the faint of heart.

There, I fixed it for you  


OP, I'm not sure what information about the crash you are able to get out of the system, but do try to find out whether the fault seems to be card- or port-based.
That is, whether it is one specific GPU that crashes or any GPU in the specific mobo port that crashes.

I stand corrected. Not thinking straight. Guess it's beddy-bye time after all (check my local time DAT)

I have no information on that particular piece of malware, hence can't give you an authoritative answer, sorry.

My critique isn't Defense-specific, it's the relative ease with which this class of countermeasures fall against well written code, leaving the user with a false sense of security when push comes to shove.

Still, a non-technical user must have something to rely on and some security is better than none. A generic piece of code just doing a quick API call for the wallet.dat WILL be stopped.
Better to have those barbed-wire obstacles than leaving your front door wide open.
Another analogy I'd use is, having a piece of security software running is like wearing a kevlar vest: it will stop a common handgun bullet, just don't expect it to stop a rifle round all by itself.


Ah, Windows 7.
If you tell me you haven't turned UAC off, do read the UAC messages when they pop up, have a legit copy of the OS and diligently apply the updates when they crop up, I'll say those are some solid foundations for a secure machine.

You did encrypt your wallet using the bitcoin client's Settings -> Encrypt Wallet command, right? That's an easy trick which raises the bar significantly against an attacker.
Just select a decent passphrase and don't ever forget it.

***I was hopelessly, utterly, and pathetically wrong, disregard***

His hardware solves 3.45 shares per minute, taking on average 17.3 seconds to find each share.
Statistically, that's just over 34 solved shares per BTC block.
Let's for the sake of clarity of argument (ease of calculations) assume 2 NMC blocks per 1 BTC block.
It translates to over 17 seconds of his work being lost, on average, during each BTC block.
That's nearly 3% performance hit due to merged mining right there.

@Eveofwar
Heh, everyone has a panic threshold.

Not too long ago I was at work. Not having enough work to do I checked bitcoinwatch. It showed a ridiculously low number of blocks/hour, something like 2.1
This got me thinking: wtf, better check the forums. Needless to say, the forums were down.
When I realized that MtGox was also down a red light went off and I immediately sent an alarming message to Gavin himself, describing the situation
Heck, when you're not at home you can't just take your time and research the situation carefully.

You answered that yourself:

A NMC block is much easier to find than a BTC block. Each time a NMC block is found, your work is being interrupted by a LP message. The current work and queue needs to be dumped and new work needs to be fetched. If your miner is slow, you might be interrupted relatively often.

Just this one card in your PC?
What PSU? Please specify wattage, make, and model. Saying just something like "550 W" isn't enough.

Has the card been overclocked? Did you ever modify its BIOS (eg. the shader unlock trick)?
It is possible that this card isn't at 100% health. Mining puts the equipment under a exceptionally high strain. Perhaps games don't provide enough load to make the defect obvious?

Have you tried running Furmark? Do so and report whether it crashes your GPU as well. The test should take at least an hour.
Furmark is free and can be downloaded here: http://www.ozone3d.net/benchmarks/fur/

EDIT:: Is that a Bulldozer I see in your gaming rig? You poor soul...