🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <80kieh$bu7$1@hek.netix.org.uk>, at 20:41:53 on Sat, 13 Nov
1999, C. Newport <crn@NOSPAM.netunix.com> spewed forth the following:
>Marcus Durham (Marcus@zenn.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: In article <80jdh2$8um$1@hek.netix.org.uk> C. Newport
>: <crn@NOSPAM.netunix.com> shared the following with us in demon.tech.pc:
>: [snip]
>: >Richard is winding you up - and trying to start a dick-size contest.
>: >NEVER overclock, particularly a Celeron. It is the fast track to grief.
>: [snip]
>
>: Sorry, I do believe that you are talking out of your backside. This
>: machine has been running a Celeron 466 at 582 for 3 months. It's fast,
>: stable and more reliable than my previous K6 300 ABIT setup.
>
>So how come about 50% of the people who I try to help with obscure
>crashes are overclocking celerons. The problem always goes away
>when they put it back to standard.
>
>The fact that you have got away with it so far does not indicate that this 
>is a reliable practice. If a 466 could be reliably run at 582 then
>Intel would label them as 550 and charge more money for them.
>
>
The problem is adequate cooling I should think... that's the only reason
it'd crash overclocked but not normally clocked =>  Buy a better
heatsink/fan =)
-- 
Michael Bungey