Search content
Sort by
Showing 8 of 8 results by MrDogecoin
Network Hash dramatically increased the last days from 270 to 430 MH/s (DIFF: 15 to 27 B)
Price came down a lot and a little bit up again but still far away from the peak we had weeks ago.
What is this? Maybe the mobile mining beta?
Price came down a lot and a little bit up again but still far away from the peak we had weeks ago.
What is this? Maybe the mobile mining beta?
Re: Official FutureBit Moonlander 2 Driver and Support Thread
Is here anyone able to replace Voltage & USB Controller?
I destroyed 4 sticks accidentally by using a 12V instead of a 5V power supply for a hub.
Alternatively I would offer them for half the price (BTC / LTC) or for 2 solidly working ones.
Anyone?
I destroyed 4 sticks accidentally by using a 12V instead of a 5V power supply for a hub.
Alternatively I would offer them for half the price (BTC / LTC) or for 2 solidly working ones.
Anyone?
Re: Official FutureBit Moonlander 2 Driver and Support Thread
Windows XP is nearing 2 decades old, and even Microsoft stopped supporting it years ago...you can't expect a new miner in 2017 to support it, I have no way of testing it even if I wanted to (which I don't...I hate windows
). Like others have said, install Ubuntu on the old hardware, its one of the easiest to use linux distro's (has a modern GUI). All you have to do is just download the linux binary after you install it and it should work out of the box.
Well, the thing is that it´s working now flawlessly!!
I just activated Windows 2000 compatibility mode for both exe and bat files.
Now it´s perfect and I´m happy.
Re: Official FutureBit Moonlander 2 Driver and Support Thread
Still bfgminer is stuck with 99% CPU workload on XP SP3 32bit....
EDIT: OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG
It´s working!!!!!
I set both exe + bat to Windows 2000 compatibility mode and voila it´s running.....
Maybe that helps you to find the cause?
************************************
I managed to install Bodhi Linux but I´m completely overchallenged in installing... anything?
It would be so, so, so, so..... cool being able to use my Windows XP device.... Is there any hope you might take a look at least?
Re: Official FutureBit Moonlander 2 Driver and Support Thread
Anyone here running bfgminer on Windows XP? I really need that to work here.... But just stuck on 99% CPU workload.... Is there any alternative to bfgminer?
That's some ancient hardware you're running there. Upgrade to Windows 7 or 10? Licenses are cheap on eBay. I doubt jstefanop tested on Windows XP, nor should he have to. Maybe you can research how to compile the bfgminer source manually and it will work better for XP. Upgrading your OS will actually be easier to do IMO.
Ahm, yes, it´s ancient hardware indeed. But it´s what I have and it consumes very little power, about 10W.
It has just 512MB RAM and therefore W7 should not be supported.
So no other XP users here? Really?
Re: Official FutureBit Moonlander 2 Driver and Support Thread
Anyone here running bfgminer on Windows XP?
I really need that to work here.... But just stuck on 99% CPU workload....
Anyone?
Is there any alternative to bfgminer?
I really need that to work here.... But just stuck on 99% CPU workload....
Anyone?
Is there any alternative to bfgminer?
Re: Official FutureBit Moonlander 2 Driver and Support Thread
Hi!!
Got my miners today...
Issue 1:
Starting bgfminer on Windows XP SP3 leads to 99% CPU workload permanently and that´s it.
Issue 2:
Same hubs and miners on Windows 10 working flawlessly yet, except a single miner, which shows strange behavior. 480 ist just okay but 540 best result is about 6-7% hardware errors. Very odd is that the errors get less by reducing the core voltage... Lowest possible VCore results in lowest hardware errors in 540. Why? 648 gets not below 25%, also on lower VCore.
Got my miners today...
Issue 1:
Starting bgfminer on Windows XP SP3 leads to 99% CPU workload permanently and that´s it.
Issue 2:
Same hubs and miners on Windows 10 working flawlessly yet, except a single miner, which shows strange behavior. 480 ist just okay but 540 best result is about 6-7% hardware errors. Very odd is that the errors get less by reducing the core voltage... Lowest possible VCore results in lowest hardware errors in 540. Why? 648 gets not below 25%, also on lower VCore.