This. If ain't broken...

I don't see any satire at all in my posts

Anyone is free to do whatever. Just know there are risks in doing so.

Underperforming miners eh? I thought your 3 were pretty good.

does anyone know how to get the web interface to connect to the cgminer api correctly?  I just did an update from .95 to .97  and the miner status data doesn't display correctly.


Thanks,
/cet

I certainly understand taking a conservative approach, especially when money is involved - but in this case, it is literally a less-than-30-second job to revert to your old firmware if you don't like the new stuff, so why not just try it?

So far, it looks to me like the flushwork improvement in 0.97 is worth the effort.

No, and stop being a smart-ass, please?
What I expect, is 3 machines running around 270-275, just like the specs say.
255 is crap, 265 is nominal

Please point to me where the spec says a sat should run at 270-275.

Okay it does write that in the website but that's for the lucky. Not everyone gets those max speeds.

It should really say "runs up to a max of ###gh/s"

do you need to run enablecores bin file on .97?? Anyone

Everyone knows that's exaggeration.

It really should be: minimum:## and maximum:##

Jup says 550+ but average people are getting is about 480-530

But that page is for November. Maybe they'll optimise things by then..

do you mean disabled by cgminer while running or disable since the beginning (just after the reboot)?