It's a question of whether the compiler libs are changed to also allow Kremmen's computers to work on DDDT-2. Think his rigs were amongst the few with a very high fail rate, at least from reading what was reported on the forums.

I think that when describing any kind of strange WU behaviour here (or in any other WCG forum), we should include a brief description of our problem machine's hardware & OS. It might help in tracking down the source of the problem. If you are overclocking, state this too, especially for Beta tests. The new project software might just trigger hardware errors that don't happen on other projects.
@Kremmen ... or did I miss your device's description?

Re: Virtual memory Size for DDDT2 Betas (eg member tluehr)
(I'm only running Windows, 2k, XP-32 and XP-64. Things could be different under different OSes).
The VM requirements Size (in Task Mangler) for this project are bigger than for other projects. The initial (Type A?) WUs needed ran with 1.3GB each. The recent Type Cs that I crunched all ran at about 520MB each. Some other projects - HCMD2: 12MB, FAAH: 230MB, HCC: 50MB.
You may bump into the size limits of your swapfile(s)/pagefile(s). If these file(s) is/are allowed to grow automatically, the limit may be imposed by the amount of space available your hard disc.
(On XP, do a Help search for "virtual memory" to find how to set your VM size. It's also set in Control Panel >> System >> Advanced tab >> Performance >> Advanced) - HTH
[Edit]: The VM Sizes above are those that show in Task Manager. I assume that they have to be backed up by available space in page/swap files, but documentation on Windows VM/swap behaviour is hidden in places unknown to me.

Windows (Vista and W7 at least) requires NONE, as I ran for weeks in January with the VM set to hard zero... except when running 4 DDDT-2 Beta concurrent it became very tight so allowed it again to overflow to disk.

Uplinger or someone from tech team which could looking at Beta results.

I just saw that this mine 3 Beta results below, remain as Too Late status in the results page.

Is it really right ?

I guess that maybe could be changed for Valid or Invalid status, just to count as result in the total (once probably due the errors found at that batch at that time, the remain batch was aborted and for few crunchers that returned results before it, the credits was launched manually for tech team).




BETA_ erlc_ a079_ se0000_ 3-- GIBAQX9770F Too Late 27/01/10 16:52:19 27/01/10 20:05:04 2.51 52.9 / 52.9
BETA_ erlc_ a080_ se0000_ 3-- GIBAQX9770F Too Late 27/01/10 16:52:19 27/01/10 20:05:04 2.47 52.3 / 52.3
BETA_ erlc_ a081_ se0000_ 3-- GIBAQX9770F Too Late 27/01/10 16:52:19 27/01/10 20:05:04 2.49 52.6 / 52.6

GIBA,

for as far as I can see these 3 results, in result count, time contributed and in credit have already been added to your My Grid page totals. They merely have not been moved off the Result Status page... the less essential part.

:<)