Well, at least we now know there’s a subject which generates as much passion as Linux out there in RegisterLand. Three days after our look at overclocking and the risks it poses (Story: Overclocking -- just say no), we have received almost 150 responses from readers. Some agree that overclocking is ill-advised; some say that scumsucker Pete Sherriff should watch his back; but most say: "Who gives a damn if it blows up – I’m gonna replace it within six months, anyhow". Some of the more rabid emails (which were probably originally written in green crayon) claim that Sherriff is in the pay of evil Chipzilla. Would that this were the case (Note to Intel – bank account details available on request). Some folks were genuinely concerned and asked for technical advice on whether their graphics cards and hard disks were also at risk. Interestingly, a number of people said that they had personal experience of dead hard disks and graphics cards in overclocked machines. Others said it was about time someone spoke out about the potential dangers of overclocking. But almost two thirds of replies took the view that due to the speed with which chip makers are introducing faster processors, reducing the life of a CPU from 10 to two years made no difference to them. Why? Because by the time their overclocked chip blew up, a newer, faster, cheaper equivalent would be on the market which could in turn be overclocked, and so on, ad infinitum. And for all you clockaholics out there, the record (unverified by us) for overclocking was a 300A Celeron running at a reported 750MHz. Sounds like a contribution to Global Warming to us. Anyone beat that? ®