Linux-Hardware Digest #690, Volume #10 Wed, 7 Jul 99 05:13:28 EDT
Contents:
Re: Can someone out there help me?? ("m.nine.six")
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Chris Robato Yao)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Chris Robato Yao)
Re: Zip PPA - can't read partition table (Tim Moore)
Re: HPUX <--> RH60 NFS performance problem (Tim Moore)
Re: Linux and Maxtor hard drives? (Tim Moore)
Re: Promise Ultra 33 (Tim Moore)
Re: Maestro 2 Soundcard under Linux (lefebvre herve)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Chris Robato Yao)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Chris Robato Yao)
Running X on an LCD (Chad Scherrer)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (kls)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Jay Patrick Howard)
Re: new video boards and SVGATextMode or framebuffer? (Mr Cheuk Kong Lo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "m.nine.six" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can someone out there help me??
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 00:02:59 +0200
i think there are a correct x-server for your tnt (anyway check the doc
on (http://www.xfree86.org) and the set the monitor resolution manualy
in your /etc/X11/XF86Config file after that if the x-server still
doesn't catch the right modes for your monitor and graphic card READ the
xfree86-videotiming-howto i know it's boring but ..... but u should have
the timing charts for ur monitor (user's manual) and card (perhaps on
the inet try to search).
some small help (the summary that i made for my self) (i hope that it
will help you):
explanation how to calculate it:
===============================
Modeline "name" DCF HR SH1 SH2 HFL VR SV1 SV2 VFL
(horizontal must be divisible to 8)
abridgement:
===========
DCF = DotClock (Driving Clock Frequency) [MHz]
----
HR = Horizontal Resolution
VR = Vertical Resolution
----
SH1 = Horizontal Sync Start
SH2 = Horizontal Sync End
SV1 = Vertical Sync Start
SV2 = Vertical Sync End
----
HFL = Horizontal Frame Length
VFL = Vertical Frame Length
=================================
HGT1 = Horizontal Front Porch
HSP = Horizontal Sync Period
VGT0 = Vertical Front Porch
VSP = Vertical Sync Period
HSF = Horizontal Scan Frequency [kHz]
RR = Refresh Rate [Hz]
calculation:
===========
SH1 = HR + HGT1
SH2 = SH1 + HSP
SV1 = VR + VGT0
SV2 = SV1 + VSP
HFL = DCF / HSF
RR = DCF / (HFL * VFL)
probe:
=====
X -probeonly > Xlogfile 2>&1
Allan Bagnall wrote:
>
> I have just installed RH5.2, no real problems... except getting the X server
> to recognize my video card. I have Read the Fine Manuals, and am still
> unable to find the answer (now I AM new to LINUX, and was kinda hoping it
> would install abd be done...)
>
> If this has already been covered in this news group, my appologies in
> advance ( for some reason I can only read the last 5 days worth of news
> items). I presently have:
>
> nVIDIA RIVA TNT 16MB 3D AGP Graphics Accelerator
>
> My monitor is not on the list of supported devices (Mitsubishi). The specs
> in the book say:
>
> Horizonal scan freq range: 30-96 KHz
> Vertical scan freq range: 50-160 Hz
> Max Resolution: 1600x1200 @ 75Hz
>
> If anybody can point me in the right direction I would greatly appreciate
> it.
>
> Thanks
> Allan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Robato Yao)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: 7 Jul 1999 05:24:54 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Robato Yao)
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (kls) writes:
>In article <7lt7b7$f9q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>>
>>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips kls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>: From http://www.cpureview.com/art_kernel_discuss_c.html,
>>: k63-400 vs single c400(4x66) k63 23.5% faster(though
>>: he gives different results in seperate reviews?).
>>
>>Yeah, but who is going to actually run their Celeron at the prescribed
>>66mhz bus speed? :) Consider a 366 overclocked to 550. Compared to the
>>400, the core clock is 37.5% faster, while the bus is 50% faster. I'm
>>guessing that would more than accountfor the 23.5% difference you cite.
>
>Oh, I know, & it would, but I'm being generous:) so he can't complain about
>oc'ing 'issues'(yeah right, oc'ing p2's is a a real 'issue':) Doesn't matter,
Maybe you should apply already since both oc'ing and running Celerons on
SMP are not officially supported and warrantied by Intel.
>applying the ratio's from the links I give to c400's from cpureview show it
>will still beat it even at 66MHz. & then you oc & really kick it's ass!:)
>
You do know that you can overclock a K6-3 too, maybe to 500MHz. Why not
just use a Kryotech and push it to 550 while you're at it (where on
paper according to ZDNet CPUMarks, a K6-III 550 is stronger in
integer over both a Xeon and a pre commercial sample of a K7.)
Rgds,
Chris
>
>
(And the NUMBER ONE top oxy-MORON
1. Microsoft Works
---From the Top 50 Oxymorons (thanks to Richard Kennedy)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Robato Yao)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: 7 Jul 1999 05:20:40 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Robato Yao)
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (kls) writes:
>In article <7lug0e$g3o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>>Yes, 34%. How does that make a couple of Cel 333s faster than a single
>>K6-3 450 (which is about the equivalent of a between Cel 500 and 550 in
>>application performance.) Unless you overclock them, but then of
>>course, you have a situation when Celerons are used out of their basic
>>specification (overclocked and SMP). To work these things out, you
>>need considerable time, trial, experience and preparation, not something
>>to recommend unless the person knows exactly what he is doing and is
>>committed to it.
>
>It's a ratio. Whether it's c333's or c400's, the % increase from single
>to dual will be the same. Say it with me: r-a-t-i-o.
The problem with ratio is that it is an extremely simplistic way to
describe a scenario.
For example, in an SMP machine, you may see situations and applications
where SMP would be of great benefit, but you are also going to see
situations and applications where it would be of no benefit at all.
In short, there is another word that you should learn:
C-O-N-S-I-S-T-E-N-C-Y.
>
>>Why should you recommend a *not supported* configuration to a buyer?
>>
>>>
>>>Here's freebsd(pretty graphs even:),
>>>http://www.freebsd.org/~fsmp/SMP/akgraph-a/graph1.html
>
>Because it shows what speed increase is possible with duals(speed
>increase amount which you have been disputing).
Possible, but not all the time.
>
>>>>>>You have not yet answered my other question on your ratios of K6 vs.
>>>PII
>>>>>>FPUs.
>>>>>
>>>>>benchmarks, hardware & programming sites. That & I own a dog of a
>>>cpu(k6-2
>>>>
>>>>I have not see any benchmark or website that suggests a .55 ratio for
>>>>the P2 FPU vs. K6. You made this up. Back it up.
>>>>
>>>>On the contrary, there is plenty that suggests otherwise. Read the
>>>>K6-III review of http://www.combatsim.com. According to them, a
>>>K6-III
>>>>450 is barely equivalent to a PII 400 on non 3DNow games.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>300. old core: .55 p2 fpu). On a personal note, if the performance
>>>were so
>>>>>ubar compared to p2's, as you keep on insisting, my frame rate
>>>wouldn't drop
>>>>>to 16-9fps in warbirds when things get even slightly heavy. I must
>>>be
>>>>>dreaming eh?
>>>>
>>>>I can get an Celeron overclocked to 500 to drop down to 16-9 FPS on
>>>>Jane's WWII Fighters when things get heavy. Does not mean anything.
>>>
>>>It does when a p2-300 in place of a k6-2 300 in the same situation is
>>>29-16fps instead.
>>>
>>
>>Is this where you derive your .55?
>
>One of the instances yeah.
>
>>That does not hold true on the average. If you want to compile as many
>>benchmarks you can find, the average is higher.
>
>On the average that's what comes up when I calculate it from the
>benchmarks/fps/routine timing I've seen over time.
You better recheck since real application testing always tend to show
something higher (although theoritically .55 is feasible: PII executes
one FPU instruction per cycle except on combinations of certain
instructions, while the K6 executes every other cycle.)
>
>>When I had my K6-2 300 and PII-300 before, when I benched with a Matrox
>>G200 last year, I got 3.25 on the K6-2 and 3.67 on the PII-300 on Final
>>Reality. Far from a .55 difference. A PII-450 on the old non 3DMark99
>>with a Riva TNT gets about 2800s, but a K6-2 450 with the same card gets
>>about 2400s without Detonator 3DNow drivers and about even with them.
>>2400 vs. 2800 isn't .55 as well. In both cases you got about 15 to 20%
>>differences.
>
>Things are better with the advent of drivers implemented with 3dnow
>optimizations which I've seen fps increases from myself but when the
>actual game comes to calculation intensive parts things go to pot again
>(from not having 3dnow optimizations in the game itself). A bastion of
The number of games with 3DNow optimizations have increased, and those
that don't now have to interface with 3DNow optimized APIs (Glide,
OpenGL, and D3D).
Notice what I said in the last paragraph. 2400 *without* 3DNow
drivers and about *even with* 3DNow drivers. This is with the
old 3DMark99, which does not have 3DNow optimizations internally, but
does require DirectX6 (a 3DNow optimized API) to function.
>hope comes from the k7 as it appears to me 3dnow is getting serious
>consideration now because of it's unignorable rounded performance.
>Bring 'em on, I'm still run'n off this k6-2 300 & could use any help I can
>get.
>
What happened to your PII-300?
Rgds,
Chris
(And the NUMBER ONE top oxy-MORON
1. Microsoft Works
---From the Top 50 Oxymorons (thanks to Richard Kennedy)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 23:36:24 -0700
From: Tim Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Zip PPA - can't read partition table
/dev/sda is a device name not a partition.
# mount -t ext2 /dev/sda1 /zip -o user,defaults,rw
# mount | grep zip
/dev/sda1 on /zip type ext2 (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev)
# umount /zip
# fdisk -l /dev/sda
Disk /dev/sda: 64 heads, 32 sectors, 96 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 2048 * 512 bytes
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 1 96 98288 83 Linux native
> > If I try to mount my backup disks (formatted
> ext2) using 'mount -t
> > ext2 /dev/sda /zip' I get '/dev/sda - invalid
> block device' or something
> > like that ... same with /dev/sda1 and /dev/sda4
> with a windows disk ...
> > any ideas how to fix this?
--
direct replies substitute timothymoore for user name
"Everything is permitted. Nothing is forbidden."
WS Burroughs.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 23:50:40 -0700
From: Tim Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.protocols.nfs,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.sys.hp.hpux,comp.unix.admin,comp.unix.misc
Subject: Re: HPUX <--> RH60 NFS performance problem
Try this:
# mount -t nfs hpserver:/server_dir /linux_client_dir \
-o rsize=8k,wsize=8k,noatime,bg,hard,udp,nfsvers=3
Sustained, large sequiential writes yield 8.5MB/s on a Dell 4200/300
(2xPII@300MHz, 2.2.5-smp, eepro100), 5.2MB/s on an Asus P2B
(1xPII@333MHz, 2.0.37, 3c59x) to a Netapp filer.
> I'm running rh60 as nfs server and and I use hpux11.0 as nfs client.
> I can mount the nfs filesystem on the HP but the performance is so low it's
> driving me crazy.
> I think its the nfs version on the linux side that creates the problem,
> since its using nfsv2 (i use rpcinfo -p linuxhost)and the hpux11.0 server is
> nfsv3.
> I use vers=2 in the mount options but it does not help.
> please HELP!!
> the service & support from HP is so slow that I need to solve this myself.
> plus they are blaming it all on the linux side(but thats another issue to
> discuss)
--
direct replies substitute timothymoore for user name
"Everything is permitted. Nothing is forbidden."
WS Burroughs.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 23:15:55 -0700
From: Tim Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and Maxtor hard drives?
[tim@asus /raid]# hdparm -vitT /dev/hda
/dev/hda:
multcount = 0 (off)
I/O support = 0 (default 16-bit)
unmaskirq = 0 (off)
using_dma = 1 (on)
keepsettings = 0 (off)
nowerr = 0 (off)
readonly = 0 (off)
readahead = 8 (on)
geometry = 1021/255/63, sectors = 16408224, start = 0
Model=Maxtor 88400D8, FwRev=NAVX171F, SerialNo=L80EEP7A
Config={ Fixed }
RawCHS=16278/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=20
BuffType=3(DualPortCache), BuffSize=256kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off
DblWordIO=no, maxPIO=2(fast), DMA=yes, maxDMA=2(fast)
CurCHS=1021/255/63, CurSects=16408224, LBA=yes, LBAsects=16408224
tDMA={min:120,rec:120}, DMA modes: mword0 mword1 mword2
IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, PIO modes: mode3 mode4
Timing buffer-cache reads: 64 MB in 0.57 seconds =112.28 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 32 MB in 2.88 seconds =11.11 MB/sec
Geoff Stanbury wrote:
>
> Hi, I'm wondering if Maxtor IDE hard drives work with Linux. See, I
--
direct replies substitute timothymoore for user name
"Everything is permitted. Nothing is forbidden."
WS Burroughs.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 23:20:01 -0700
From: Tim Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.caldera,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Promise Ultra 33
/usr/doc/HOWTO/mini/Ultra-DMA
> Has anyone out there had any luck with the Promise Ultra 33? I'm having a
--
direct replies substitute timothymoore for user name
"Everything is permitted. Nothing is forbidden."
WS Burroughs.
------------------------------
From: lefebvre herve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.portable,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Maestro 2 Soundcard under Linux
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 08:33:17 +0100
Stuart Moffatt wrote:
>
> Has anyone had any luck using a Maestro soundcard under Linux ? I
> recently installed Red Hat 6.0 onto my laptop (a Transmonde Vibrant LS),
There is a driver in the latest ac-patches for kernel 2.2.10
It's experimental.
--
H.Lefebvre
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Robato Yao)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: 7 Jul 1999 07:36:32 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Robato Yao)
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (kls) writes:
>In article <7luob6$oie$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>>
>>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (kls) writes:
>>>In article <7lt7b7$f9q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>>>>
>>>>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips kls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>: From http://www.cpureview.com/art_kernel_discuss_c.html,
>>>>: k63-400 vs single c400(4x66) k63 23.5% faster(though
>>>>: he gives different results in seperate reviews?).
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, but who is going to actually run their Celeron at the prescribed
>>>>66mhz bus speed? :) Consider a 366 overclocked to 550. Compared to the
>>>>400, the core clock is 37.5% faster, while the bus is 50% faster. I'm
>>>>guessing that would more than accountfor the 23.5% difference you cite.
>>>
>>>Oh, I know, & it would, but I'm being generous:) so he can't complain about
>>>oc'ing 'issues'(yeah right, oc'ing p2's is a a real 'issue':) Doesn't
>matter,
>>
>>Maybe you should apply already since both oc'ing and running Celerons on
>>SMP are not officially supported and warrantied by Intel.
>
>You're not scaring anyone, least of all me. With c400's @$80 ea., I'll take
>my chances.
Taking your own chances is not a good basis for recommendation for
another person's system.
>
>>>applying the ratio's from the links I give to c400's from cpureview show it
>>>will still beat it even at 66MHz. & then you oc & really kick it's ass!:)
>>>
>>
>>You do know that you can overclock a K6-3 too, maybe to 500MHz. Why not
>>just use a Kryotech and push it to 550 while you're at it (where on
>>paper according to ZDNet CPUMarks, a K6-III 550 is stronger in
>>integer over both a Xeon and a pre commercial sample of a K7.)
>
>k63 oc'd to 550 @ 23.5% faster than a single c400: 679.25MHz in p2 terms.
>dual c400 not oc'd /w 1.7 utilization(Link to benchmarks in prior post in this
>thread): 680MHz. Congradulations, you've just about matched a non oc'd dual
Do you understand what consistency is?
It means that you may get that result once in a while, but not all the
time. You cannot get the "680MHz" performance every second, just once
in a while when the opportunity presents as an optimized application
truly uses. For many other applications, you're probably as slow as a
single Cel 400.
The Kryotech K6III gets that performance all the time the moment the
switch is on.
This is in fact, a very similar argument that can be labled against
3DNow. It is FAST when USED on certain situations and applications, but
NOT when NOT used on the rest of the situations and applications.
(3DNow gives the K6 III a 7:4 advantage over an equally clocked non SIMD
PII or Celeron.)
>c400 in linux compilation... with the additional cost of an expensive kryotech
>cooling system:) Damn, there goes that price/performance thingy:) & then I
>oc /w regular hs/f or even a custom job with the same amount of $ u spent on
>the kryotech system or less(like the water cooler I made on my k62-300 for
>$25:if anyones interested, check out www.agaweb.com/coolcpu/) to even higher
>speeds. BOOOOM(sonic:)
Water cooler for $25 bucks? That's interesting.
>
>
>
(And the NUMBER ONE top oxy-MORON
1. Microsoft Works
---From the Top 50 Oxymorons (thanks to Richard Kennedy)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Robato Yao)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: 7 Jul 1999 07:40:20 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Robato Yao)
In <7lut6j$nbn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jay Patrick Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Stephen M. Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: Actually, the way to go is distributed processing amongst multiple networked
>: nodes with a cached network filesystem. In terms of scalability intel
>: platforms are pretty much maxed out at 8 CPUs
Comparing apples to oranges here. That's like clustering vs. SMP.
>
>Not so fast! Wasn't the "worlds fastest computer" from a few years ago a
>loosely coupled network of some 5000 or so Pentiums? I seem to remember
>reading about this...at one of the government labs out west - Sandia or
>Los Alamos. I think it may have been the first Terraflop machine?
or PowerPCs, according to IBM's own boasts.
Both the Intel and PowerPC beasts are basically resemble loosely coupled
clustering configurations versus SMP. Again let's not compare
clusters to SMP.
Rgds,
Chris
(And the NUMBER ONE top oxy-MORON
1. Microsoft Works
---From the Top 50 Oxymorons (thanks to Richard Kennedy)
------------------------------
From: Chad Scherrer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Running X on an LCD
Date: 5 Jul 1999 22:30:49 GMT
I've been trying to get X to run on my Gateway Solo 9150. I have an ATI
Rage LT Pro video card and a 15" screen. The video works fine when I
connect it to an external monitor, but I can't get it to work with the
built-in LCD. All I see is garbage. I called Gateway to find out the scan
frequencies, and the guy I talked to said that question doesn't really
make sense for LCD's because the screen is continually updated. Is that
true? I don't know what else I can adjust to get it working. I'd really
appreciate any help - for now I'm stuck using text mode (or Windoze).
Thanks.
================== Posted via SearchLinux ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (kls)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 06:19:19 GMT
In article <7luob6$oie$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (kls) writes:
>>In article <7lt7b7$f9q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>>>
>>>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips kls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>: From http://www.cpureview.com/art_kernel_discuss_c.html,
>>>: k63-400 vs single c400(4x66) k63 23.5% faster(though
>>>: he gives different results in seperate reviews?).
>>>
>>>Yeah, but who is going to actually run their Celeron at the prescribed
>>>66mhz bus speed? :) Consider a 366 overclocked to 550. Compared to the
>>>400, the core clock is 37.5% faster, while the bus is 50% faster. I'm
>>>guessing that would more than accountfor the 23.5% difference you cite.
>>
>>Oh, I know, & it would, but I'm being generous:) so he can't complain about
>>oc'ing 'issues'(yeah right, oc'ing p2's is a a real 'issue':) Doesn't
matter,
>
>Maybe you should apply already since both oc'ing and running Celerons on
>SMP are not officially supported and warrantied by Intel.
You're not scaring anyone, least of all me. With c400's @$80 ea., I'll take
my chances.
>>applying the ratio's from the links I give to c400's from cpureview show it
>>will still beat it even at 66MHz. & then you oc & really kick it's ass!:)
>>
>
>You do know that you can overclock a K6-3 too, maybe to 500MHz. Why not
>just use a Kryotech and push it to 550 while you're at it (where on
>paper according to ZDNet CPUMarks, a K6-III 550 is stronger in
>integer over both a Xeon and a pre commercial sample of a K7.)
k63 oc'd to 550 @ 23.5% faster than a single c400: 679.25MHz in p2 terms.
dual c400 not oc'd /w 1.7 utilization(Link to benchmarks in prior post in this
thread): 680MHz. Congradulations, you've just about matched a non oc'd dual
c400 in linux compilation... with the additional cost of an expensive kryotech
cooling system:) Damn, there goes that price/performance thingy:) & then I
oc /w regular hs/f or even a custom job with the same amount of $ u spent on
the kryotech system or less(like the water cooler I made on my k62-300 for
$25:if anyones interested, check out www.agaweb.com/coolcpu/) to even higher
speeds. BOOOOM(sonic:)
------------------------------
From: Jay Patrick Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: 7 Jul 1999 01:40:38 -0500
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Amen to that. That's the problem in all these discussions. As a
: business user, the K6 III runs rings around the Celeron 466 on the way
: I use Windows.
Just based on the way I use Win95, I would think the difference between a
Cel 466 and K63-450 would be almost imperceptible. Using my lowly Pentium
200 (non-mmx), only really nasty webpages show a noticeable delay before
rendering.
On that topic, it seems Netscape's algorithm for rendering nested tables
is not very smart. Not sure about IE. This could be a good
benchmark...heh. See how well your wiz-bang Celeron or K6-III handles
these:
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/jhoward/tables/11.html (depth = 11)
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/jhoward/tables/12.html (depth = 12)
These seem to be the magic numbers. 10 and below load fine, 11 took my
P200 30 seconds to render, I gave up on 12 after waiting a minute and a
half.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mr Cheuk Kong Lo)
Subject: Re: new video boards and SVGATextMode or framebuffer?
Date: 7 Jul 1999 08:22:00 GMT
Phil Howard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Has anyone gotten any new modern (AGP class, or PCI variants of them)
: video cards to work with SVGATextMode and/or the new framebuffer driver
: under Linux 2.2.X? I'm curious which BOARDS (not chipsets) actually
: can be gotten to work. I've you've gotten one to work, then I'd be
: willing to go buy one of those to try it out. Chipset info is totally
: useless, so please don't waste your time saying "get a board with XXX
: chipset".
: --
: Phil Howard KA9WGN
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My Matrox G100 works with FB, but I've not extensively use it.
Also, I'ven't been able to get it work with SVGALIB, only *some*
vesa mode only.
Chris
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.hardware) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Hardware Digest
******************************
