Linux-Hardware Digest #711, Volume #10 Fri, 9 Jul 99 03:13:40 EDT
Contents:
Re: Non-Windows digital cameras? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Help: Linksys Phoneline Network Card Support (Cryph)
Re: Linux and Maxtor hard drives? (Chad Page)
Problems with Lilo on reinstalling Redhat 5.2 and using an LS-120. ("Peter Erzetic")
Re: Linux und Miro DC 30, Videoschnitt (Jens Haug)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Anthony Hill)
No DMA with ALI IDE chipset (Asus P5A) (Frank Paehlke)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? ("Dean Kent")
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Jay Patrick Howard)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Chris Robato Yao)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Anthony Hill)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Anthony Hill)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Anthony Hill)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Jay Patrick Howard)
Re: HELP w/ modem! ("ZombieSeed")
Re: ESS688 Soundchip without tone (Eric Wick)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? ("Charismo")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Crossposted-To: rec.photo.digital,comp.os.os2.setup.misc,comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc
Subject: Re: Non-Windows digital cameras?
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 04:18:57 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 18:09:09 -0700, Ken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What's a good digital camera for use on systems other than Windows?
>
>I'm looking for something to produce images on the web. I mostly use
>OS/2, but also use Linux, and less frequently NT4 and Win98. I can see
>having a Mac in the future.
>
>My concerns are hardware compatibility and file format interoperability.
>Memory card cameras would be ok if they use a standard card for which a
>reader is available on various platforms, and the card stores images in
>a standard format and filesystem. A floppy-based camera has the
>advantage of very high portability, but the disadvantage of very little
>storage.
>
Hardware will be the biggest problem. Software is a breeze on a Linux
system, there are lots of programs out there for interpreting image
formats... (Gimp, for one..)
You need to check with the manufacturers to see if the storage media
has any Linux or Unix drivers before you buy. But don't stop there.
The whole idea of open architecture is that the source codes are
freely available, so it is VERY possible that someone else has written
a driver that you need for the hardware you are considering. (Having
Linux, you already know this)
Make good use of the search engines to look for drivers that you might
need.. and don't just depend on the web based search engines.. use the
Archie and Gopher engines too. There's a lot of information on the
web that never appears on web pages or Usenet. (let alone AltaVista or
Deja.com..)
------------------------------
From: Cryph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Help: Linksys Phoneline Network Card Support
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 00:27:00 -0500
My only choice of a NIC at home happens to be a Linksys Phoneline
Network Card (hpn100). I can find no way whatsoever to make this bugger
work, has anyone been sucessful or can point me in the right direction?
"The Linksys HomeLink Phoneline Network Card utilizes Advanced
Micro Devices' (AMDŽ) PCnet-Home technology"
Thanks in advance..
------------------------------
From: Chad Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and Maxtor hard drives?
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 06:30:02 GMT
I have a Maxtor 17GB drive that works fine with only one ext2fs
partition, on an Intel AL440LX board. fsck-ing it takes a while though. ;)
- Chad
Geoff Stanbury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, I'm wondering if Maxtor IDE hard drives work with Linux. See, I
> was about to buy a new hard drive today - a Maxtor 17.0 gigabyte IDE -
> when I saw a big ugly sticker on the front of the box that said
> "Windows 95 required."
> After checking the system requirements, I saw something to the point
> of Windows 9x or NT being required for the usage of all hard drives
> over Something in size.
> How accurate is this? I mean, do Maxtor hard drives act in the same
> terrible fashion as Winmodems? Or does this sticker mean something
> more like "Only recent operating systems can handle a hard drive of
> this size, and because most of the world uses Microsoft, we'll just
> say that you need something as recent at Windows 95" ?
> Thanks in advance.
------------------------------
From: "Peter Erzetic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.install,linux.redhat.install,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Problems with Lilo on reinstalling Redhat 5.2 and using an LS-120.
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 16:33:02 +1000
I have been having a heap of hassles getting Lilo operational on my system.
I have previously had Redhat 5.1 working like a charm.
I run it on a second drive and boot from my main drive.
I wanted to expand the size of my Linux partition, which I did successfully.
The installation went fine , it is only when I reboot that the problems
begin.
No Lilo prompt appears, instead I get a screenful of characters in an
infinite loop. I have to reboot with my windows boot disk and run
fdisk /mbr to regain access to the windows operating system.
Are the problems arising because I no longer have a standard floppy drive?
Do i have to make some adjustments to the settings on my LS-120?
Or is this something far more sinister?
The 5.2 installation wont let me create a boot disk so I cant even access
Linux via a disk.
My set up is windows hard drive on 1 IDE controller and Linux hard drive and
LS-120 on the other IDE controller.
I hope someone might have an answer, Linux is a good operating system and I
want to keep using it.
Any help would be greatly appreciated as I have wasted a lot of time on this
problem.
Peter E.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jens Haug)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Linux und Miro DC 30, Videoschnitt
Date: 9 Jul 1999 06:33:37 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <7m1gul$t4d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Jens Haug) writes:
> Weiss jemand, ob bzw. wie man eine Miro DC 30 Karte (zwecks Videoschnitt)
> unter Linux zum Laufen bringt?
> Und falls ich tatsaechlich diese Karte zum Laufen bringen sollte:
> Kann mir jemand gute Programme zum Video schneiden empfehlen?
Oops, I chose the wrong language for my question! Sorry about that.
So, this time in english:
Does anyone know if or how I can get a Miro DC 30 Video card running
under linux? We want to do some video grabbing and editing.
And in case I really get it working: Can you suggest a good program
for video editing?
TIA!
Jens
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony Hill)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 06:18:27 GMT
On Wed, 07 Jul 1999 07:52:34 GMT, a?n?g?e?l?@lovergirl-DOT.com
(L.Angel) wrote:
>>You have to remember, it was NOT a 'normal' P3, but a P3-Xeon that was
>>compared to the K7.
>>The regular P3 has half-CPU speed cache, the Xeon has full CPU speed cache.
>
>This is weird though, I know it's said to be compared against a Xeon
>but the benchmark on AMD's site only states it as a Pentium III 550Mhz
>(512KB). I would think that they would have pointed it out boldly that
>it was a Pentium III Xeon?
AMD's initially benchmark results released at their processor
dinner (AKA "Dinner With Dirk" :> ) compared the K7 550 and K7 600MHz
parts to a PIII Xeon 550. The benchmarks on AMD's website compare the
K7 550 to a PIII (not Xeon) 550. The K7 550 is said to be 46% faster
then the PIII in SPECfp_base95 and ~36% faster then the PIII Xeon
>Anyway, according to the SpecBench results,
>SPECfp_base95 of 15.1 for P3 Xeon 550, 14.3 for Xeon 500 as submitted
>by Intel
>SPECfp_base95 of 13.2 for P3 500 also submitted by Intel
>So that makes the P3 Xeon about 8.3% faster than the P3
>According to the same results, the P3 450 is 3% faster than the P2-450
>So K7 is 46% faster than Xeon, 49.8% faster than P3, 51.3% faster than
>the P2. Meaning the P2 to K7 is about 0.66:1 ratio.
Or perhaps more to the point, that should give AMD about 20.5
in SPECfp_base95. This puts in almost exactly on par with the
Digital/Compaq Alpha 21164 of the same clock speed. Pretty good
considering how fast the Alpha 21164 was in FP stuff for it's day,
although that chip is something like 3 years old now! Guess it just
goes to show how far x86 chips still trail some other designs.
>Given that somebody measured the relative performance of 3DNow and SSE
>with the result that 3DNow is more effective,
Others have probably done the same thing and found that
Internet SSE (the instruction set formerly known as SSE, formerly
known as KNI :> ) was more effective. In reality, both are fairly
comperable. ISSE has more instructions and a bit more flexibility,
but doesn't seem to actually be able to accomplish much more in the
real world (this would be typical of most Intel instruction sets of
the past, right from their 8086 on up).
Anthony Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Frank Paehlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: No DMA with ALI IDE chipset (Asus P5A)
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 08:40:09 +0200
Hi,
are there any kernel patches which enable busmaster DMA with the ALI
(Aladdin) M5229 chipset? On my system (K6-2/400, 128 MB RAM, Asus P5A,
IBM DTTA 10GB), disk access from Linux is terribly slow, which causes
very long startup times for e.g. KDE or Netscape.
On startup, the kernel reports something like the following, though DMA
is definitely enabled in the BIOS setup:
PCI-IDE: simplex device: DMA disabled
PCI-IDE: ide0: Bus-Master DMA disabled (BIOS)
PCI-IDE: simplex device: DMA disabled
PCI-IDE: ide1: Bus-Master DMA disabled (BIOS)
Any pointers to source code or any workarounds are welcome
Bye,
Frank
------------------------------
From: "Dean Kent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 23:59:00 -0700
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Anthony Hill wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
><Rant>
> I think Netscape has got to be at least tied with Internet
>Explorer for the buggiest piece of trash software ever created.
>Actually, with version 4.6x I believe Netscape took a commanding lead
>as having written the absolute buggiest program to ever be released.
>Is it just me or does each new revision of Netscape increase the
>number of bugs exponentially? All I can say is that I can't wait for
>Mozilla. We then might finally have a browser that functions
>properly, simply due to it's open source nature.
></Rant> :>
>
>Anthony Hill
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I thought you were a computer engineering student? Haven't you been taught
the programmers theme song...?
"99 little bugs in the code, 99 little bugs"
"Fix one bug, compile again"
"101 little bugs in the code"
Repeat until you reach zero...
Regards,
Dean
------------------------------
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: 9 Jul 1999 01:51:20 -0500
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Anthony Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I think this is just one of the many bugs in Netscape,
: more then just anything else.
Sure, but it makes an interesting "real world" benchmark no?
: I think Netscape has got to be at least tied with Internet
: Explorer for the buggiest piece of trash software ever created.
I second that emotion. Now flash back with me to the days of the "Big
Pulsing N" - running Win 3.11 and Trumpet Winsock. It probably crashed on
average once per hour of use, of course always necessitating a reboot.
Now that I think of it, I disagree with you. Windows 3.1 gets my vote for
biggest piece of trash software.
------------------------------
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: 9 Jul 1999 05:22:51 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Robato Yao)
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (kls) writes:
>In article <7m3huu$64h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>>
>>I am a Celeron(s) owner with a K6-III 450 and the Cel at 550 to boot.
>>
>>I must say that a K6-III 450 feels smoother than the Celeron on Windows
>>applications, especially when you got many of them opened, and until I
>>got my Celeron oc'ed to 550 is when the Celeron more or less starts
>>feeling a bit equal. Even having many big Windows applications opened,
>>they all feel like butter with the K6-III 450.
>>
>>Even then, I would notice that for instance, when *starting* games, such
>>as when games are loading textures, e.g. Descent 3, the K6-III is
>>faster, despite the system having slower hard drives.
>
>Indeed, the k63 is quicker mhz/mhz, I've no problem going along with this.
>Interestingly enough, 550/450 is 1.22~ which is about equal to what we've
>gone over before as being the ratio of how much faster the k63 is in linux
>compilation(23.5%). Until a dual celeron comes into play, which, as we've
>also covered, one can get for the same amount of $.
Not really. Like I said, the K6-3's performance is much more consistent
than a dual Celeron, where sometimes you're faster, but a lot of times,
you're much slower as well.
So it's even slightly faster than a Cel 550 on integer. It felt like
it.
>
>>Of course the Cel 366 is much cheaper than a K6-III 450, but to obtain a
>>Cel 366 that can overclock to 550 requires a considerable amount of
>>preparation and research, and for me that extra labor along with the
>>loss of warranty offsets the price advantage somewhat.
>
>Grasping as straws here Chris, even if I agreed that to obtain a cel 366 & oc
>to 550 'requires a considerable amount of prep & research'(which I don't):)
It does. You need to particularly look for week 14-25 Malay PPGA
Celeron 366, and many retailers are not interested to inform you what
exactly is their stock. You also need a slotket with adjustable
voltage, and even there, you still have to take a crap shot. You
practically have to burn in your Celeron at 2.3v or 2.4v for a period of
time, before you can back down to 2.2v. And of course, if you burn it
out, there is no warranty from overclocking is there.
A K6-III 450 is now under $200, and you only need to just buy it and
install it, and no need to worry about week blah blah blah, set voltage
and burn in blah blah blah, slotket blah blah blah, then sacrifice a
virgin or two and pray it works. Just remember about the rule comparing
overclocked processors versus nonoverclocked ones. A K6-III 450
running at 450MHz is guaranteed while a Cel 366 at 550 will always
be a risk. It's still possible for me to overclock the K6-III all the
way to 500MHz.
>
>>One must also remember that the K6-III is also unequal in terms of the
>>*L1* size, which is 64K, and double of that of the Celeron, and the
>>
>>K6-III enjoys the presence of an L3 cache from the motherboard, which
>>can be as big as a 1MB. The K6-III can bypass L1 and L2 to "snoop" at
>>data for the L3 simultaneously. Thus the total cache size of the K6-III
>>can be more than double of the Celeron (32K+128K), which is
>>64K+256K+1MB.
>
>P2 guys could oo-lala about having 4-way set assoc. cache vs k6's 2-way but
>it doesn't matter. Bottom line is the performance.
>
>>The K6-III also has a more aggressive integer processing
>>unit to boot, which is why a K6-2 core processor can more than keep up
>>with a PII or Cel with a backside cache even though the K6-2 is stiffled
>>with a much slower frontside cache.
>>
>>If one is looking at ZDNet's CPUMark99, the best bet against the K6-III
>>in terms of integer performance would be the Xeon, Warrior Processor.
>
>Dual celeron 'whips the lamas(k63's) ass'.
Did you hear what I said in my previous posts?
Multiprocessing does not do shit on many applications. Check the Ars
Technica website and look for their dual cpu God Machine vs. Nerd
Machine duel, and you will see that on many benchmarks, particularly
with games and ZDNet application benchmarks among others, dual
processing meant squat.
Plus there is no 100% guarantee that a dual Celeron will work reliably
everytime and without problems, so again, that's a crap shot.
Rgds,
Chris
(And the NUMBER ONE top oxy-MORON
1. Microsoft Works
---From the Top 50 Oxymorons (thanks to Richard Kennedy)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony Hill)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 06:18:26 GMT
On 7 Jul 1999 01:40:38 -0500, Jay Patrick Howard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
Under Netscape 4.51 it took my K6-2 450MHz just under a minute
to load the 12. Under Internet Explorer and Neoplanet (based on
Internet Explorer but with a different frontend) it took between 2 and
3 seconds. I think this is just one of the many bugs in Netscape,
more then just anything else.
<Rant>
I think Netscape has got to be at least tied with Internet
Explorer for the buggiest piece of trash software ever created.
Actually, with version 4.6x I believe Netscape took a commanding lead
as having written the absolute buggiest program to ever be released.
Is it just me or does each new revision of Netscape increase the
number of bugs exponentially? All I can say is that I can't wait for
Mozilla. We then might finally have a browser that functions
properly, simply due to it's open source nature.
</Rant> :>
Anthony Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony Hill)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 06:18:25 GMT
On 7 Jul 1999 01:42:57 -0500, Jay Patrick Howard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Anthony Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: The new Abit boards with UDMA/66 apperently have a Promise
>: UDMA/66 IDE controller on-board. You are correct in that the PIIX4E
>: Southbridge used by all of Intel's current chipsets except the i810
>: (which doesn't use a north/south bridge design at all) does not
>: support UDMA/66.
>
>Is this a good solution, in your estimation?
It's a good solution as far as functionality and stability are
concerned. It's not nearly as cost effective as using a southbridge
that supported UDMA/66, but I suppose you can't have everything.
> i.e. will it perform well,
>be stable, in any way foil overclocking, etc... ? It seems like a bit of
>a kludge...
I suppose it is a bit of a cludge, but until Intel releases
their i820 chipset, that's about the only way we're likely to see
UDMA/66 on an Intel chipset motherboard (it is also possible to use a
VIA 686A Super South bridge, or something similar, along with an Intel
440BX north bridge, but that would probably cost just as much as the
Promise controller that Abit is using, and wouldn't have as many
advantages and possibly even lower performance). As far as
overclocking is concerned, I'd be pretty certain that the controller
is simply sitting on the PCI bus, so the traditional rules about
overclocking your PCI bus would apply to that just as they would if
you had a regular Promise UDMA/66 PCI controller card, or PCI video
card, or whatnot. If you aren't overclocking the PCI bus, it
shouldn't make any difference at all.
Anthony Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony Hill)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 06:18:29 GMT
On Wed, 07 Jul 1999 13:58:25 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (chrisv) wrote:
>>We're talking AMD here, not Intel :-) In fact Ironside is out and
>>running with alpha processors, so they'll catch the bug, if there are
>>severe ones...
>
>Sure. I can't wait for the flood of "my TNT2 locks-up with my new K7
>machine" messages..... 8)
Hehe, possible, though perhaps a bad choice of examples. The
TNT2 is probably the one chipset almost garunteed to work with the K7,
as it's the one that AMD has been using all along with their test
systems! I suspect you're right in principal though that we'll
probably see some interoperability problems between some AGP cards and
the AMD Irongate (751/756) chipset, at least until the drivers mature
a bit. However early reports seem to be fairly promising. John
Carmack of iD fame has managed to put on some benchmarks with both
TNT2's and Voodoo3s on a K7 system, and claims to have tested out
Matrox G400s as well (though he didn't post any numbers, perhaps some
little bugs to be worked out there?).
Anthony Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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: 9 Jul 1999 01:57:18 -0500
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Anthony Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: It's a good solution as far as functionality and stability are
: concerned. It's not nearly as cost effective as using a southbridge
: that supported UDMA/66, but I suppose you can't have everything.
Performance and stability were what concerned me most.
: card, or whatnot. If you aren't overclocking the PCI bus, it
: shouldn't make any difference at all.
Cool. Looks like I'll wait a month or so, then, and get a BY6 instead of
the BM6. Maybe by that time Maxtor I'll also be able to purchase one of
Maxtor's new 7200rpm ATA-66 DiamondMax drives.
------------------------------
From: "ZombieSeed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: HELP w/ modem!
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 23:53:44 -0400
The model No. is FD34FSVD.
-Z
>Is this a "dvsd" modem (or "dsvd", I can never remember)?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Wick)
Subject: Re: ESS688 Soundchip without tone
Date: 9 Jul 1999 05:40:05 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>collection of modules for various sound card. Now I can play Cdda and
>MP3 files (problems with midi ones...)and there is no need of a
>dos-init.
Thanks
Yesterday i compile the OSS as Modules. So i can setup the sb16 without MPU and
have inserted the opl3 with his real io-addres. Suddenly the speaker gives me a
back-coupling and the sound runs. It runs without Dos-Setup and thats good,
cause the Notebook is Linux-Only:-)
Tip of the Day maybe: Sometimes Modules are more flexible than hard compiled
drivers.
Bye
Eric
------------------------------
From: "Charismo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 19:01:32 +1200
> >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.
>
> Under Netscape 4.51 it took my K6-2 450MHz just under a minute
> to load the 12. Under Internet Explorer and Neoplanet (based on
> Internet Explorer but with a different frontend) it took between 2 and
> 3 seconds. I think this is just one of the many bugs in Netscape,
> more then just anything else.
Running explorer 5 my K6-III @ 475 MHz loaded those instantaneously.
Anton
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
