Linux-Hardware Digest #739, Volume #10 Sun, 11 Jul 99 22:13:26 EDT
Contents:
Re: ISDN ("Helmuth Zach")
Re: SuSe + Hardrive partitioning (David Reiff)
IBM thinkpad i 1400 Support ("Griefer")
HD Recovery Suggestions Requested ("Patrick Shomo")
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Michael)
Re: Xwindows + ATI All in Wonder Pro AGP ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Dev's won't work??? (Ron Gibson)
Re: Xwindows + ATI All in Wonder Pro AGP ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Keith R. Williams)
Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT!
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Michael)
Re: Zoom 56K PCI Modem (M. Buchenrieder)
Re: Zoom 56K PCI Modem (Mircea)
Re: Cyrix MII MediaGX all-in-one mobo (Greg H)
Re: Bogus hard disk sizes from manufacturers ("Charles Sullivan")
Re: Cyrix MII MediaGX all-in-one mobo (Greg H)
Re: $299 linux pc hardware questions (Mohd H Misnan)
Can I use UMAX scanner and EggCam with Linux? (Jim Snyder)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Helmuth Zach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ISDN
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 03:01:23 +0200
You need to enter a special AT-Sequence to set the MSN. Just look in the
excellent isdn4linux-faq distributed with the isdn4linux utilities.
Ciao
Helli
Sebastian Speiser schrieb in Nachricht <7m8hje$vtd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>I have the HiSax Driver loaded and I want go online with /dev/ttyI0. With
a
>Terminal (minicom for example) I get this scene:
>ATD0191011
>NO EAZ/MSN
>
>0191011 is the phone number of T-Online.
>How can I give an EAZ or MSN. What must I type? Has somebody a reference of
>all instruction of the ISDN virtual Modem.
>
>
------------------------------
From: David Reiff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SuSe + Hardrive partitioning
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 22:57:08 +0000
Rolston Jeremiah wrote:
> Hello group,
>
> I have a 8GB hardrive ready to install SuSe 6.1. I not sure how
> many or how large partitions should be. The SuSe installation guide
> does not recommend partition/size. I have cooked up a rough sketch
> as a guide.
>
> If anyone has done this before I will greatly appreciate your input(add
> partition, delete partition, change size, etc.)Here is what I have done
>
> partition size mount point inode partition type
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> hda1 120M / 2048 linux native
> hda2 10M /boot 1024 linux native
> hda3 4000M /usr/local 40960 linux native
> hda5 520M /usr/src 8192 linux native
> hda6 500M /var 8192 linux native
> hda7 2600M /home 4096 linux native
> hda8 100M /tmp 2048 linux native
> hda9 10M / MSDos
> hda10 140M /swap swap
>
> Will this suffice?
>
> Thanks for your help
I just installed Suse 6.1 also, onto a second hard drive. I think your
setup will work, (but I'm no expert), with a couple possible exceptions. In
my case, the installation program complained about the size of my /swap,
saying that anything over 128M would not be used anyway, so I resized it
down to 120 megs. The computer I was working on has 96 megs ram anyway and
I suspect 50 megs swap would be enough for its use as a desktop computer.
Also, I think MSDOS needs to be below the 1024 cylinder, or it can't boot,
so if your hard drive has over 1024 cylinders, you need to put that
partition somewhere below 1024.
Watch that installation routine. I wasn't too impressed. In one instance
when I was installing LILO, the default was to install to the master boot
record. I didn't want it there and hit <esc> to try to back up to the
previous level, in the installation routine. Instead of backing up, it took
<esc> as <return> and wrote the LILO to the MBR. That caused me some pain,
to fix it. Also for some reason the installation doesn't detect the sound
system, and install OSS (if OSS can use the sound card). OSS is licensed to
SuSe users only, but still, why not just incorporate it into the install
routine? You have to do that manually, after the basic installation. RedHat
5.2 just installed all the sound stuff.
Dave
------------------------------
From: "Griefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: IBM thinkpad i 1400 Support
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 02:19:48 -0700
I saw couple of places where i 1450 is supported. Does anyone know if i1400
is supported (any distribution)?
--griefer
------------------------------
From: "Patrick Shomo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.help
Subject: HD Recovery Suggestions Requested
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 20:12:50 -0400
To the informed,
This is the second darn Quantum Drive (4.5 GB SCSI Viking II, SCA
connect) to go in a few weeks.
I recovered pieces of the first from a Solaris box (it was used for
Solaris). The second drive was in my personal computer (running Linux, of
course) and had not been backed up for a few days when it died. I need a few
files, so here are my questions:
I'm booting from another SCSI disk and all is well. When I attach the
bad disk, the system does not make it through a boot. I hot-swap in the disk
after a successful boot and don't know where next to go. In Solaris I can
try a "drvconfig" to have the system probe for devices w/out a boot. This
usually does not hang the system and allows me to create the appropriate dev
entries to go after the disk. How do I do this in Linux?
If this does not work, can I manually create device entries to get at
this thing with dd, et al.
What type of recovery procedures (other than proper backups) are there
for dead SCSI disks?
Thanks for the help,
Pat
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 00:51:37 GMT
Marc Mutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Michael wrote:
>>
>
>> And of course you said a few days ago that the celeron was as quick as
>> the k6 III in this area.... change of tune? Shall I quote?
>>
>Yes, please.
>I was talking of benchmarks like BAPCO, where the AMD actually gains a
>few percent over the cel. But nothing you would notice w/o timer.
>
>Marc
>
>--
>Marc Mutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://marc.mutz.com/
>University of Bielefeld, Dep. of Mathematics / Dep. of Physics
>
Mark:
That post was NOT directed at you, please read again.
Mike
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Xwindows + ATI All in Wonder Pro AGP
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 00:53:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I use the Mach64 set and it works fine. I use
24bpp colour @ 1280x1024.
> It won't let me use 1600x1200@24bpp because it
thinks it's an invalid mode
> for mach64 chipsets. But I had a problem
setting up XServer also. It kept
> trying to set my refresh rate outside my
monitors specified range. less
> than 50Hz. The cause of this problem was that
I had my TV hooked up to the
> video out on my card. Ths solution was to
disconnect the TV (you can leave
> the ps/2 like connector in the video card, just
unhook the video cable to
> the TV) and shutdown everything (computer AND
monitor). restart in linux,
> rerun setup and all should be good. Note: You
only have to do this if you
> hook up the video to the tv again. I have
booted to windows and back to
> linux many times since then, and had no
problems.
>
> ttyl
>
> DW
>
> ------------------ Posted via SearchLinux ----
==============
> http://www.searchlinux.com
>
I have a similar problem as well. But I have a (I
Believe) slightly newer style ATI All in wonder
pro (8mb AGP) that uses a riser card (with the
video out's and in's except for the tuner) and
short ribbon cable that connects to the Main
Card. I have ttried to go as far as disconnect
the ribbon cable but it still trys to bring up
any resolution I try at well below 50hz. And that
isn't working :(. Any one out there with a card
like mine that can help?
Buster
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ron Gibson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Dev's won't work???
Date: 12 Jul 1999 01:07:20 GMT
I have a strange problem and I'm not exactly sure where to start. I
just recently down loaded the latest Slackware off Sunsite and when
trying to get my old data from a previous install archive to tape I
discovered that several "dev"'s will not work.
For instance invoking commands such as "ftape" or "fd0" I get a no such
device message. However when viewing the directory with MC the devices
and or links are there and they have been made.
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Xwindows + ATI All in Wonder Pro AGP
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 01:00:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I use the Mach64 set and it works fine. I use 24bpp colour @
1280x1024.
> It won't let me use 1600x1200@24bpp because it thinks it's an invalid
mode
> for mach64 chipsets. But I had a problem setting up XServer also.
It kept
> trying to set my refresh rate outside my monitors specified range.
less
> than 50Hz. The cause of this problem was that I had my TV hooked up
to the
> video out on my card. Ths solution was to disconnect the TV (you can
leave
> the ps/2 like connector in the video card, just unhook the video
cable to
> the TV) and shutdown everything (computer AND monitor). restart in
linux,
> rerun setup and all should be good. Note: You only have to do this
if you
> hook up the video to the tv again. I have booted to windows and back
to
> linux many times since then, and had no problems.
>
> ttyl
>
> DW
>
> ------------------ Posted via SearchLinux ------------------
> http://www.searchlinux.com
>
I have am Ati All-in-Wonder as well, with the same problem, low refresh
rates. My problem is that instead of having the ps/2 style cable, mine
has a riser board that sits in the slot next to the video card and is
connected with a short ribbon cable. No matter what I do, even
disconnecting the ribbon cable, I still get the low refresh rates.
Any Ideas?
Buster
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith R. Williams)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: 12 Jul 1999 00:54:13 GMT
On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 21:35:49, Marc Mutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Keith R. Williams wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 21:55:04, "Dean Kent"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > The Pentium MMX is significantly faster than the non-MMX processor (enough
> > > to notice). This is due solely to a 32K L1 cache vs. a 16K L1 cache.
> >
> > There were other enhancements Intel threw into the P55C over the
> > P54C. I think you'll find the P55C a tad faster even neglecting
> > the differences in the L1 size.
> >
> > Homework for Dean: Benchmark a P54C vs. a P55C with the L1 cache
> > disabled. I think you'll see a difference between them. It'll be
> > small, but still a difference. I'd do it, but I no longer have
> > any P54Cs. Maybe I can borrow one.
> >
> No, I think Dean is correct (and me too :-). You will notice no
> difference above the now often claimed measurement uncertainity. Here's
> why:
> _Every_ read access is first checked against L1.
Nope. Accesses to memory are broadcast and the first to "pick up"
the address as valid responds. We don't go searching through
caches to find who's got the data. The whole idea of this
exercise is to un-stall the processor. If the data is in the L1
the processor won't stall. If it's in the L2, well there will be
a penalty.
> In 90% of the code
> accesses and - if you have a fine algorithm - also 80-90% of the data
> accesses the L1 hits. So the speed of the L1 is significant. Agreed?
No. I don't agree. Not even close. Certainly the latency of the
L1 is important. The L1 is usually a line wide to the CPU and a
one cycle latency so the processor won't stall. Certainly nowhere
near 90% of the memory accesses are caught by the L1.
> But also the _size_ of the L1 is significant, because it is so much
> smaller than the L2. Going from 16K to 32K will bring you some kind of
> performance 'boost' (like 10%), going from 256K to 512K L2 will give you
> <2%.
Nope. But I have to laugh. You say that 90% of the accesses are
caught by the L1 and you get a 10% boost by going from 16K to
32K. That leaves 1% of the performance for the L2 and main
memory. Neat!
However, let's not confuse L1s and L2s. They have somewhat
different purposes.
> So we end up that L1 speed and size is _very_ important. So why isn't
> L2? Because around 90% of the accesses hit the L1, only 10% don't and of
> that 10% maybe 20-30% fail the L2 too. Also, if the L1 does not hit, the
> complete chache line of 16 bytes or more containing the requested data
> is read in a single burst transfer from the L2 (or DRAM), so the next
> access - given it is sequential - hits the L1 again.
> To sum up: L1 speed and size is 90% significant.
> L2 speed and size is ~10% significant.
> L3 speed and size is <~2% significant.
We cannot agree on the premis of this argument, so we are surely
not going to agree on the conclusion. If you'd run your own
numbers you'd see that you're over 100%.
> This does not hold, if you have many CPU's in a UMA. In this case you
> can see significant speed-ups from larger L2/L3 caches, given every CPU
> has its own.
UMA? Me thinks you have to learn the jargon. SMP is what you're
discussing (UMA is a graphics architecture). I wasn't touching
SMP. That's a different argument, but not unrelated.
----
Keith
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT!
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 17:54:55 -0700
On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 17:22:03 -0500, Hobbyistİ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 10:38:26 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] scrawled these
>sagacious words ...
>
>: >What started all this was one writer saying that he gets a lot of windows
>: >helpers from magazines and popular media websites.
>:
>: Notice the complete lack of any actual detail. This is just
>: a bald assertion and generalization on it's own.
>
>A valid one however. But you in turn rebutted with an inaccurate/
>inappropriate generalisation that contradicted your own statements later
>on. :)
I didn't contradict myself actually. Both comments were different
ways of supporting the same premise. None of the comments were
stated in universal terms.
[deletia]
--
It helps the car, in terms of end user complexity and engineering,
that a car is not expected to suddenly become wood chipper at some |||
arbitrary point as it's rolling down the road. / | \
Seeking sane PPP Docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 01:05:10 GMT
Marc Mutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mike, I can't quite follow you with that. What do you mean with
>'application does not go faster, but multitasking does'? Can you clarify
>and maybe give us some benchmarks (simultaneous Word, Excel, Access,
>CorelDraw, ... Macros doing a lot of user interaction stuff - resizing
>windows, raising windows, etc)?
>
>Marc
>
>--
Its not the speed of applications that seems different, its the speed
of Windows and operating system functions that seem faster with L3
cache enabled. No benchmark I know of will show this. A typical
business user may have six applications open. Say Word, IE 5.0, Free
Agent, a spreadsheet, Mail or some such mix. When going to save a
document, the context menu is instant on the k6 III with L3 enabled,
with it disabled, its still nearly instant, but slower. If I switch
to Mail, then come back, the lag is longer on the menu with L3
disabled. This same feature is more pronounced in a celeron, and much
less pronounced in a PII or PIII. Switching is instant, not a lag
like on a celeron. Lag is too strong, not as fast...as on a celeron.
All I can say that unless you use a few applications at the same time,
switching between them, you won't understand what I am saying.
A second issue, is the speed of the application itself on a k6III
versus a celeron, but it seems we all concede that it may be faster on
a k6III, and god forbid of course the celeron wins in games (if I
don't mention that I'll hear how important FPU is to everyone). For
my business use, the k6 III wins hands down. All review I see don't
mention this prominently, and instead talk about (to me) silly stuff
like FPU. I mean it seems as if every review everywhere cares only
about games and says all are equal in business. Its just not true is
my point. Games are just not that important to business users, and
those who need photoshop probably know that adobe makes filters and
program code optimized for intel processors. It just seems that
everyone glosses over Windows as a business function.....maybe the
reviewers don't have enough experience in business to know the
difference either but they do know there FPS. Maybe I am tired of
hearing about the celeron and how wonderful it is when it doesn't live
up to my expectations as a business user. :) By the way, my point is
mainly confined to celeron, as the PII or PIII are a pleasure to work
on for business use too.
Mike
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (M. Buchenrieder)
Subject: Re: Zoom 56K PCI Modem
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 21:47:29 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (SpamMatt) writes:
[...]
>Thanks Michael.. I'm heading out to CompUSA today to buy a cheap one.
A simple 56K V90 external should be available for about USD 50.-- to
USD 60.--, depending on the brand.
>I just can't afford a really expensive 56k modem. Have a nice day.
Uh, you'd prefer waisting your precious' CPU's cycles instead ? :)
Michael
--
Michael Buchenrieder * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.muc.de/~mibu
Lumber Cartel Unit #456 (TINLC) & Official Netscum
Note: If you want me to send you email, don't munge your address.
------------------------------
From: Mircea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Zoom 56K PCI Modem
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 21:24:56 -0400
You can get a nice external 56K modem that works very well in Linux at
www.mpipc.com, for $57 (Phoebe, Rockwell chipset, model V1456VQE).
MST
SpamMatt wrote:
> Thanks Michael.. I'm heading out to CompUSA today to buy a cheap one.
>
> I just can't afford a really expensive 56k modem. Have a nice day.
------------------------------
From: Greg H <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Cyrix MII MediaGX all-in-one mobo
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 01:13:17 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have a media gx 180 that runs linux just fine. The integrated video
> is supported in the latest Xfree86, and the integrated audio works with
> the SB16 driver. I haven't successfully configured an X server for
> the GX, as I run an 8MB Millenium II card. If you have a spare video
> card, I recommend that you install it to save yourself a few hassles.
I do. I have a 2 MB STB Trio 64 PCI video card, which I can put in
it. I also have a spare 1 GB WD harddrive for it. The only thing I
need other than the board is RAM, which is relatively cheap right now.
> Be careful of the layout of the PS/1 case, though. I just came into
> possession of one and the case is not AT standard layout. For the
> motherboard that I tried to put in the PS/1 case, only 1 mounting hole
> lined up. It is a standard AT size, just non-standard mounting
> points. The cyrix board does have a riser card (at least mine does), so
> I think you should be safe there. Good Luck.
Thanks for letting me know this as I thought of it after I posted.
I appreciate the help.
Greg H.
--
ROT-13 encoded email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Charles Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
Subject: Re: Bogus hard disk sizes from manufacturers
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 21:06:50 -0400
At least they're not rounding it up to 17 GB! Maybe they're allowing for
a certain
percentage of bad sectors so you can't sue them for punitive damages @
$1/bit
when you're sold a drive that doesn't meet the capacity they specify. :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>I recently bought a IBM-DTTA-351680 hard disk, which IBM claims is a
>"16.8 GB" drive. The drive actually has 33022080 512-byte sectors,
>which is 16.9 billion bytes or 16124 MB (binary). Why do they call
>this a "16.8 GB" drive?
>
>If GB=10^9 then it's 16.9 GB
>if GB=2^30 then it's 15.7 GB
>
>What strange metric is IBM now using to compute hard disk sizes that they
>come up with "16.8 GB" ? It's confusing enough already that there are
>two commonly used definitions of GB without having IBM invent their own.
------------------------------
From: Greg H <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Cyrix MII MediaGX all-in-one mobo
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 01:18:33 GMT
J Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that the basic solution has been missed. To try to upgrade this OLD
> computer is simply not cost effective. You can buy an entirely new system
> for less than $300, and don't say that you can't afford that if you intend
Does that include a monitor? What kind of parts? I don't consider
third-rate parts cost-effective.
> to upgrade the MB and processor for $200. WHant about your 20 MB HD that
> you'll have to upgrade, sound card, video. . . etc.
I'm not saying I can't afford anything. The motherboard in question
has on-board video and sound. In addition to that, I have a spare video
card, sound card and harddrive, which I can out into it, all of which are
good quality. It's cost-effective as far as I am concerned.
> Look at the big picture.
Whatever.
Greg H.
--
ROT-13 encoded email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mohd H Misnan)
Subject: Re: $299 linux pc hardware questions
Date: 11 Jul 1999 13:23:12 GMT
On 09 Jul 1999 09:44:37 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Linux systems with 2 button mice....UGH!!!!!!!!
And err.. what wrong with 2 button mouse?
--
|Mohd Hamid Misnan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|iMac/233RevB/MacOS 8.6 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|AMDK6-2/300/Linux2.2.10 | http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/3319/ |
-"And the Lord set a mark upon Cain." -- Genesis 4:15
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Snyder)
Subject: Can I use UMAX scanner and EggCam with Linux?
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 01:03:50 GMT
Hi
I am getting ready to load Caldera Open Linux 2.2 on a new computer.
It is a home built Cyrix 233MMX with 128 megs of RAM, Matrox Millenium
Video, and Sound Blaster Awe 64 sound card.
Is it difficult to install a Panasonic EggCam and a UMAX Vista S-12
scanner? I would like to use them with Linux.
Thank you
Jim Snyder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
