Linux-Hardware Digest #617, Volume #14 Fri, 13 Apr 01 01:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: BIOS Upgrades (Was: Via + Maxtor + kernel 2.4.3 = crash?) (Harold Stevens
US.972.952.3293)
Re: HPT370 Driver Request (Andrey Vlassov)
Audio with Linux (2.4.2/2.2.16) kernel and Asus AV7133 ("Larry Snyder")
Re: Does Linux suport thermal printer? (Andrey Vlassov)
Re: ide-scsi problem? (Dances With Crows)
Re: CDRW on ATA100 (Dances With Crows)
Re: ** HP Pavilion computers: modem works? ** ("larry")
Re: Samba - Strange Password Prompt (HOT/URGENT!) (Peter F. Curran)
Re: SMP motherboard recommendations solicited (Charles E. Hill)
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Linux on Intel Or Celeron? what is the best choice? (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Linux on Intel Or Celeron? what is the best choice? (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Linux on Intel Or Celeron? what is the best choice? (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Linux on Intel Or Celeron? what is the best choice? (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Harold Stevens US.972.952.3293)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: BIOS Upgrades (Was: Via + Maxtor + kernel 2.4.3 = crash?)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 00:28:02 GMT
In <9b58du$h6c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matt Ng:
[Snip...]
>Did you try http://www.ping.be/bios/index.html ? Found it using Google a
>while back when upgrading a BIOS.
Thanks for that polite tip; I do not recall this one at all from about two
weeks ago (?) myself. Lotta water under the Google bridge, though.
[Snip...]
>I'd think it's RAM related. Try just running the new sticks alone and see
>if that brings up the kernel panic.
Thanks again and I think my first order of business will be to try out the
slrn "author kill" tip "burk" had in his post as well.
Oh, happy day; possibly two birds with one stone, as it were.
--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon the bogus email domain (dseg etc.) in place for spambots.
Really it's (wyrd) at raytheon, dotted with com. DO NOT SPAM IT.
Standard Disclaimer: These are my opinions not Raytheon Company.
------------------------------
From: Andrey Vlassov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: HPT370 Driver Request
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 00:29:02 GMT
==============50A7016248BDE8F503CBB19B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Emyr,
yes you right - KT7-RAID has software raid. You and I got one extra chip which do
nothing for hardware RAID.
Andrey
Emyr James wrote:
> Am I understanding this right ? My Raid 0 installation of win2k is actually
> doing it's thang in software not hardware ? Does that mean that the ABIT KT7
> with onboard raid controller is no such thing cause it's all done in software
> anyway ?
> What a fucking con!!!!
> (pardon my french...)
>
> Juergen Sauer wrote:
>
> > Emyr James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb
> > am Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:05:41 +0100 in comp.os.linux.hardware:
> >
> > > Please can some nice driver guru sort out raid support for an ABIT KT7
> > > RAID mobo (very popular board) ?
> > > Win2K handles it fine, surely it must be possible to get Linux to do it
> > > properly as well...or are there some complications ?
> > > Is there support for this in the pipeline ?
> > > Any news appreciated.
> >
> > Kernel 2.4.x has it in, called there HPT366, runns fine.
> > No Raid functions avaible, because the 'HTP370' does Raid only as
> > shitty Software in Windump ...
> > mfG
> > Jojo
> >
> > --
> > Jürgen Sauer - AutomatiX GmbH, +49-4209-4699, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://www.automatix.de to Mail me: remove: -not-for-spawm-
--
==============50A7016248BDE8F503CBB19B
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Emyr,
<p>yes you right - KT7-RAID has software raid. You and I got one
extra chip which do nothing for hardware RAID.
<p>Andrey
<p>Emyr James wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Am I understanding this right ? My Raid 0 installation
of win2k is actually
<br>doing it's thang in software not hardware ? Does that mean that the
ABIT KT7
<br>with onboard raid controller is no such thing cause it's all done in
software
<br>anyway ?
<br>What a fucking con!!!!
<br>(pardon my french...)
<p>Juergen Sauer wrote:
<p>> Emyr James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb
<br>> am Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:05:41 +0100 in comp.os.linux.hardware:
<br>>
<br>> > Please can some nice driver guru sort out raid support for an ABIT
KT7
<br>> > RAID mobo (very popular board) ?
<br>> > Win2K handles it fine, surely it must be possible to get Linux
to do it
<br>> > properly as well...or are there some complications ?
<br>> > Is there support for this in the pipeline ?
<br>> > Any news appreciated.
<br>>
<br>> Kernel 2.4.x has it in, called there HPT366, runns fine.
<br>> No Raid functions avaible, because the 'HTP370' does Raid only as
<br>> shitty Software in Windump ...
<br>> mfG
<br>> Jojo
<br>>
<br>> --
<br>> Jürgen Sauer - AutomatiX GmbH, +49-4209-4699, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<br>> <a href="http://www.automatix.de">http://www.automatix.de</a> to
Mail me: remove: -not-for-spawm-</blockquote>
<pre>--
</pre>
</html>
==============50A7016248BDE8F503CBB19B==
------------------------------
From: "Larry Snyder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus
Subject: Audio with Linux (2.4.2/2.2.16) kernel and Asus AV7133
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 20:31:37 -0400
I have been unable to get the onboard audio to work with my Asua A7V133
under Linux - it works just fine under Windows 2K.
The audio hardware is detected at boot time - when I try to stream audio
using the real player I get lots of static (but I can make out the music in
the background)..
When I log into the machine (using Mandrake 8 Beta 3) I do get the "login"
WAV played just fine..
Any ideas?
Larry
------------------------------
From: Andrey Vlassov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Linux suport thermal printer?
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 00:31:54 GMT
Afonso,
what is model and manufacture?
Andrey
Afonso Sam wrote:
> on POS system, Thermal printer are widely used to eithor slip/invoice
> printing or barcode printing. Does Linux support thermal printer?
>
> Afonso Sam
--
=
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dances With Crows)
Subject: Re: ide-scsi problem?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 13 Apr 2001 01:28:21 GMT
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 22:42:53 +0100, Julian Gough staggered into the
Black Sun and said:
>I have an ide PlexWriter 8/4/32A which was working flawlessly under
>linux for many months via a virtual scsi device set up by the
>bootloader etc. etc.. I was able to read and write CDs and use
>commands such as cdrecord,eject,mount etc..
>
>Today it spontaneously stopped working. I could not eject by pressing
>the button on the drive, the 'eject' command yields:
>eject: unable to eject, last error: Invalid argument
>
>as root or as a user. When I try cdrecord it reports that my drive is
>not supported:
>
>[root@stash jgough]# cdrecord dev=1,0,0 -checkdrive
>Cdrecord 1.9 (i586-mandrake-linux-gnu) Copyright (C) 1995-2000 Jörg
>Device seems to be: Generic CD-ROM.
>cdrecord: Sorry, no CD/DVD-Recorder or unsupported CD/DVD-Recorder found
>on this target.
>
>I had experienced this same problem a year ago on a different computer
>with a different CD drive, with a different distribution of linux and
>a very different kernel etc.. Having beaten my head against the
>problem before (I tried all the obvious things I could think of) I knew
>that the only way to fix this was a reboot, so I bit the bullet and
>rebooted the machine which gets rebooted about every time there's a
>power cut or I need to recompile the kernel.
>
>After the reboot it was working fine again, until I'd written one CD,
>and then it went back to the same problem. This is not a machine that
>can be rebooted often, so I really need to fix it this time.
Is it possible that the drive has gone bad? Mechanical failure happens
to even the best-made devices.
>The only other curious thing is that scsi_info reports the wrong SCSI
>ID:
>[root@stash jgough]# scsi_info /dev/scd0
>SCSI_ID="0,0,0"
>MODEL="PLEXTOR CD-R PX-W8432T"
And what's "cdrecord -scanbus" say? DO you have a separate SCSI card
here, or a parport SCSI device like a ZIP drive that's appearing as
a virtual SCSI bus?
>... but then this may be a separate issue.
>
>I would really appreciate any advice or help on tackling this problem.
>I've seen this problem reporteed by people all over the newsgroups
>because they think its a 'cdrecord' problem, or an 'eject' problem or
>'gtoaster' etc. etc. but I am pretty sure it's a bit more low-level
>than that.
My gut feeling is that it's a hardware problem... you might try doing a
firmware update on the drive, and make sure that the drive isn't
overheating. ICBW, of course. HTH, bonne chance....
--
Matt G|There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see
Brainbench MVP for Linux Admin / Workin' in a code mine, hittin' Ctrl-Alt
http://www.brainbench.com / Workin' in a code mine, whoops!
=============================/ I hit a seg fault....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dances With Crows)
Subject: Re: CDRW on ATA100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 13 Apr 2001 01:28:23 GMT
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:59:52 -0400, Marc Ulrich staggered into the Black
Sun and said:
>I was informed in an earlier message that putting a CDRW on my Promise
>Ultra ATA 100 card would degrade the performance of my hdd. Is this the
>case even if my HDD is on primary Promise controller and the CDRW is on
>the secondary Promise controller?
I wouldn't think so. Each IDE controller is supposed to be a separate
bus, so devices on one controller don't interfere with devices
elsewhere. FWIW, I'm running an IBM Deskstar drive on the same IDE
channel as my CD-RW, so they're limited to UDMA/33 at most, and I get
roughly 20M/s out of the disk. That's fast enough for me, for now.
>I don't want to change b/c putting the CDRW on the onboard controller
>funks out the hdx letters (hda is no longer hda) giving me a real
>headache for trying to get the system to boot.
There's an option when you compile a kernel with "make menuconfig" that
says "Boot off-board chipsets first by default". This will make hde
look like hda. Or you could try "root=/dev/hdeX".
>Well, if I have to change, what do I need to inform Lilo of? Currently:
>On board primary = nothing On board secondary master = cdrom slave= Zip
>Promise primary = master = HDD (which I think is only using 66Mhz
>instead of 100. That's another question.) slave = none.
UDMA/100 is a marketing gimmick at the moment. The maximum sustained
data transfer rate for the most expensive IDE disks you can get now is
roughly 40M/s, not enough to saturate a /66 bus. In about 1.2 years, if
drive tech. keeps going the way it has, UDMA/100 may live up to the
hype.
>Promise secondary = master = none slave = HP 7200 CDRW.
>
>How can I move things around to keep the Promise primary hda? Or, what
>should I do to inform linux to look elsewhere for the root fs?
--
Matt G|There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see
Brainbench MVP for Linux Admin / Workin' in a code mine, hittin' Ctrl-Alt
http://www.brainbench.com / Workin' in a code mine, whoops!
=============================/ I hit a seg fault....
------------------------------
From: "larry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ** HP Pavilion computers: modem works? **
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 15:50:47 -0700
"Carlos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9b2e0n$1ah$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I am thinking of buying an HP Pavilion XE783 computer (dirt cheap: for
> $400: Cel 700MHz, 64MB, CDRW, modem, sound, integrated video).
>
> Does anyone know if the included Modem works with Linux?
>
<SNIP>
I am certain it won't work. It is a winmodem... HP doesn't put real modems
in any of it's new computers, nor does anyone else that I know of.
btw, I am running a HP also and am using a Viking Components 56K External.
Had to if I wanted to connect with Linux.
There is much work being done with the WinModems but the Conexant Modems in
the HP aren't there yet...
Sorry.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter F. Curran)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Samba - Strange Password Prompt (HOT/URGENT!)
Date: 13 Apr 2001 01:50:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mark_Harju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Hello everyone. Sorry to bug you, but I've got a Linux hair-puller here!
[snip]
You'll have to go read the Samba-HowTo... I don't remember the
details... The problem is probably related to the multiple
authentication methods which can be used.
Basically, for "secure" SMB connections you'll need to set up a
Samba specific password file and use the 'smbpasswd' command to
set up each users access. (Secure SMB passwords are transmitted
hashed so the system can't easily automatically sync with or use
the normal /etc/passwd&/etc/shadow system.)
Good luck!
--
Peter F Curran
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
"If you paid for your operating system, you probably
paid too much for your operating system."
**** USE EMAIL ADDRESS IN ORG LINE TO REPLY ****
------------------------------
From: Charles E. Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SMP motherboard recommendations solicited
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 04:05:08 GMT
Gregg Nemesure wrote:
> I would like to put together a Linux-based SMP system, but I might need to
> run Solaris on it as well.
>
> Some questions:
>
> 1. Is Linux SMP still considered experimental, or is it now stable?
>
> 2. What dual x86 CPU motherboards are recommended?
>
> 3. Are there any that are known to work well with both Solaris and Linux?
>
> 4. Are there single CPU motherboards known to work well with both?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
Opinions vary, but SMP for 2-4 processors is usually considered stable with
8+ being a bit more "adventuresome".
I have used an ASUS P2B-DS for over a year (Intel BX based w/AIC 7xxx
onboard Ultra2 SCSI) and it has never let me down (get all the extra fans
you can). The down side is that it is an older board (PC-100 RAM, 1 Gb
MAX; Dual P-2/3 upto either 600 or 800 MHz depending on the manufacture
date). I have a Dual P3-600 w/1 Gb of RAM running 2.4.3 kernel and it is
rock-solid.
Check out Red Hat's and Sun's HCLs for what works. I suspect that Solaris
x86 will be a bit more picky. BTW: What version of Solaris?
Singles: Yes, most likely any one that works with Solaris will work with a
modern Linux distro.
--
Charles E. Hill
Artek New Media
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 04:10:56 GMT
chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And the price is the final nail. I see LCD's as being an inferior
> product that costs MUCH more. Put it back in the oven, it ain't done
> yet.
Yet another good point: they do get better all the time, and
while I don't know when they'll be "done" to my satisfaction,
it's worth keeping an eye on what's available -- you know, read
a review site occasionally or something. I can remember when
an LCD display was so poor you had to squint under the BEST
of circumstances. They're much better now, and they'll
continue to improve, surely.
There are cases where they have real advantages, of course,
most notably when space is at a serious premium, in which
case they can be worth the extra money for sure, if you
can afford it. Although I'd be looking at small form-factor
PCs first, in spite of the fact that I really hate small
cases. (If it doesn't have more drive bays and expansion
slots than I can possibly use, I don't want it...)
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 04:10:58 GMT
chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >At work, where nearly all the
> >monitors use 60Hz (several of them are using 256 or
> >even 16 colours for lack of a good graphics card),
>
> Like a graphics card that can do better than this
> costs more that $25 these days? Are people really
> that cheap?
No, but "upgrade" isn't in the director's vocabulary.
Taking the cover off the case isn't something we do
in-house. (I did once, to put in a NIC, but I'm not
certain the director realised I had to take the
computer apart to do that, and I somehow neglected
to expressly mention it for some reason. Also, the
addition of the new NIC was specifically recommended
to me by OPLIN tech support, and it was OPLIN who
originally supplied the PC in question.) When we
look at new hardware, tech support figures in the
decision in a major way. I can't put together just
any hardware I/we want, because it wouldn't be
"covered". And if I were leave or be on vacation
or whatever, the library wants to be able to call
tech support if anything happens. It's a mindset
I don't agree with, but it isn't my decision.
That, and a lot of people, including some of the
librarians, can't see the difference between 256
colours and 24-bit colour. Really. I personally
can't understand this, since even 16-bit colour
looks not-quite-right to me, but then again I also
think black-and-white photocopies of colour photographs
are so poor-quality as to be not worth the paper
they're copied on, but we have lots of patrons who
look at them and say, "Perfect!", so I guess it's
all relative to your expectations.
> If my boss didn't buy me one I'd get it myself. Sheesh.
Most librarians don't know what a graphics card *is*,
or for that matter how exactly the monitor differs
from the computer. (I must admit, having no small
number of Macs around confuses this issue.) We
have an ecclectic assortment of vintages, because
we tend to replace the oldest computers in a cycle;
we just got rid of an Apple Macintosh (yes, the
model previous to the Mac Plus) last year, though
admittedly it hadn't been in use for a while. We
do still have a Mac LC III that patrons use for word
processing. On the other end of the scale, we have
an AlphaServer DS10, which for an organisation our
size is one heck of a computer (though admittedly
it's not a single-user system; it keeps track of
our entire database as well as running all the
automation software, so it needs more power than
a PC would need). The PCs range from a 486 at
the low end (DOS 6 and Windows 3.1, for word
processing and nothing else) to an eOne (a Pentium
II system IIRC, very cheesy-looking one-piece system
that ostensibly has a clock speed higher than my
PC at home but is in every other way substantially
inferior), and we're looking at getting a newer one
(probably a Celeron system) in the near future.
The Macs range up to iMac DVs at the moment.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 04:11:00 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith R. Williams) wrote:
> ..too much trouble to adjust every blasted screen to my
> likes.
Heh. I only have one screen to adjust, but I had to
adjust it in half a dozen different operating systems...
the hardest one to get it right in so far was, oddly,
the BeOS, despite its graphical bent and plethora of
cool features (not least of all, the ability to have
different resolutions and colour depths for each
workspace, a feature I fell in love with immediately;
I wish Gnome could do that, much less Windoze).
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 04:11:03 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith R. Williams) wrote:
> Again, dual displays are a big help.
That would be nice. If I had a dual display, I could keep
Emacs permanently on the one display and put everything else
on the other monitor. That'd be distinctly cool.
> > And if I do get interrupted, there's no amount of screen
> > real estate that's going to save my train of thought; once
> > I get past about three levels of nesting, it can take up to
> > five minutes to recover my thoughts after a fifteen-second
> > interruption. And if I'm working in a new language that
> > I'm just learning, it's several times that bad.
>
> Interrupts are bad. When I'm thinking I throw the
> headphones on and do a tune or two (likely not your style of
> music ;-).
Probably not. I listen mostly to baroque music, especially
late baroque. (Bach, Vivaldi, Handel, Purcell, Teleman,
Pachelbel, ...) I also like one romantic composer (Chopin),
the occasional classical (e.g., Dvorak), and even a little
modern music on occasion (Glad (www.glad-pro.com), and
occasionally some techno; I even don't mind the music
from Descent every now and again).
> Many studies have shown that it takes 15 minutes
> to get into a deep concentration state and only one phone
> call to lose it. ...then we get into the performance of the
> system. Dean, that's your cue. ;-)
For *most* of what I do, RAM is the big performance
issue. I keep lots of processes open at once, but
most of them are not CPU-intensive. I do occasionally
do some raytracing, and that *is* CPU-intensive, but
I tend to preview at 320x200 or so (and without the
nicer things like antialiasing and focal blur) while
I'm working on the scene and then when I get it like
I want it I set it to render while I'm away at work
or, if that's not long enough, while I sleep.
If I were getting a new system today, it'd be
probably a Duron system, on the theory that the
decent FSB would probably be nice a few years
down the line. I'd load it down with RAM, though,
and I'd definitely be thinking hard about DDR
despite the extra cost -- like I said, RAM makes
a big difference for what I do. I tend to have
so many background processes that I *have* to
have my taskbar set to autohide because it's
enlarged to literally half the screen just to
give every window enough real estate there that
I can read its full title. Plus I tend to do
a lot with quick-and-dirty scripts that are
not terribly efficient with RAM, because it
takes less time to write them that way.
(Think: slurping a multi-megabyte text file
and storing parts of it multiple times in
different associative arrays hashed on
different fields...)
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 04:11:05 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith R. Williams) wrote:
> I was there too. My second phone line cost me $50 a month.
Yeesh. $20 here.
> Add in two ISPs at $43/month and a $40 cable modem looks
> very right.
But they're not available here, so not an option for me.
> > (Unless I get
> > independently wealthy and convince the phone company to
> > run a residential T1, which seems about as likely as
> > convincing Microsoft to port MS Office to BSD.)
>
> The latter is far more likely.
Hmmm... remind me to place my order for Microsoft Emacs
in advance, so I can be sure to get it the day it's released.
> > Consequently, my router box needs to do ppp. And in any
> > event I also want it to do some other stuff besides just
> > routing and NAT; that's just the *first* thing I want it
> > to do.
>
> I have hardware rotting around here that I was going to do a
> firewall/router/server with. Nah, I have other things to
> do. The LinkSys box was much easier! I really don't want to
> learn about the guts of the Inet. I have more profitable
> uses for the limited time and energy I can devote to
> learning.
It's not just NAT; I want to have a system running Linux
all the time for a variety of reasons, and my PC is
forevermore a multiboot system.
Out of curiousity, though, does LinkSys support dialup PPP?
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Subject: Re: Linux on Intel Or Celeron? what is the best choice?
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 04:11:07 GMT
"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > All Celerons are not created equal.
>
> Actually they are .. then some of them are castrated or tethered to the
> wall.
Heh. Perhaps I misstated myself in my use of the present tense,
but early Celerons were of much lesser quality than the current
ones, unless I am gravely mistaken.
People have longer memories than computers. "Celeron"
still means "barely better than 486" to a lot of people.
Intel hasn't gone out of their way to debunk this, on
the grounds that they'd rather sell the PIIIs anyway.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Subject: Re: Linux on Intel Or Celeron? what is the best choice?
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 04:11:09 GMT
"Bastiaan Schaap" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you point me out to some of the articles you read about the
> P4 being bad?
Here's one I saw:
http://www.emulators.com/pentium4.htm
I also noticed that http://www.haveland.com/povbench/
lists any number of Athlons and no small number of
PIIIs before the fastest P4.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Subject: Re: Linux on Intel Or Celeron? what is the best choice?
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 04:11:11 GMT
"Bastiaan Schaap" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree that if you look at the physics of processors there's no such thing
> as overclocking. However being a professor and all, you should understand
> the point I am making. Most hardware bought by companies for professional
> use is sealed. If I open up my case and set the processor to operate on a
> speed higher than originally was specified by the manufacturer, I can make
> no claim on warranty anymore. I don't know too many bosses that actually
> like that.
The whole idea of opening the case (or even changing preferences
in a web browser) can be considered taboo in some settings,
mainly settings in which more money is paid for tech support
and "solutions" than for actual hardware. However, more
computers are sold for home use than for office use (and not
all offices have such taboos), although the office market
is certainly not small either.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Subject: Re: Linux on Intel Or Celeron? what is the best choice?
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 04:11:13 GMT
David E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So what do you do in your weekend? I meant that computers are often used
> > differently at home than at the office. For home use for most people a
>
> Well, my box at home is far more stressed than the ones I've used at work.
Indeed. The computers where I work (except the Alpha, but that's
special) get their heaviest workloads when a website uses Java.
> > understand the point I am making. Most hardware bought by companies for
> > professional use is sealed. If I open up my case and set the processor to
> > operate on a speed higher than originally was specified by the
>
> I'm not sure that's true. Adding a component to an otherwise 'factory' box
> like more memory, bigger HD, another PCI card, etc., shouldn't void the
> warranty. Overclocking might, but how would they be able to tell? You'd
> simply reset your setttings when sending the box in for service, if it
> developed problems.
I don't think it would actually void the warrantee, but people
whose lives don't revolve around computers are often afraid
of anything that might "mess up" a computer, and something
like overclocking would be outright terror-inspiring for
people who are upset if the taskbar is on a different edge
of the screen. If your boss isn't a computer guru, you
could easily find yourself disallowed from making such
changes to an employer-provided system.
> Right now, the 1ghz is fast enough for me :).
If you get the rest of your system to keep up with a 1GHz
processor, you're doing well.
> Companies are also looking at systems - i.e., they want Dell, or Compaq, or
> HP, or whatever. Are there that many system integrators who are using AMD
> CPUs?
Yeah. At work I get MicroWarehouse catalogues all the time,
and about every fourth system is AMD-based. Some of those
are Duron, and some are Athlon. What you do NOT see is any
K6-2 systems from package retailers.
I'm also very pleased that almost all such retailers (the
exception I know about being Gateway) have finally decided
to market the monitor completely separate from the rest of
the PC in just about every case (except for laptops, of
course). That's a step forward, IMO. Now if we can just
get 'em to sell decent keyboards... it's shameful how
hard it is to track down a decent keyboard. Took me
weeks of looking to finally find Avant. (Now I just
have to make up my mind to spend the cash.)
- jonadab
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.hardware.
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
******************************
