Linux-Hardware Digest #732, Volume #10 Sun, 11 Jul 99 03:13:55 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT!
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? ("Dean Kent")
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Michael)
Re: How Close is the Mobo temp to the CPU temp???? ("Suleyman Karabuk")
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Michael)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Michael)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Michael)
Question on Linux/KDE Clock Problems ("Kevin H.")
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Michael)
Postscript printer prob (Carsten Aulbert)
Re: Blaster Banshee AGP and Linux (Heyday)
Re: abit bp6 dual celeron board. ("Prasanth Kumar")
Re: How Close is the Mobo temp to the CPU temp???? (Tim Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT!
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 20:09:52 -0700
On Fri, 09 Jul 1999 23:05:50 -0400, Brian Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>"Hobbyist�" wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 09 Jul 1999 19:22:21 GMT, Shice Beoney scrawled these sagacious
>> words ...
[deletia]
>> course of secondary importance but it should not, by any means, be
>> belittled. Of course, there'll be "squares" who don't give a hoot about
>> looks and they're certainly not the ones to be talking to and getting
>> advice about making a desktop OS attractive.
>>
>
> I think the main problem is that some Linux proponents are such because they
>hate Microsoft, and therefore can't conceive that Windows does anything, no
>matter how small, better than Linux. This kind of zealousness doesn't serve
Better in some instances is irrelevant. The notorious static
webserving benchmarks touted much as of late are a good example
of this. One does not need what one is not using. Being to saturate
an 100BaseT or even 4 is irrelevant when you are serving on a DS3
and serving dynamic content no less.
>Linux well. Is Linux more stable? Yes. Is it *getting* easier to set up?
>Yes. Is it as easy to install as Windows? No. Same degree of hardware
>compatibility? No. The question is whether you want security and stability
This falls under the "do you really use the rest of that %100".
Sure this will cause LEGACY issues. However, it will not cause
you subsequent problems. The same is true of the Mac and of BeOS
to a certain extent as well. They don't support the superset but
quite often support enough of it.
>(i.e., Linux) or expandability and ease-of-use (i.e., Windows). No one choice
The ease of use of Windows is highly disputable. The ease of use
is what motivated yours truely to dump it. The ease of use of
Windows is what recently had me teaching a Windows user how to
use a Windows scanning applet.
[deletia]
Windows does NOT suit the novice. A Macintosh does.
To promote the notion that Microsoft has replicated
the MacOS and the Mac is simply delusional.
Follow your own advice and direct the those that don't
care to become sysadmins to the system that will actually
deliver that for them: Macintosh.
--
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: "Dean Kent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 22:00:52 -0700
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Multi-tasking is better for which? The K6-III?
Regards,
Dean
Michael wrote in message <37881c0c.23118265@news>...
>"Dean Kent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>There is a reason that cache sizes increased from 64K (on 386 systems) to
>>what we have today. Admittedly, the 1MB and 2MB cache sizes are mainly
>>useful when the chipset requires a larger cache to increase the cacheable
>>range.
>>
>>However, 'real world' performance does improve when the cache goes from
64K
>>to 128K, slightly less from 128K to 256K, and quite a bit less from 256K
to
>>512K. With most applications on single-user systems, 512K is the 'sweet
>>spot' for L2 cache, though the recent transition to on-die cache may have
>>changed that a bit.
>>
>>Dean how do you measure
>what the eye sees.....the application doesn't perform faster
>the multitasking is faster.
>
>How do you measure this?
>
>Mike
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 04:19:08 GMT
Marc Mutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chris Robato Yao wrote:
>>
><snipped>
>> 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, <interrupted>
>
>That may be a point I have not thought of before. This may well be the
>_only_ reason for the K6-3 to outperform an equally-clocked cel.
>
>>and the
>> K6-III enjoys the presence of an L3 cache from the motherboard, which
>> can be as big as a 1MB. <interrupted + rest snipped away>
>
>Disable the L3 cache via the BIOS.
>Benchmark both settings (on and off).
>Notice _no_ difference above measurement uncertainity...
>
>Marc
>
Did and agree, however, multitasking is noticably slower, not the
programs themselves.
Can you explain?
Mike
>
------------------------------
From: "Suleyman Karabuk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: How Close is the Mobo temp to the CPU temp????
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 00:04:02 -0400
I think it all depends where your mobo temp sensor is located. In my ZM6 it
is located very near to the ZX chipset and the AGP slot which hosts a
Voodoo3. Since these are the most significant heat sources after the CPU, my
mobo temp reads about 5-6 C degree cooler than the cpu temp. However, when I
disable the fan on my Voodoo3 the system temp catches the cpu temp.
Jae Il "Joker" Ko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:5FCh3.9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hey all,
> I own an Asus P2B and as much as i love it, it doesn't really have a
> temperature sensor that tells me what it's exact temp is. But i can read
> the mobo temp. Is there an usual ratio of the temperatures of the mobo
to
> the CPU??? Better yet is there a program that can tell me the CPU temp on
> than what's in the BIOS?? Thanks. Also, I've heard of rumours of a
> softmenu for the P2B. IS thiS TRUE???? is there a new BIOS for the P2B
> that's softmenu???? That would be great! Thanks again.
>
> --
> -Jae Il "Joker" Ko
> .
> .
> .
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 04:23:10 GMT
"Dean Kent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>There is a reason that cache sizes increased from 64K (on 386 systems) to
>what we have today. Admittedly, the 1MB and 2MB cache sizes are mainly
>useful when the chipset requires a larger cache to increase the cacheable
>range.
>
>However, 'real world' performance does improve when the cache goes from 64K
>to 128K, slightly less from 128K to 256K, and quite a bit less from 256K to
>512K. With most applications on single-user systems, 512K is the 'sweet
>spot' for L2 cache, though the recent transition to on-die cache may have
>changed that a bit.
>
>Dean how do you measure
what the eye sees.....the application doesn't perform faster
the multitasking is faster.
How do you measure this?
Mike
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 04:26:16 GMT
Marc Mutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Michael wrote:
>>
><snipped what Mike agreed with>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> So you are saying that a 128K second level cache holds windows
>> operating system code, outlook express, Lotus 123, Netscape,
>> numerous background tray programs and never goes to main memory when
>> you task switch....? <interrupted>
>>
>I think you underestimate the speed of modern processors. Just because
>you have to wait for your new Office package doesn't mean the processor
>is *that* slow.
>Let me explain:
>Typical L1 bandwidth is up to and exceeding 1GB/sec (!). Calutating how
>often the L1 cahe can be refilled within a single second s left as an
>exercise to the reader.
>Typical L2 bandwidth ... let me have a look ... have no data by hand.
>
>What happens when the context is switched (which can happen up to 100
>times/sec in Linux)? The cache holds the data of the previously running
>application. If the next time slice goes to the same application, then
>most of the cache content is still there, so the application runs mostly
>as if nothing happened.
>If, however, the context switches, i.e. another task gets the next time
>slice, the cache lines are almost suddenly replaced by different ones
>(again: calculating how long that takes is left as an exercise), fitting
>the needs of the new CPU owner. Now the task has the CPU for itself for
>1/100 sec (except when an interrupt occurs). Almost all applications are
>running almost all of the time in loops that fit entirely in the L1
>(well, 32K is _very_very_ much code for a loop, typical loops are a
>hundred byte, perhaps a kB or two). So L2 accesses are relatively
>seldom. The L2 cache mostly serves as a kind of prefetch buffer for the
>L1, enabling fast filling of L1 cache lines.
>
>To summarize: After a _very_ short time the L2 cache does _not_ contain
>a significant amount of code/data belonging to an application other than
>the one that is currently owning the CPU.
>This implies that a context switch (and you will agree that raising
>windows is one) leads almost always to a complete reload of the caches
>(L1,2+3).
>
>Agreed?
>
Well you are possibly right, yet observation shows me that when I turn
off the L3 cache, the applications run the same speed, but the
multitasking in window is noticably slower, that's all I can add.
And the k6III is much smooth in BUSINESS applications for me then the
celeron.
That' all I can say....it correlates to something to do with the L3 as
well....that is by observation. I cannot explain it beyond that.
Mike
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 04:20:54 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (chrisv) wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Jul 1999 02:21:54 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael) wrote:
>
>>So you are saying that a 128K second level cache holds windows
>>operating system code, outlook express, Lotus 123, Netscape,
>>numerous background tray programs and never goes to main memory when
>>you task switch....?
>
>Idiot. Do you know how to read and think? Explain how you inferred
>that from what he said.
>
>The point is, that 128k vs 256k of L2 just doesn't make much
>difference in real-world performance. Data sets that won't fit into
>128k usually won't fit into 256k, either. Is that too difficult to
>understand?
>
>>So based on your qualifications how much code can fit into these
>>caches when multitasking and task context switching? Does everything
>>fit into the first 128K second level cache.
>
>No, of course not. And of course "everything" would not fit in 256k
>second level cache, either.
>
But maybe enough fits into the two 64 l1 caches, the 1 256 cache, and
the 1 512 pipelined cache to make multitasking seem quicker. At least
it does on my system. But then I don't do games.
Mike
------------------------------
From: "Kevin H." <kevola@***usa.net>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux.caldera,comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.portable,comp.windows.x.kde
Subject: Question on Linux/KDE Clock Problems
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 01:57:11 -0400
I am a newbie to Linux, and have installed Calera Open Linux 2.2 with
the KDE desktop interface onto my IBM Thinkpad 380XD. My Linux is
running in a separate partition alongside Win98. My problem involves
the clock setting on the KDE Desktop. When I set the clock properly (I
am on EST-Eastern time zone) and reboot my machine, when the KDE desktop
comes up, the clock is set 4 hours too early (matching GMT). I can
issue a "hwclock" command and it returns the correct time, even if I
open a terminal window inside of the KDE desktop. Something inside of
the KDE desktop seems to be forcing it to GMT. Each time I attempt to
reset the clock inside KDE, on the next reboot it is forced back 4
hours. My "clock" file in /etc/sysconfig reads "CLOCKMODE=LOCAL". I
have tried setting this to GMT, but it doesn't have any effect. I would
just set the hardware clock to GMT, except that I do run Windows
alongside the Linux installation. Any ideas??? I have combed
newsgroups and asked the question in a couple of IRC chatrooms about
Linux but to no avail. Any help or suggestion would be greatly
appeciated. To reply to my e-mail directly, remove *** from my address
above.
Thank you,
Kevin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 04:27:39 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (chrisv) wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Jul 1999 20:08:05 +0200, Marc Mutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>The quickness of the AMD over the celeron stems from its L1 cache being
>>twice as big.
>
>While I agree with most your technical comments, this last one is not
>correct. The larger L1 of the K6-3 doesn't get you any huge leap in
>performance, just like the larger L2 doesn't.
>
>The K6-3 has a larger L1. It has a larger L2. It has L3. It has
>what some people think is a slightly faster integer core.
>
>It is the sum of these advantages which together combine to allow the
>K6-3 to be somewhat faster than the Celeron in most tasks.
>
>And of course these advantages certainly do not take you from
>"instant" to "a second or so" as one poster claimed.... Ridiculous.
>
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?
Mike
------------------------------
From: Carsten Aulbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Postscript printer prob
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 08:03:16 +0200
Hi folks,
I think I have a problem with a HP LJ 4000 (Postscript, Duplex). I use
SuSE 6 and kernel 2.2.9 and when I install the printer as a postscript
1200dpi printer under yast, it seems to work quite fine, but if I try to
print something out it does not print the very last page.
If I print only one page it shows (in German: "BEREIT" (READY/ONLINE)
changing with the message "DATEN EMPFANGEN" (GOT ALL THE DATA YOU WANTED
ME TO RECEIVE)) and 2 of the 3 LED are turned on (Ready and Data). If
you want to receive a page now, you have to print an empty page (or
sometimes even two). I called HP, but they dont have a clue about linux,
they just said press the START-button (is it windows???) then everything
should be perfectly ok.
Of course nothing was ok, it doesnt work that way. So, what is wrong
here? I checked both the computers setup (par. port is /dev/lp0) and
then printers setup, both seem ok.
Finally, if you try to print via samba, it works fine, due to
unforeseeable reasons.
HELP!
Cheers
Carsten Aulbert
(Please mail me: [EMAIL PROTECTED]@com) without the @com of
course.
------------------------------
From: Heyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Blaster Banshee AGP and Linux
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 06:12:01 GMT
I'm trying to install these but it keeps saying I need X86Free_16
installed. I'm running Mandrake and beleive I have set this up. I have
been able to get it running by loading the drivers on the Creative labs
website, but the resolution is too small and I can't figure out how to
change it. I've tried CRL+ALT+"-" and CRL+ALT+NUMLOCK+"-" and no luck.
I've looked at the X86config file but do not understand it. Anyone
have any suggestions?
Thanks
Joel
In article <U2Xf3.5609$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ken Potter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's taken me 3 nights to get my Creative Banshee working with
Linux.... 1st
> I tired RedHat 6, didn't like it, then went to Mandrake. I had to do
quite a
> bit (for newbie little me) of tinkering to get it to work with X.
Here's the
> URL you should start with:
> http://glide/xxedgexx.com/3DfxRPMS.htm
> What a PITA... and my Intellimouse still doesn't work :-)
> -Ken P.
>
> >
> > Now, if I get a Blaster Banshee video card, will it work with the
> > Mandrake 6.0 distribution? Anyone have the Blaster Banshee Video
card
> > working with Mandrake 6.0??
> >
> > Joe
> >
>
>
--
Have an Olympus C-2000Z Digital Camera?
Visit the Olympus C-2000Z Users group web site.
http://stop.at/olympus
Just remember STOP AT OLYMPUS
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: "Prasanth Kumar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: abit bp6 dual celeron board.
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 03:34:10 GMT
Somebody in my Linux Users Group did it and it worked fine for him.
j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> anybody have one? do they work okay with linux or be?
>
> any info would be helpful.
>
> j.
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 23:35:56 -0700
From: Tim Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: How Close is the Mobo temp to the CPU temp????
> I own an Asus P2B and as much as i love it, it doesn't really have a
> temperature sensor that tells me what it's exact temp is. But i can read
> the mobo temp. Is there an usual ratio of the temperatures of the mobo to
> the CPU???
First, try not cross-posting to so many groups.
The P2B and others have one or two connectors for a thermistor-based
temperature sensor. If you have a sensor, the BIOS will readout
temperature. Accuracy depends on how close you can get it to the actual
CPU cover. MB temp is gathered by a sensor and its reading depends on
internal air circulation and exhaust rate. My setup happens to range
from +8C to +12C above MB on average.
> Better yet is there a program that can tell me the CPU temp on
> than what's in the BIOS??
Comes on the CD.
> Thanks. Also, I've heard of rumours of a
> softmenu for the P2B. IS thiS TRUE???? is there a new BIOS for the P2B
> that's softmenu???? That would be great! Thanks again.
P3B series. www.asus.com.tw
--
direct replies substitute timothymoore for user name
"Everything is permitted. Nothing is forbidden."
WS Burroughs.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
