Linux-Hardware Digest #660, Volume #10 Sat, 3 Jul 99 23:13:41 EDT
Contents:
Sony Superstation tape drive support? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Let's build a perfect Wintel-free PC ("BJ")
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Chris Robato Yao)
Re: suse mailing list (Michael Perry)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Chris Robato Yao)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Chris Robato Yao)
Re: Abit BP6 (dual Celeron) ATA66-Controller? ("Andrew J. Norman")
Re: Abit BP6 (dual Celeron) ATA66-Controller? ("Gunther Huygens")
Mounting a FAT floppy (Bernhard Ernst)
Re: Modems to buy (David Fox)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Sony Superstation tape drive support?
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 01:39:16 GMT
Does anyone know of a driver for the Superstation drive yet?
------------------------------
From: "BJ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuiltalt.comp.hardware,comp.sys.be.help,comp.sys.be.misc,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Let's build a perfect Wintel-free PC
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 01:55:03 -0000
Reply-To: "BJ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
beos is supposedly all about "broadband digital media", so it would probably
just access the necessary files to the beos website through broadband so
you'd be ok....
JP Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Adrian Milliner wrote:
> >
> > [...] real men don't use hard or floppy disk drives :-)
> >
> > just create a huge ram drive and never switch the machine off :-)
>
> Now there's an interesting question.
> What does BeOS do if you remove the HDD while it's running?
>
> I know Win95 freezes solid, but has anyone tried this in BeOS or Linux?
>
>
> --
> * JP Morris - aka DOUG the Eagle (Dragon) -=UDIC=- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *
> * Author of the U6 developer's kit (http://ithe.cjb.net)
> *
> * Developing a U6/U7 clone (http://fly.to/ire)
> *
> * d+++ e+ N+ T++ Om U123456!7'!8!KA u++ uC+++ uF+++ uG---- uLB----
> *
> * uA--- nC+ nR---- nH+++ nP++ nI nPT nS nT wM- wC- y a(YEAR - 1976)
> *
------------------------------
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: 4 Jul 1999 01:57:59 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Robato Yao)
In <7lkhc3$n2c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "FM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I'm buying a PC soon for college (from college) and the standard package
>offered (http://www.dartmouth.edu/comp/newstudentinfo/buying/hardware.html)
>is Celeron 433, 6GB, 64MB, 15" (quite the worst point) etc. While I have not
>seen the specs of higher-end systems or the price, but so far it seems that
>this one will fit my budget best (well their systems seemed a bit overpriced
>despite alleged academic discounts;
>http://www.dartmouth.edu/~store/pricelist.html). But before making the
>decision, I'd like some information on Celeron systems since I have some
>reservation about the chip (I guess due to some early criticism I didn't
>really heed but was exposed to nevertheless). First, does it perform as well
>as the benchmarks suggest? I've seen some FPU benchmarks indicating that
>Celeron outperforms similarly clocked PII and some Integer benchmarks where
>it still holds fairly well. But do these benchmarks reflect the overall
>system performance considering the slower bus speed (66mhz) and other
>compromises? Second, are there any particular application areas where
>Celeron fares poorly? For example my hunch is that its design (smaller but
>faster L2 cache) wouldn't favor applications that require intensive but
>repetitive memory/disk access (server? compilers?) but is the difference
>worth noting?
>
>As for my use, it will be primarily used as a desktop Linux machine (Redhat
>6.0 with GNOME or KDE) with some casual server daemons like http, ftp,
>telnet, etc. Other tasks would include (ordered by approximate
>frequency/priority) wordprocessing, internet client apps,
>programming/compilation, image-manipulation (small-scale for my
>yet-to-be-purchased digital camera and yet-to-be published webpage), MP3
>(incase I can't afford a stereo), fractals, and maybe some chess programs
>(hmm maybe this is where Celeron might show its weaknesses?). I'm not
>planning on playing games much and when I do, I'm unusually tolerant of
>low-res/low-framerate, not to mention that I'm not into modern
>graphic-intensive 3D shootemups (yeah I'm the guy who used to play starcraft
>on P75 overclocked to P100 and didn't find the setup disturbing at all). I
>will also have a 2-gig partition for Win98 for compatibility reasons
>(barring a scenario where I actually get to purchase vmware, which seems
>nice but a bit expensive).
Unless you want to base your computation code entirely on X87 FPU
opcodes, the Intel solution is better, and for the two, the PII or PIII
is a better choice due to its larger caches and faster memory subsystem.
On the other hand, if one uses a 3DNow supporting compiler, like
Codewarrior, using 3DNow is going to be much faster on the FPU
computation of large data sets and matrices, so I suggest the AMD route
here, especially the K6-III 450.
The PII, Celeron or PIII is better with games that does not have 3DNow,
the AMD for games that do.
For RTS and AI intensive games, which is intensely integer based, the
AMD K6-III is the way to go.
For Linux, the answer is even more clear, with the AMD K6-III, followed
by the PII/III, then the Celeron. The K6-III will simply whip the
Intel chips on this operating system, unless you plan on using dual
PIIs. Bigger, faster caches are the name of the game here, and the
K6-III has the best cache configuration and the fastest integer
processing unit. You will see it on the speed of the compiles.
Rgds,
Chris
>
>Any answers to any of the above questions or any relevent
>information/point/discussion regarding my inquiry would be extremely
>appreciated. And thanks in advance to those who made it this far through the
>rambling (with all the parenthetic nonsense).
>
>Dan.
>
>
(And the NUMBER ONE top oxy-MORON
1. Microsoft Works
---From the Top 50 Oxymorons (thanks to Richard Kennedy)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Perry)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: suse mailing list
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 02:07:25 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 01:23:12 -0400,
John W Mislan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>subscribe suse-linux-e
>end
>--
>
>- John W Mislan<->Crystal River Fl.34428<->ICQ#18664779<-> -
>SuSE_Linux_6_0 2_2_5 gcc_egcs-2.91.60
>http://www.geocities.com:80/ResearchTriangle/Node/4644/index.html
>
>
Need to send it email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with any old subject and in the
message body:
subscribe suse-linux-e
Take care.
--
Michael Perry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
==================
------------------------------
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: 4 Jul 1999 01:49:20 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Robato Yao)
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike
Frisch) writes:
>On Sat, 03 Jul 1999 12:35:31 -0400, Jeffrey Karp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>It sounds like a K6-3 450 system would be your best choice. Many of
>
>Over a Celeron 433, 466, or 500? On what basis do you make this decision?
>The original poster clearly mentioned some applications which would
>require floating point math. We all know the K6s don't do this as well as
>the Celerons or Pentium II/IIIs.
Not if you use a 3DNow enabled compiler like Codewarrior.
If it is compiled with 3DNow, chances are it can be much faster.
>
>>month or so, the AMD Athlon(K7) is awesome. The 550 has 46% faster
>>floating point than a Pentium 3 550, and is much less expensive.
>
>Based on AMD's benchmarks, not those generated by a non-biased
>third-party.
Wrong boy. These are official SPEC benchmarks, which of course has been
verified by the SPEC organization body.
>
>Mike.
>
>--
>======================================================================
> Mike Frisch Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Northstar Technologies WWW: http://saturn.tlug.org/~mfrisch
> Newmarket, Ontario, CANADA
>======================================================================
(And the NUMBER ONE top oxy-MORON
1. Microsoft Works
---From the Top 50 Oxymorons (thanks to Richard Kennedy)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Robato Yao)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: 4 Jul 1999 01:44:43 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Robato Yao)
In <7lkidn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Suleyman Karabuk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I am a Ph.D. student at Lehigh and recently assembled myself a Celeron
>machine running at 488 Mhz (overclocked from 433). I was very curious about
>its performance compared to regular Pentium IIs in scientific computing. I
>ran a mathematical optimization package called CPLEX on my machine and on a
>regular Pentium 400. The result is that the regular Pentium II outperforms
>my machine (celeron 488) by about 10%. Extrapolating from here I conclude
>that the Pentium performs about 25% faster than an equally clocked Celeron
>in intensive computing tasks. Therefore for fractals and chess expect a
>similar behaviour.
I'm not sure if you isolated the factors enough.
First of all, Pentium IIs and Celerons of different speed grades have
different cache latencies. For example, a Celeron 300a has a shorter
cache latency than a Celeron 466. If you overclock the Celeron 300a to
the 466, you might find that the 300a might have a faster cache and can
be slightly faster overall on some benchmarks. The faster the official
Intel chip speed grade goes, the higher it's built in cache latency.
Also, what is the size of your benchmark? If the benchmark exceeds the
size of the Celeron cache (128K), it's likely to be faster on the PII,
which has the bigger cache and faster memory subsystem. If the
benchmark is small enough to fit on the Celeron cache, it can be faster
on the Celeron due to the speed of the Celeron cache. However, I think
larger benchmarks are much closer to real applications of worthiness
than tiny ones that fit within a cache.
>
>However, I think it will do almost as well on routine Windows tasks such as
>word processing, web surfing, MP3 processing etc. In my opinion the Celeron
>is a very good value. For me as a student the marginal cost of getting a
>Pentium II is more than its marginal benefit.
>
>Suleyman Karabuk
>IMSE Dept.
>Lehigh University
>
>
>FM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:7lkhc3$n2c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I'm buying a PC soon for college (from college) and the standard package
>> offered
>(http://www.dartmouth.edu/comp/newstudentinfo/buying/hardware.html)
>> is Celeron 433, 6GB, 64MB, 15" (quite the worst point) etc. While I have
>not
>> seen the specs of higher-end systems or the price, but so far it seems
>that
>> this one will fit my budget best (well their systems seemed a bit
>overpriced
>> despite alleged academic discounts;
>> http://www.dartmouth.edu/~store/pricelist.html). But before making the
>> decision, I'd like some information on Celeron systems since I have some
>> reservation about the chip (I guess due to some early criticism I didn't
>> really heed but was exposed to nevertheless). First, does it perform as
>well
>> as the benchmarks suggest? I've seen some FPU benchmarks indicating that
>> Celeron outperforms similarly clocked PII and some Integer benchmarks
>where
>> it still holds fairly well. But do these benchmarks reflect the overall
>> system performance considering the slower bus speed (66mhz) and other
>> compromises? Second, are there any particular application areas where
>> Celeron fares poorly? For example my hunch is that its design (smaller but
>> faster L2 cache) wouldn't favor applications that require intensive but
>> repetitive memory/disk access (server? compilers?) but is the difference
>> worth noting?
>>
>> As for my use, it will be primarily used as a desktop Linux machine
>(Redhat
>> 6.0 with GNOME or KDE) with some casual server daemons like http, ftp,
>> telnet, etc. Other tasks would include (ordered by approximate
>> frequency/priority) wordprocessing, internet client apps,
>> programming/compilation, image-manipulation (small-scale for my
>> yet-to-be-purchased digital camera and yet-to-be published webpage), MP3
>> (incase I can't afford a stereo), fractals, and maybe some chess programs
>> (hmm maybe this is where Celeron might show its weaknesses?). I'm not
>> planning on playing games much and when I do, I'm unusually tolerant of
>> low-res/low-framerate, not to mention that I'm not into modern
>> graphic-intensive 3D shootemups (yeah I'm the guy who used to play
>starcraft
>> on P75 overclocked to P100 and didn't find the setup disturbing at all). I
>> will also have a 2-gig partition for Win98 for compatibility reasons
>> (barring a scenario where I actually get to purchase vmware, which seems
>> nice but a bit expensive).
>>
>> Any answers to any of the above questions or any relevent
>> information/point/discussion regarding my inquiry would be extremely
>> appreciated. And thanks in advance to those who made it this far through
>the
>> rambling (with all the parenthetic nonsense).
>>
>> Dan.
>>
>>
>
>
(And the NUMBER ONE top oxy-MORON
1. Microsoft Works
---From the Top 50 Oxymorons (thanks to Richard Kennedy)
------------------------------
From: "Andrew J. Norman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Abit BP6 (dual Celeron) ATA66-Controller?
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 02:03:08 GMT
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Actually the rumor I heard (it is a rumor) was that the 4xx socket would
be cabable of 4-way SMP (similar to the old PPros which I still love) The
extra pins outs are for the new chipset.
Interesting though.....if the 370 P-III is not SMP capable....then what
will be the difference (besides about $500 and a few k of cache) between
the lowest P-III and the highest Celeron? Some how the new bus
speeds just don't scream out to me "must have a P-III, must replace a gig
of sdram in favor of rambus parts.....must spend more money for a
couple of percentage points of performance...."
Nah....I think I will stick with cheap SMP machines in a distributed
VM cluster....ahhhh PVM.....
Andrew J. Norman
______________________________________________________________
Dept. of Physics Phone: 757-221-3571
College of William & Mary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly;
what is essential is invisible to the eye" -The Little Prince
______________________________________________________________
On 3 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Andrew J. Norman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Thank you for the info!
> : Oh just a bit of triva, you've probably heard that Intel is planning on
> : releasing the P-III's in a 370 package later this year....so even if they
> : do disable the pin on the celerons the Abit board will still be a good
> : investment!
>
> Bad luck, pal. It now seems clear that Intel would like to have
> socket 370 stay in the low-end market, so they will also disable
> the SMP capabilities of socket 370 P-IIIs. A new socket --- 418
> I believe --- will be introduced for SMP P-IIIs.
>
> Therefore I suppose that BP6 will only work with Celerons and
> nothing else. Too bad, isn't it?
>
> -- Chuan-kai Lin
>
>
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBN37A3CRqxyk0Hh01AQGhVQP+N8ZvaeWEqr/xz4gKnyzVNy+3RvbUP+j9
1NEGbdKxSe6KXhOgEcXSuqRnaTmqe1CCIyGcLtMyhy9DH78k91SEFgOPj0lfXu3a
HoJHE7n78KC0cJr1wxjaooZPQ4XkpKL8mYCAs5YZuziClVaFpdXdaIVXZlPZoCLe
9mNbK2Ivfrk=
=Ik0f
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: "Gunther Huygens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Abit BP6 (dual Celeron) ATA66-Controller?
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 02:27:16 +0200
> : Thank you for the info!
> : Oh just a bit of triva, you've probably heard that Intel is planning on
> : releasing the P-III's in a 370 package later this year....so even if
they
> : do disable the pin on the celerons the Abit board will still be a good
> : investment!
>
> Bad luck, pal. It now seems clear that Intel would like to have
> socket 370 stay in the low-end market, so they will also disable
> the SMP capabilities of socket 370 P-IIIs. A new socket --- 418
> I believe --- will be introduced for SMP P-IIIs.
>
> Therefore I suppose that BP6 will only work with Celerons and
> nothing else. Too bad, isn't it?
>
> -- Chuan-kai Lin
So
lets summarise in my epox kp6-bs or abit BP6 comparison
abit BP6 : up to 3x 256 MB ram <-> epox 1G RAM
abit : ATA 66 <-> epox : ATA 33
(i am going to buy new HD : so Western digital ATA 66 7200 rpm becomes
interesting, yes ??)
epox can take up to PIII 600
than PIII PPGA comes ????? will epox be able to take 2 future PIII with PPGA
or will intel make new socket for dual smp PIII ????
(k7 slot A is dual capable but too different busarchitecture
two k7 on epox with slot1 -> slot A adapter not possible?)
Can abit BP6 take future PIII if they would be PPGA and not socket 418 or
something ?????
I am making the most of it, please correct my mistakes and help me in the
quest
for : epox kp6-bs or abit BP6
thanks in advance (please also mail me)
will be buying new dual cpu system (dual cele at first)
new HD
new monitor
the whole works
ideas for good 2d/3d videocard with good price / quality ratio?
will run redhat 6.0 , winnt sp4
greetings from flanders
gunther
------------------------------
From: Bernhard Ernst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,redhat.hardware.arch.intel
Subject: Mounting a FAT floppy
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 02:30:47 GMT
I tried mounting a floppy disk that is FAT (FAT12 if I am correct)
Using mount -t fvat /mnt/floppy /floppy doesn't work, I know this works for
FAT partitions. I tried the same using /dev/fd0 instead of /mnt/floppy
Any ideas, because in this case using a floppy is my best solution, E-mail
costs too much (but it works), and the other Windoze98 machine doesn't have
a network card.
Bernhard Ernst
================== Posted via SearchLinux ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: d s f o x @ c o g s c i . u c s d . e d u (David Fox)
Subject: Re: Modems to buy
Date: 03 Jul 1999 19:43:25 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy Fincher) writes:
> I currently have an LT Winmodem, which I would assume, based on the
> name, doesn't work with Linux. Correct me if I am wrong.
>
> Anyway, assuming that it does not work with Linux, what kind of
> modem should I buy? Internal/External? Any specific products?
Many will recommend an external. If you want an inexpensive internal
for $55 try http://www.buy.com/comp/product.asp?SKU=10019884. I
welcome cheaper suggestions.
--
David Fox http://hci.ucsd.edu/dsf xoF divaD
UCSD HCI Lab baL ICH DSCU
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
