Linux-Hardware Digest #591, Volume #14 Sun, 8 Apr 01 23:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (Keith R. Williams)
Re: SCSI issue with two cards (Don Gingrich)
Re: Disk Block Size (John Thompson)
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (Eric P. McCoy)
Re: Disk Block Size (Eric P. McCoy)
Re: Screen is shaking!!!!!!!!! ("Steven")
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (Keith R. Williams)
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (Keith R. Williams)
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (Keith R. Williams)
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (Keith R. Williams)
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (Keith R. Williams)
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: Sound on a Dell Inspiron 3800 (ESS Maestro3) - Loading Modules fails (Matt
Foster)
Toshiba CDRW/DVD ("Richard A. Bilonick")
Gigabyte GA-7ZX5-1 Motherboard w/AC97 Sound ("JNJ")
Re: Internal Modem (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith R. Williams)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 00:48:55 GMT
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 22:42:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the
Unsightly One) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith R. Williams) wrote:
>
> > > Still, I prefer mono SVGA. Sharper and no flicker.
> >
> > I prefer my UXGA (or whatever it's called) on my ThinkPad
>
> A laptop display? Now *those* I can't stand. I'd go
> blind from squinting. Not only are they far too small
> (my 17" is barely large enough to get me by, call me
> spoiled), but you have to hold your head straight in
> front of them, because you can't view them from any
> kind of angle. So you can't change positions easily,
> which after a few minutes causes bodywide discomfort.
>
> Nope, I'm sticking with a real CRT, thanks.
Grasshopper, you must learn the ways of technology.
Certainly TFT displays have a narrow view, but they are
*sharp* at their native resolution.
>
> > A21p. If I could find a secondary monitor that would play
> > that game I'd be happy. A sharp display like the 15"
> > 1600x1200 on the A21p will simply spoil you. TFT displays
> > don't flicker.
>
> Wait, 1600x1200 on a 15"? *AAARGH*. I have substantially
> better than 20-20 vision, but I can't handle resolutions
> anywhere near that high even on a 17" display.
Again, grasshopper, you must try harder to understand the
ways of technology. A 15" flat screen is just tenths of an
inch shy of the useful size of a 17" CRT display. I had
vision substansially better than 20/20 too (in my prime more
like 20/10, but I'm an old fart now). The 15" LCD display
is far sharper and more readable than the 20" IBM P200 (Sony
Trinitron) sitting next to it.
You haven't seen anything until you've seen a *good* flat
screen display. You still have much to learn, grasshopper.
----
Keith
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 10:53:05 +1000
From: Don Gingrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SCSI issue with two cards
"Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
>
> Don Gingrich <"gingrich"@melbpc(dot)org(dot).au> wrote:
> > The problem is that the kernel seems to get
> > confused with more than one card in the system.
>
> It only seems that way to you. Perhaps it is you who are confused? My
> kernels have always worked fine with two scsi adapters in the system.
> And two nics, and two soundcards ...
>
A proper DWIM interface would deal with this easily :-)
>
> > I have too many devices for a single card(at least
>
> Impossible .. you would need >15, no? But I understand .. I use two
> controllers just to keep the cable lengths and socket numbers per
> cable down.
>
Ummm... actually, since both are *narrow* SCSI I only have
7 or less devices available on a maximum 3 metre bus
>
> > at the moment) and I need to be able to force
> > which one is the primary since there are HDDs
> > on both and thus the order of drives changes,
> > depending on which is primary.
>
> But you can force the detection order .. pci
> cards are detected in ascending slot order. Slot 1 (furthest from cpu)
> is detected first. You can reverse the pci scan order too if you
> prefer. It's a boot param.
>
> In general you can force the detection order between two differnet
> drivers by just choosing which driver you load first!
>
OK, but in the case of already having the drivers in the
kernel this is not an option. BTW where is setting the load
order documented?
> > I've got an adaptec 1542c and a 2940U. Obviously,
> > (to a human) the 2940 is the primary. I'm thinking
>
> Whichever one you like may be considered primary by a human!
Given that the 2940 is PCI and Ultra it is clearly the superior
card and thus should be used as the primary.
>
> But the 1542c must be ISA? That's useless. Get a symbios for $30
> and put it in a pci slot.
Sometimes you have to use what you've got. And the presumably
$30 USD translates to $60-$90 Australian at the moment - still
not big money, but more than I wanted to spend for something
with a more or less limited future.
Actually, I have just got a Tekram 390U3W which will
soon replace both Adaptecs and remove the problem
completely, but for ease of conversion, ideally I will
need to run both the Tekram and the 2940 for a short
time until I can get some of the data transferred to
new LVD disks that I got for the Tekram.
>
> > that one option may be to put the driver for the
> > 2940 in the kernel and make the 1542 a module.
> > Does this sound like a good strategy? Any other
> > thoughts or suggestions?
>
> Just load the driver you want loaded first, first.
See above response. Also remember that I tried looking
for a FAQ which is unavailable. Sorry if this is a repeat
question which should be answered by RTF FAQ.
-Don
--
Don Gingrich Unix SysAdmin, CS Dept, RMIT Melbourne,Australia
[EMAIL PROTECTED] All opinions expressed are mine
[EMAIL PROTECTED] nobody else wants them
------------------------------
From: John Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Disk Block Size
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 19:40:21 -0500
"Eric P. McCoy" wrote:
> "Going, gone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Larger block sizes may be used by a filesystem such as say 4096
> > bytes but I haven't heard of block sizes equal to sector size (maybe
> > there are some).
> Small filesystems. FAT12 will use a 512-byte cluster/block size on a
> disk.
Not always small filesystems, either. OS/2's HPFS uses 1-block
(512-byte) "clusters" for partition sizes up to 64GB.
--
-John ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric P. McCoy)
Date: 08 Apr 2001 21:03:06 -0400
Anthony Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >Yes, I've just purchased an older system on ebay and plan to use
> >Linux to turn it into a server/router with NAT to distribute my
> >PPP connection to two PCs.
> Well, in case you haven't read it yet, I'd throw out a VERY strong
> recommendation to read the IP Masquerading HOWTO (available at
> http://ipmasq.cjb.net/).
Has it been updated to apply to iptables in 2.4.x kernels?
In any case, there's no howto necessary for a simple iptables NAT
setup.
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth1 -j MASQUERADE
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
(Probably he'll need to substitute `ppp0' for `eth1', unless it's PPP
over cable or something weird like that.)
> It's very well written and describes how to set all these things up
> to work well with good security. If you've already read it, then
> never mind :>
I think the iptables howtos are still works in progress. Bah, I can't
remember the URL now, and it was nontrivial (for me) to find; it might
be mentioned at the start of the Adv-Routing-HOWTO.
--
Eric McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Knowing that a lot of people across the world with Geocities sites
absolutely despise me is about the only thing that can add a positive
spin to this situation." - Something Awful, 1/11/2001
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Disk Block Size
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric P. McCoy)
Date: 08 Apr 2001 21:07:52 -0400
John Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Larger block sizes may be used by a filesystem such as say 4096
> > > bytes but I haven't heard of block sizes equal to sector size (maybe
> > > there are some).
> > Small filesystems. FAT12 will use a 512-byte cluster/block size on a
> > disk.
> Not always small filesystems, either. OS/2's HPFS uses 1-block
> (512-byte) "clusters" for partition sizes up to 64GB.
Weird. How's it do that? That stupid fragment trick, or just larger
block counters?
--
Eric McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Knowing that a lot of people across the world with Geocities sites
absolutely despise me is about the only thing that can add a positive
spin to this situation." - Something Awful, 1/11/2001
------------------------------
From: "Steven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Screen is shaking!!!!!!!!!
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 20:12:38 -0500
I had the same problem with Madrake 7.2. What are you using? Redhat 6.2
seemed to work fine. I ended up gettting a whole new video card. The
problem is most likely with the driver not being the right one. See if you
can change the settings of your video card if possible. What type of video
card to you have? Is it integrated into the motherboard?
"Richard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:M6Xz6.12843$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi,
>
> After installing the linux(mandrake or redhat), my screen seems to be
> shaking.(it's driving me nutz!!)
>
> Have 1ghz AMD T , Abit k7 motherboard and 32mb ATI something(i will post
the
> exact name if you want later).
>
> I don't think it has anything to do w/ installation for x because my reg
> mode(prior to do starx) is also shaking.
>
> I have dual boot w/ win98 which is not causing that problem.
>
> I am only getting it when i am in linux mode.
>
> Although, hardware is really new and in fact i am having some problem w/
> bios setting, I am not sure why this is the case under only linux.
>
> Any idea?
>
> ps: if you need any other specific info to troubleshoot, PLease let me
know.
>
> Thank you
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith R. Williams)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 01:38:17 GMT
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 22:42:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the
Unsightly One) wrote:
> Anthony Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > That being said, I've known plenty of people who never notice the
> > slightest problem with their refresh rate set at 60Hz. Just one of
> > those subtle differences between people I guess.
>
> Incidentally, I don't have any problems with 60Hz, but I can't
> stand blindingly bright backgrounds, *especially* full white,
> for any time at all hardly. And I can't handle high resolutions
> on small displays, either. So I guess we all have our foibles.
My bet is that you're "seeing" the effects of the low
refresh rate too. I'm not happy with white backgrounds
either, but tt seems to be the norm. White backgrounds
exacerbate any sensitivity you have to refresh rate.
----
Keith
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith R. Williams)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 01:49:13 GMT
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 22:42:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the
Unsightly One) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith R. Williams) wrote:
>
> > We're not talking about text editing here, though FrameMaker
> > tool windows have been been seen on my secondary display.
> > ;-) Give me a desktop and I'll fill it!
>
> [a cartoon image of a light bulb appears above my head]
> [you hear a dinging sound]
>
> I just realised your problem. You are operating under the
> second-millennium superstition that the size of the desktop
> is limited to the size of the display.
No son, I'm not. A desktop larger than the display simply
isn't useful. I need what I need *visible* on the display.
I can scroll fast enough without a larger virtual desktop.
I cannot get to the scroll button nearly as fast as my eyes
can move across a screen or two. A huge desktop is critical
to productivity.
When I do my real work I have 8-10 windows open (one
application) and all have critical information. Then I have
several such applications open and "page" back and forth.
No, you're wrong. A large virtual desktop does nothing for
productivity. A large *real* desktop does.
> It is not. My display res is 800x600, but my desktop
> (yes, I'm using just one continuous desktop) is 1600x1200.
Good grief. I was running 758x1024 eight years ago. Again,
a large virtual desktop does *NOTHING* for me. I can't do
anythign on 800x600. Sheesh, even a good text processor
requires several open windows.
> I'm using Matrox AGP PowerDesk to achieve this in Windoze,
Yuck. I use nothing but Matrox cards, but you can have
these toys.
> but of course X can do it natively. (And X does it better,
> because the window managers are smarter about new-window
> placement; Explorer is dumb about this, because it wasn't
> designed to handle an oversized desktop. Fortunately,
> Matrox AGP Powerdesk supplies a couple of hotkeys that
> partially compensate for this by moving and resizing
> windows and by centering the display) My desktop is set
> to 1600x1200 because that's what my video card can handle;
> if my video card had enough RAM to do more, I'd crank it
> even higher.
Keep playing with the toys. I'll use real hardware. My
boss will afford it.
> An oversized desktop is addictive. Once you get used to it,
> it's hard to go back to a display-sized desktop again.
I agree a large desktop is addictive. A desktop larger than
the display is next to worthless. I'll keep my 3200x1200
dual screen, thanks. I only wish I had a second monitor
that was as good as my A21p's.
----
Keith
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith R. Williams)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 02:06:49 GMT
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 22:42:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the
Unsightly One) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith R. Williams) wrote:
>
> > > Yuck. None for me, thanks. They're fine if you only use the one
> > > native resolution, otherwise, not so good.
> >
> > Wrong. They are perfect, as long as you have a good one.
>
> Except you later admit...
>
> > with the right graphics controller they will, ok, not
> > that well) as long as they are *perfect* at their native
> > resolution.
The A21p's UXGA controller will do alright at lesser
resolutions, but it is certainly not as sharp as native.
There is nothing unusual here. An LCD display is "perfect"
at it's native resolution. A CRT is never perfect at any
resolution. CRTs compromize everything.
> Some of us need to see the details that can only be seen
> at lower resolutions.
Nonsense. One can always zoom. ...or is your software too
braindead to do such simple tasks? My hardware will kill
anything at your cherished 800x600. Good grief, I haven't
worked at anything nearly so small for well over ten years.
>
> > Need glasses: get them.
>
> It's not a matter of eyesight. It's more a matter of
> how many details you need to be able to see. And no
> answer other than "all of them" makes any sense to me.
Nonsene. See above. I read schematics at 1600x1200. They
have these neet zoom buttons on the GUI. I'll certainly do
better at 1600x1200 than you will at a quarter of that.
> It also makes a significant difference how close you
> can put your face to the monitor.
Normal distance for the 15" flatscreen. The 20" CRT is very
close (office constraints).
> > Font too small: make it bigger
>
> Making the font bigger doesn't do anything for images.
You have no zoom? Haven't learned how to use it?
> > TFT displays are *good*, though expensive.
>
> They're good only in the sense that they take up less
> physical space and use less power.
Nonsense. If I could get a second 15" TFT display to match
my A21p I'd ditch my 20" monitor. A good TFT monitor will
kill a CRT any time, any day.
> (If you live in
> CA, I'm sure that's probably a major consideration.
> Around here nobody seems to notice or care how much
> power anything uses.)
I live about as far from CA as you can get and still reside
in the '48. Power is a useless argument.
> As far as display quality, they
> rather thoroughly suck. The second your head is a few
> degrees out of alignment with the Perfect Position, you
> can't see things properly. That alone is enough reason
> for me to never consider getting one. Give me a CRT any
> time. Now, a nice CRT with a flat screen, yeah, of course.
> As big as the available funds can obtain, yeah, obviously.
You really ought to get out more. Your view of the world is
quite limiting. The top end TFT displays are quite good.
I'm not running a conference room, so a viewing angle of 30
degrees isn't all that limiting. BTW, our conference rooms
are set up for laptops, so...
> (It drives me nuts that at work we have nothing larger
> than 15" in the whole blasted building.)
Again, you are showing your limited knowledge. A 15" TFT
display is *just* (a couple of tenths of an inch) smaller
than a 17" CRT and *tremendously* sharper. I once wanted the
biggest CRT the bos would give me too. I have a 20" and a
19" in my office (the 17" got the boot). The 15" A21p's
display makes these look sick. The 20" is the secondary
display on my ThinkPad. The 19" is on a legacy system (soon
to convert to Linux).
----
Keith
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith R. Williams)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 02:07:43 GMT
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 22:42:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the
Unsightly One) wrote:
> "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Time to go for lcd flatscreens.
>
> I hate those things.
You don't know what you're missing. Clearly.
----
Keith
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith R. Williams)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 02:11:14 GMT
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 22:42:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the
Unsightly One) wrote:
> Anthony Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hmm.. current uptime on the above mentioned gateway system is 73 days
> > and counting :> Ahh, I do like Linux for applications like this.
>
> Yes, I've just purchased an older system on ebay and plan to use
> Linux to turn it into a server/router with NAT to distribute my
> PPP connection to two PCs.
I went hardware for my cable modem. My LinkSys BEFSR41
router works just fine. For $150 I have a router and a
four-port switch.
Our telco is just too expensive to deal with. Cable was the
only solution.
----
Keith
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 02:13:40 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith R. Williams) wrote:
> > Huh. You mean the difference between refresh rates is *visible*?
>
> You're kidding, right?
In a word, no.
> > (My first monitor was CGA, and I had flourescent lighting then
> > and never noticed any flicker (except "snow"), so maybe I am...)
>
> CGAs and particularly MGAs had a longer phosphor so the
> flicker wasn't apparent.
Ah. Yes, I do remember being able to see the residual shadow
of where something used to be for a brief instant after the
image changed... this was especially apparent when you were
playing tetris, IIRC; you could see a fading "shadow" behind
(well, above) a piece as it dropped.
I wonder if there's some variance in the length of the
phosphor on newer monitors, allowing some to show less
flicker than others at 60Hz?
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Subject: Re: Linux on Intel Or Celeron? what is the best choice?
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 02:13:41 GMT
"Bastiaan Schaap" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> too well... So I'd say Pentium. Keep in mind however that Pentium II and III
> are a done deal... (production is stopped for these processors). So either
> choose Pentium IV or AMD athlon.
The cost of Pentium IV is excessive given that it is not
substantially (if at all) better than a good Pentium III
or an Athlon Thunderbird. In the povray benchmarks, for
example, (see http://www.haveland.com/povbench/), the
good Athlons and Pentium IIIs perform _better than_ the
best Pentium IVs. (And the high-end G4s outperform even
the Thunderbirds.) There are other benchmarks where the
Pentium IV performs better, but the point is that it's
not enough better to do better consistently in all the
benchmarks, so the difference is marginal and not worth
that much extra money, IMO. The Pentium IIIs also do not
consistently outperform the Atlons, although there are
reasons to go with a Pentium III rather than an Athlon
(most notably compatibility with certain motherboards).
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Subject: Re: Linux on Intel Or Celeron? what is the best choice?
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 02:13:42 GMT
"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Celeron's are not often chosen in server systems, because they don't perform
> > too well... So I'd say Pentium. Keep in mind however that Pentium II and III
>
> They perform just fine!
All Celerons are not created equal.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: Matt Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.portable,osu.sys.linux
Subject: Re: Sound on a Dell Inspiron 3800 (ESS Maestro3) - Loading Modules fails
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 00:52:36 +0000 (UTC)
Iain Lea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Install kernel 2.4.3 as it supports the Maestro3 audio soundcard :)
> I have it running here... neat... the only thing that does not work
> is the Fn-Vol+/- keys have no effect... anyone have a fix for that ?
> Iain
It works under 2.2.19 if memory serves correctly as well.
Matt
------------------------------
From: "Richard A. Bilonick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Toshiba CDRW/DVD
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 02:42:27 GMT
Has anyone used the Toshiba CDRW/DVD cd-rom, cd-burner, and dvd player
with Linux? Does it work with cdrecord?
Any information would be appreciated.
--
Rick Bilonick - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "JNJ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Gigabyte GA-7ZX5-1 Motherboard w/AC97 Sound
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 22:59:03 -0400
Am running the above with RedHat 7, but cannot get the sound to work for the
life of me. Anyone else worked with these and been able to get the sound
running? Any other known issues between these motherboards and RedHat 7?
James
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Subject: Re: Internal Modem
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 02:13:39 GMT
I said...
> >I had problems getting my (Zoom) modem to work under various OSes
> >until I disabled the "PNP OS installed" and "Allocate IRQ for USB"
> >settings in the BIOS. Don't know if this is related to your
> >problem, but it's probably worth trying.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric R Brueggemann) wrote:
> just out of curiosity, which Zoom modem was this, and what's your mobo?
It's a jumpered ISA modem. The spec sheet that came with my
computer calls it "Zoom 33.6k Internal Data/Fax modem". The
modem's manual says it's 16-bit ISA and explains how to plug
in and jumper it and how to install the Communicate! Lite
software that came with it for DOS or Windows, as well as
where to find AT commands on the web and some other stuff
(toubleshooting, FCC info, ...) but doesn't specify the
exact model, perhaps because the same manual was used for
more than one model. There is a sticker on the card itself
that reads, "V.34I PLUS FAXMODEM D/F MODEL 1001B", FWIW.
It seems to be a very standard modem (unlike my sound card,
which pretty much isn't standard); it works in DOS (6),
Windows (95), Linux (various), and the BeOS (5 PE) at least;
I haven't tried it with BSD or anything else yet.
My hypothesis is that I was short on IRQs until I disabled
USB in the BIOS, freeing one up.
There is always *some* piece of hardware on this system
that doesn't work; at the moment, it's the USB host
controller and in Windows the PCI bridge (whatever that
is; both PCI and ISA cards are working just fine, so I'm
loathe to mess with it) and in everything except Windows
the sound card (which is a fairly obscure model from a
company called Avance). This is a livable situation,
so I'm avoiding further messing; for a while I couldn't
get my CD-ROM drive to work in Windows (except in
command-prompt-only mode, where I couldn't see all
my partitions) or my modem in other OSes, so I'm happy
with having everything important working now. If I
mess with it again it'll be to see if I can get sound
in Linux and the BeOS if I get a more standard sound
card (probably a Creative model of some kind). I
don't care about the PCI bridge unless someone tells
me why I need it, and I definitely don't care about
USB. At work there are three iMacs, so I've had
my *fill* of USB. None of that for me, thanks.
- 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
******************************
