Linux-Hardware Digest #592, Volume #14 Mon, 9 Apr 01 02:13:07 EDT
Contents:
System Test Software? (Thomas Cameron)
Re: problems burning 80 minute cd ("Glitch")
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: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: HELP: Newbie to Linux (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: And Linux for Playstation 2, Cube,etc? ("Glitch")
Maestro 3 sound card ("Obie Taylor")
Re: Multimedia an OS's (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: IRQ modem problem: pci PnP (not winmodem) (Nader)
Re: [Xfree 4] problem with S3 virge/DX (jeanseb)
Re: Parport problem (Gunnar)
Re: Linux on Intel Or Celeron? what is the best choice? ("Bastiaan Schaap")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Thomas Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware
Subject: System Test Software?
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 22:23:50 -0500
Howdy from Austin, Texas -
My system has randomly started locking up, usually during graphics
manipulation using the GIMP or Corel Draw 9.
I have replaced the video card, the RAM, and the power supply, but the
problem persists. This is getting expensive, and I'd like to spend as
little more as possible.
Before I replace the CPU and the motherboard, I would like to actaully
test them to see if they are flaky. Is there any good public domain or
Free software which can test individual components like CPU, cache, main
memory, and so on?
If convenient, please reply via e-mail as well as posting.
Thanks in advance,
Thomas
------------------------------
From: "Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: problems burning 80 minute cd
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 22:59:22 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "grausam"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello everyone!
> My cd burner always works well with any 74 minute cd that i want to feed
> it, but i just recently purchaced some fujifilm 80 minute cds and
> cdrecord doesn't like it.
> Do you think that this is a problem with my hardware, cdrecord, or the
> discs themselves? Here is partial output from cdrecord:
>
your CDR/W drive has to support burning 80 min. CDs. Does it?
------------------------------
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 04:02:07 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith R. Williams) wrote:
> > 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.
I wouldn't be able to stand the narrow view, however.
I don't sit in a static position like a guy in a
hospital with four limbs broken in twelve places
while I use my computer. I sit against the headboard
of my bed, sit indian-style on my bed, recline on my
bed, either on my side or on my back, with my head at
either end, move to the chair beside my bed, ...
Basically, whatever's comfortable at the moment. The
monitor needs to be visible from anywhere in front of
it, not just from a narrow space *straight* in front
of it. I also have long PS/2 cables on my mouse and
keyboard. (The mousepad sits on my copy of the Camel
book, which migrates from place to place on the bed;
currently it's between the two halves of my keyboard.)
Heck, even assuming a really nice swivel for the
horizontal angle, my vertical position changes enough
that one of those "flatscreen" displays would be hard
to see in one position or another, unless I could
swivel it vertically also, but that's a serious pain,
swivelling the monitor every time you change your
sitting position.
Besides, my CRT is sharp also, and in any event that
"at their native resolution" qualification negates
any impact the statement it qualifies might otherwise
have had, since I'm not interested in using that kind
of resolution. Remember, I want to be able to see
*all* the details. That means each individual pixel
needs to be able to be distinguished from the next one.
I won't have it any other way. So, any argument that
you qualify with "at their native resolution" is
totally insignificant for me.
Basically, I know what I want, and a laptop display
is NOT it.
> 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.
A good 17" display is at LEAST 16" viewable. Mine is
a little more than that. How is any 15" display "just
tenths of an inch shy" of this?
> You haven't seen anything until you've seen a *good* flat
> screen display.
I've seen 'em in stores, costing three times what a
better CRT costs and more. Or do I actually have
to pay money for one before I'm qualified to say
I don't like them? That's preposterous. I know
what I like, and that's not 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: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 04:02:08 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith R. Williams) wrote:
> 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.
My PC at home runs at 75 Hz (just checked), and I
keep the colours there set to something like wheat
on dark slate grey precisely because I can't handle
the blinding white. 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),
the blinding white isn't any worse. If anything,
I don't mind it so bad because I don't have to
look at it for more than a couple of minutes at
a time; whereas, my PC at home I sit in front of
for eight hours a day or more (although I get up
and wander around briefly from time to time, get
a snack or whatever).
As far as white backgrounds being the norm, I only
tollerate them at work where I'm supposed to leave
the settings that way for other peoples' benefit.
At home, there are no blinding white backgrounds.
Everything is set to use dark backgrounds and
lighter foregrounds. (Yes, that means websites
don't get the colours they ask for. They don't
generally get to run Java and Javascript on my
PC either. I do usually accept cookies, though.)
- jonadab
------------------------------
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 04:02:10 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith R. Williams) wrote:
> A desktop larger than the display simply isn't useful.
Oh. Huh. My mileage varies tremendously.
> I can scroll fast enough without a larger virtual desktop.
Ah. Well, some apps (mostly Windoze apps, I guess) don't
remember to include the capability to scroll, which is where
I find it indispensible. Although it's also nice for those
occasions where a web page is designed for a resolution
too large for my screen.
> Good grief. I was running 758x1024 eight years ago.
Eight years ago... [does subtraction, gets 1993] I had
only had my first computer for about a year. I bought
it when I was in high school, so I could word process
my English papers. (Then I promptly got hooked on
programming, of course.) I had that CGA monitor until
I got out of college. (College students don't have
money for things like hardware. I was one of the lucky
ones; I always had enough money to do my laundry.)
Oh, yeah, BTW, it feels *really* good to upgrade
from 4.77 MHz to 233 MHz. The difference is very
noticeable. Being out of college has its niceties.
> 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.
Oh, I've got LOTS of open Windows. I use things like
cycle-buffer-permissive and, of course, good old Alt-Tab
when I have to switch to something outside of Emacs.
I guess it's a difference in what you're doing. I don't
have any problem with pushing things into the background
and popping them back a moment later. As long as I don't
get interrupted and lose my train of thought, I don't need
everything to be visible at once.
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.
- jonadab
------------------------------
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 04:02:12 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith R. Williams) wrote:
> > 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?
No, it has a zoom, which I've assigned to a hotkey, but
I like to have the details visible all the time. I'm
more comfortable that way.
> > 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.
Yeah, but then you have to reach for the mouse all the time...
> > 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).
For reasons explained elsewhere in the thread, I have more
distance between my face and the screen, which helps to
necessitate the lower resolution.
> You really ought to get out more. Your view of the world is
> quite limiting. The top end TFT displays are quite good.
Being unable to see things at a wide angle is "quite good"?
Not for me. You go do your conference rooms and schematics
and leave me alone.
> > (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 should mention that the 15" displays (and 14" displays)
where I work are CRTs, and cheap ones at that. It's
weird; we spend money like it's water, but we don't spend
it on the things that would make for a more efficient work
environment. (We also only have just two nice standheld
autosensing scanners for the barcodes, and the rest are all
the wands that half the time have to be run repeatedly and
sometimes still don't work. That's gotta be an hour of
staff time a week down the tubes for want of a couple
hundred dollars in nicer scanners. After a couple of
years, that adds up.)
- jonadab
------------------------------
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 04:02:13 GMT
Anthony Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, in case you haven't read it yet, I'd throw out a VERY strong
> recommendation to read the IP Masquerading HOWTO
I haven't read it YET, but I *was* already planning on 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: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 04:02:14 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith R. Williams) wrote:
> I went hardware for my cable modem.
Yah, but cable modems aren't going to be available in this
area until who only knows when; for me it's either dialup
or sneaker net for the indefinite present. (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.)
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.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Subject: Re: HELP: Newbie to Linux
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 04:02:15 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trevor Hemsley) wrote:
> IBM/Dell/Compaq Pentium 166's with 32MB RAM and a couple of GB of disk
> space. Not stunning by today's standards but relatively _cheap_ - a
> couple of hundred quid if I remember right (and I may not).
Low-end systems like that also sell on ebay regularly, usually
for around $100 or a little more plus shipping without a monitor.
If you do go for a newer system, Duron systems have a
relatively good price/performance ratio.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: "Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: And Linux for Playstation 2, Cube,etc?
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 23:08:45 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Harri
Haataja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>On 5 Apr 2001 20:25:21 GMT, Hermann Samso
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Following the same line...
>>> what about Linux for the new/upcoming powerful game consoles?
>>
>>Step one: get a C compiler for the game console...
>
> Step two: get all the specs for the chipsets and pheripherals.
>
Step three: pray the first 2 happen ;)
------------------------------
From: "Obie Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Maestro 3 sound card
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 23:09:27 -0700
Help! I have a Dell laptop c600. I am running RedHat Linux 7. I am unable
to get the sound to work with linux. I have the ESS Masetro 3. Does anyone
know how I can make this card work with RedHat?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Subject: Re: Multimedia an OS's
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 04:02:05 GMT
Nick Bourry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For the making of the site, wich OS (operating system) should I choose?
Emacs. You can write the HTML in PSGML then, and use W3 to
preview it...
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: Nader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IRQ modem problem: pci PnP (not winmodem)
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 21:50:49 -0700
I have a similar configuration and ran into a similar problem. It looks
like you've done all the right things.
If your setserial command is setup correctly and you are running 2.4.2,
try:
route -n del default
before you connect pppd or kppp. (see
http://jgo.local.net/LinuxGuide/linux-ppp.html)
The upgrade does something to the kernel's IP routing table. This command
removes it.
I had IRQ problems with my USR 56k, but they went away when I upgraded the
kernel.
If the route command above doesn't work:
1) Are you certain that you are running the 2.4.2 kernel? (check dmesg)
2) What is the output of your setserial setting? (setserial -ag /dev/modem)
3) What port is /dev/modem linked to? (ln -s /dev/modem) - I had to use
COM5/ttyS4 for my USR
noasdf wrote:
> I bought a PCI modem (US Robotics 56K) that advertises itself as working
> with kernel 2.3 (NOT a winmodem). I upgraded my kernel to 2.4.2 (and
> pppd, etc). My problem is that minicom can dial correctly and I can see
> the header/login stuff from the ISP, but I am only getting small pakets
> of data VERY slowly (classical IRQ conflict) and I can't get to the
> point where I am prompted for a password.
>
> Both the modem and the USB controller are set for IRQ 11 (no other
> devices are according to "lspci -v", /proc/interrupts and /proc/pci.
> I've tried changing the setserial command in /etc/rc.d./rc.local to set
> the modem IRQ to 10 (not being used), but when I reboot, lspci -v
> reports that the modem IRQ is still 11 and I still can't log in.
> Windows98 has both devices set to IRQ 11 and it has no problem
> connecting to the same ISP. My BIOS has a very simple interface and
> doesn't seem to allow me to change the "OS is PnP capable" command.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Brian Rater
> Milford, NH
------------------------------
From: jeanseb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x.video,fr.comp.os.linux.configuration
Subject: Re: [Xfree 4] problem with S3 virge/DX
Date: 09 Apr 2001 05:15:06 GMT
eric wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Installing Linux Mandrake 7.2 I wanted to use the Xfree 4 server
> with my S3 Virge/DX graphic card.
>
> The problem is that I can't go beyond the resolution of 800x600
> for 15 bits colors.
>
> The very strange thing is that with the previous version of Xfree
> I could go until 1024x768 with 16bits colors. It even worked under
> Windows (or Windaube for french pepople)
>
> When I try to configure 1024x768 with either 15 bits or 16 bits
> colors, my screen goes black, my monitor does a very strange noise
> (like if I just powered it off) and I can't do anything except from
> rebooting the computer pressing the reset button (CTR-ALT-DEL or
> CTR-ALT-SUPPR)
> are not intercepted any more.
>
> I looked in the FAQs and the Xfree 4 driver status (free86.org) and I
> did not
> find anything to help
>
> Is there someone that experienced the same problem ?
> Is it a known problem ?
> Is there a solution in order to go on using Xfree 4 ?
>
> Thanks in advance for your help and your support
>
> Bests Regards,
>
> eric
C'est surement un probleme de frequence de ton moniteur.
Prend le manuel et configure Xfree pour qu'il n'utilise que les
frequence disponible pour ton moniteur.
Pour les plantage XFree, le plus propre et de repasser en terminal par
telnet si tu est en reseaux ou en pressant ctr+alt+F1 pour obtenir une
console virtuelle (sois patient avec Xfree 4 il arrive que cela prenne
plus de 2 minute lorsqu'il est plant�), et d'arreter X windows
proprement si possible sinon 'killall -9 X'
------------------------------
From: Gunnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Parport problem
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 05:52:35 GMT
> The "lp" module is in a funny place. Character Devices->Parallel
> Printer Support is the option you should set to "Y" or "M". It is not
> with the parallel port options for reasons of symmetry, balance, and
> logic (a printer is a character device, after all, and it makes sense
> for all the character devices to be in one place) but lp is needed for
> doing just about anything with the parallel port on the x86
> architecture. (Yes, this bit me in the arse many months ago, and I
> flailed in confusion for an hour before figuring it out.)
You saved my arse from beeing bitten.... Thanks. it works!
I can't imagine how I could have missed that in the kernel config.
> Oh well, see above for the option you need to set. HTH,
It did, thanks. You people at this list are great!
Gunnar.
------------------------------
From: "Bastiaan Schaap" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux on Intel Or Celeron? what is the best choice?
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 08:14:30 +0200
Hi Trevor,
You could be right, I didn't know for sure if production for PIII was
completely stopped, maybe I heard it wrong, and they only stopped
manufacturing the slot I's.... I think I've read an article on tom's
hardware somewhere...
I apologize,
Cheers,
Bastiaan Schaap
________________________
Why is it that when you transport something by car, it's called a
shipment, but when you transport something by ship, it's called cargo?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
