Message-ID: <43411048.5020201@sbcglobal.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (OS/2; U; Warp 4.5; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040918
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <200509180103.j8I13etc017833@mail.cruzio.com> <20050918082448-42541-7@2rosenthals.com> <200509181601.j8IG1tce003809@mail.cruzio.com> <433476DB.8020904@sbcglobal.net> <43387DD6.7090905@2rosenthals.com> <4338B721.8060600@sbcglobal.net> <433EB321.1080609@2rosenthals.com>
In-Reply-To: <433EB321.1080609@2rosenthals.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date:  Mon, 03 Oct 2005 04:04:40 -0700
Sender: os2-wireless_users-owner <os2-wireless_users-owner@2rosenthals.com>
Reply-To: os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com
From:  Mark Henigan <os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com>
To:  os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com
Subject: [OS2Wireless] IBM T30 notebook - Wireless PCI IRQ?)

Lewis G Rosenthal wrote:
> Sorry for the delay, Mark...
> 
> On 09/26/2005 11:06 pm, Mark Henigan thus wrote :
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> Hello Lewis:
>>
>> Leider nicht...  I have some major tasks that conflict
>> with the Warpstock schedule this year.  Also, I have a
>> T30 but was hoping that the card that worked in the T23
>> would do so in the T30.
>>
> Yeah, I hate when that happens. You don't get the dreaded, "illegal card 
> detected" message, do you? There's a quick fix for that one.

Luckily, I've not seen that message!

>>>> I agree with most of what you say here.  However, my K6-III
>>>> at 400MHz on an FIC PA2013 is faster than my T30.  I'm
>>>> guessing that this is because of the cpu that many have
>>>> told me is a poorly designed model.  
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm currently using a T30 with a 1.8GHz P4M. I had a chat with Knut 
>>> some time back about this, and he told me that the Centrino chips are 
>>> just more efficient than the P4M's. That said, with a gig of RAM in 
>>> my T30, it's pretty snappy.
>>
<snip>
> 
> I notice the difference between 512MB and 1GB, but I suppose it depends 
> upon how much stuff you run concurrently.

I have avoided running too much concurrently because I
don't want to overwhelm the processor.  It is often
running at 99% for long enough durations that I would
simply have multiple slow applications if I opened
them up.  OTOH, I can print and scan simultaneously
relatively well, both processor intensive tasks.  I'm
often renaming or creating folders at the same time.

>> By the way, I have the same processor.  It's
>> quick enough with most tasks but underpowered for VPC.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> Most of my comparisons are based on using PMView and
>> WP51DOS, two programs that I consider pretty nimble.
> 
> Gotta love those slim DOS apps, huh? MS Word 5.0 sings (and it's a bound 
> app; it runs in 16-bit OS/2 mode as well as DOS). That's probably the 
> last MS program I really liked... ;-)
> 
> For me, however, things are a bit more involved. I usually have Mozilla 
> running with a dozen or so tabs open, Mozilla Mail, Citrix, Lotus 
> Organizer, and probably a handful of other things and I rotate between 
> them fairly regularly. I do try to keep some of the constantly-polling 
> DOS apps shut down until I need them (Lotus 1-2-3 2.4, is an example), 
> and I've taken to running most of the Win16 apps under W2K in the Citrix 
> session. This saves me CPU cycles as well as RAM resources.

Citrix sounds like a much better virtualizer than either VPC
or SVISTA.  I only use VPC, and only when I must.  However,
the apps that I attempt to run under VPC are mostly hogs such
as Acrobat that don't show it at its best.

> <snip>
> 
>> ...Right now, I'm waiting for my Intel SE7501WV2-
>> SCSI320 board to arrive while I try to find a pair of
>> cpus and at least 1GB of memory that I can afford.
>> It should allow me to get some work done, at least
>> when I'm at home.
>>
> This is a nice board (just looked it up), though discontinued. I'm 
> curious as to its OS/2 compatibility (though with SCSI, you're probably 
> safe). The last Intel server board I picked up (bundled in an 
> Intel-supplied 1U case) was completely intolerant of OS/2 (it was an 
> ATA-100 RAID unit, and I'm not fond of IDE servers, anyway). I couldn;t 
> even get the OS to install.

My understanding is that it works well.  Drivers appear to be
available for nearly all important functionality.  I wanted a
motherboard that I could use as a server if desired, possibly
including email, and that I could not overwhelm with large
numbers of open applications, and finally that would allow the
rebooting of one processor while the other remained functional
rather than having to reboot the entire machine.

> I can check with my suppliers about CPUs and RAM for you, if you like. I 
> get fairly decent pricing on RAM, and average pricing on CPUs. Let me 
> know if I may be of any help.

Thanks for the offer.  I'm checking eBay right now.  The sort
of processor I'm seeking, is a P4 Xeon 2.40GHz to 3.20GHz with
both L2 and L3 memory on the chip, with 533MHz FSB, that is
compatible with my board, in a matched pair, of course.  I'm
hoping to find such a pair of cpus for $325.00 or less.  A
little tough to locate.  But, persistence pays on eBay.

Best Regards,

- Mark

Mark Henigan
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
steward@2rosenthals.com with the command
"unsubscribe os2-wireless_users" in the body
(omit the quotes).

For help with other commands, send a message
to steward@2rosenthals.com with the command
"help" in the body (omit the quotes).

This list is hosted by Rosenthal & Rosenthal
P.O. Box 281, Deer Park, NY 11729-0281. Non-
electronic communications related to content
contained in these messages should be directed
to the above address. (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=