It's time for a new OS/2 box (advice appreciated) - OS2

This is a discussion on It's time for a new OS/2 box (advice appreciated) - OS2 ; Well, my trusty PII-400 is getting a bit long in the tooth now. It's time I got myself a new PC. I've already decided on an AMD-based system, but I'm not really up on what's good, bad, or ugly OS/2-wise. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: It's time for a new OS/2 box (advice appreciated)

  1. It's time for a new OS/2 box (advice appreciated)

    Well, my trusty PII-400 is getting a bit long in the tooth now. It's time
    I got myself a new PC.

    I've already decided on an AMD-based system, but I'm not really up on
    what's good, bad, or ugly OS/2-wise.

    My brief research indicates the following general AMD CPU types are
    available:

    64-bit:
    Opteron - for servers (Xeon competitor?), single & dual-core available
    Athlon 64 - for desktops, single & dual-core available
    Turion 64 - for notebooks

    32-bit:
    Athlon MP - SMP-enabled
    Athlon XP - various models for desktops & notebooks, single & dual-core
    Sempron - budget version (Celeron competitor)

    I'd appreciate recommendations from people with experience running OS/2 on
    recent AMD-based systems. My needs are described in detail below.


    SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

    I need a fast and powerful system for multimedia (viewing more than
    editing, see below); program development (primarily C, maybe Java),
    including CVS work; using Virtual PC (and/or equivalent products) quite
    heavily; possibly running OpenOffice. I make moderate use of OS/2 desktop
    enhancers, and tend to have high-colour, high-resolution desktops.

    I will be doing a lot of multimedia. I intend to install the Hauppauge
    PVR2/350 and do TV watching/recording. (I don't own a separate TV so my
    PC will serve this function.) I also watch video files in AVI/MPEG4
    format frequently. If I can get DVD video working, I expect to watch a
    lot of those as well. I probably won't be doing much video _editing_, at
    least at first, but I might want to give it a try. I create and edit
    raster graphics a great deal (PMView is one of my most-used programs).
    I do not make any appreciable use of 3D graphics (either still or
    animated), or vector graphics.

    I burn many CDs, and will likely burn DVDs as well. I expect to need
    lots of disk space (courtesy of all the multimedia and Virtual PC use),
    and will probably multi-boot several other operating systems.

    Incidentally, my apartment tends to be very warm and quite humid. (In the
    current heat wave it is reaching 33-35 degrees C during the day, and 24-28
    degrees at night. Yes, that's INside the apartment.) So how much do I
    need to worry about the legends of AMD CPUs spontaneously combusting?

    Above all, what is MOST important to me is that my system is STABLE.
    I want it to run as wide an array of OS/2 software as possible, and
    _reliably_ so. This is more important to me than raw power, since I
    figure that pretty much anything modern is likely to satisfy my basic
    performance needs.

    I guess my two major questions are: single CPU or SMP; and 32-bit or
    64-bit? How seamless and stable are these choices? I prefer to avoid
    bleeding edge if it might compromise compatibility or stability. AMD64
    may impose hardware or software restrictions that I don't want. As far
    as SMP, ISTR hearing complaints relating to GRADD, Virtual PC, and a few
    other things. Again, heat may also be a concern.

    BTW, I'm thinking I should go with SATA hard disks. I'm currently using
    all-SCSI, but it's just too damn expensive and I'm constantly running out
    of disk space. Has SATA reached the point where I can just expect it to
    work? Dani lists an impressive selection of supported devices.

    I will probably stay with a SB Live! sound card (I have one and know it
    works well with Sander's driver), and probably a 3Com NIC. Graphics will
    be anything that does 2D graphics well in conjunction with SNAP
    Professional (probably a Matrox since for personal reasons I dislike ATI
    cards).

    I don't know much about current motherboards, but I generally get good
    impressions of Asus and Tyan.

    Assuming anybody's read this far... thoughts?

    Thx,
    --
    Alex Taylor
    http://www.cs-club.org/~alex

    Remove hat to reply (reply-to address).

  2. Re: It's time for a new OS/2 box (advice appreciated)

    On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:40:09 -0500, William L. Hartzell wrote:
    >> I've already decided on an AMD-based system, but I'm not really up on
    >> what's good, bad, or ugly OS/2-wise.
    >>
    >> My brief research indicates the following general AMD CPU types are
    >> available:
    >>
    >> 64-bit: Opteron - for servers (Xeon competitor?), single &
    >> dual-core available Athlon 64 - for desktops, single & dual-core
    >> available Turion 64 - for notebooks
    >>
    >> 32-bit: Athlon MP - SMP-enabled Athlon XP - various models for
    >> desktops & notebooks, single & dual-core Sempron - budget version
    >> (Celeron competitor)

    > Athlon XP is no longer being shipped by AMD. Instead it has been
    > rebranded Sempr0n and is not a Celeron competitor. It is the lead
    > 32-bit processor to help those who need replacements for existing 32-bit
    > processors.


    OK, I've done some more research. Looks like you're right, but so was I.
    Kind of.

    Athlon XP _was_ the top-line 32-bit CPU (and Duron was the value-priced
    one, i.e. Celeron competitor). However, the Athlon 64 line has now
    completely taken over the "top-line" segment from AMD. The Duron has been
    discontinued already, and the Athlon XP is being discontinued under that
    name. The Semprion is mostly a rebranding of the Athlon XP, except that
    it's now being marketed as the "value" alternative -- kind of the new
    Duron (Celeron competitor).

    The first Semprions (using Socket A) are really just rebranded Athlon XPs,
    as you say. However, as subsequent Semprions are moving to the newer
    Socket 754, they're nonetheless using the Thoroughbred Athlon core instead
    of the marginally superior Barton core of the latest XPs (to keep costs
    down). These Semprions also have a smaller L2 cache, presumably for the
    same reason.


    I had been under the impression that Athlon 64 CPUs were still in the
    'early adopter' market. Looks like I was wrong; they're mainstream
    already.

    This makes things a bit more complicated vis-a-vis getting a new OS/2 box.
    For years, I'd had my heart set on an Athlon XP for "my next box". If I'd
    kept to my anticipated timetable, that would have happened for sure. My
    current box dates from early 1999, so by rights I should have upgraded
    some time in 2003. However, I got a new laptop that year, so I decided to
    push the upgrade of my main box back to 2004. Except... for some reason,
    I never did get around to upgrading. You know, s_t happens...

    So now I have the choice of getting a dead-end architecture (Athlon XP)
    with a mainboard that undoubtedly won't allow any CPU upgrade in the
    future... or getting a bleeding-edge Athlon 64, which as I gather is still
    largely unproven for extensive OS/2 use.

    At least... I've heard a few tales of difficulty regarding Athlon 64 CPUs
    and OS/2, but not that many (either good or bad). I'd assumed that's
    because the AMD64 is not yet widely used. But if I'm wrong (and it looks
    like I was), then TONS of people must be using it. Does that mean that
    there are lots of people using OS/2 on AMD64 and not having any trouble?



    I suppose the other option is dual Athlon MPs... but I'm reluctant to go
    with SMP (or dual-core) because of the complications it can introduce.

    --
    Alex Taylor
    http://www.cs-club.org/~alex

    Remove hat to reply (reply-to address).

  3. Re: It's time for a new OS/2 box (advice appreciated)

    On 14 Jun 2005 14:52:03 -0500, Alex Taylor wrote:


    :>Athlon XP _was_ the top-line 32-bit CPU (and Duron was the value-priced
    :>one, i.e. Celeron competitor). However, the Athlon 64 line has now
    :>completely taken over the "top-line" segment from AMD. The Duron has been
    :>discontinued already, and the Athlon XP is being discontinued under that
    :>name. The Semprion is mostly a rebranding of the Athlon XP, except that
    :>it's now being marketed as the "value" alternative -- kind of the new
    :>Duron (Celeron competitor).
    >

    :>The first Semprions (using Socket A) are really just rebranded Athlon XPs,
    :>as you say. However, as subsequent Semprions are moving to the newer
    :>Socket 754, they're nonetheless using the Thoroughbred Athlon core instead
    :>of the marginally superior Barton core of the latest XPs (to keep costs
    :>down). These Semprions also have a smaller L2 cache, presumably for the
    :>same reason.

    They are called Sempron (without the i), and should be seen as Celeron
    competitors. The latest, Sempron 3300+ is 90 nm technology. There are
    different features depending on which Sempron you have, and AMD has made is
    very difficult to determine which has what. The latest 3300+, stepping E3,
    has the 'Palermo' core which supports SSE3 instructions. They can be
    recognized by the last part of the part number, if it ends in 'BO' it
    supports SSE3, if 'BA' then not. Semprons can have 128 or 256 k cache.
    You're better off with a Athlon64 3000+, which costs about the same as a
    Sempron 3300+ but is faster and has the 64-bit stuff. I got all this info
    from the latest german c't magazine.
    I myself wouldn't buy a 32-bit only chip anymore. Plus, I'd go for a
    motherboard which already supports the dual core versions (maybe quad core in
    the future?). A certain VIA chipset doesn't work with duals, apparently
    (check TheInquirer.net) . I'd also go for a board with good SATA2 support to
    be future proof.

    Mat Nieuwenhoven






  4. Re: It's time for a new OS/2 box (advice appreciated)

    > At least... I've heard a few tales of difficulty regarding Athlon 64 CPUs
    > and OS/2, but not that many (either good or bad). I'd assumed that's
    > because the AMD64 is not yet widely used. But if I'm wrong (and it looks
    > like I was), then TONS of people must be using it. Does that mean that
    > there are lots of people using OS/2 on AMD64 and not having any trouble?


    I'm using one with eCS 1.15 and kernel 14.103a.
    Once it's installed, it runs like hell and it is reliable .

    The installation is the only known issue, but I guess you are
    already aware of this fact. Have a look at the thread
    "AMD XP3000 FSB400 MB Recommendations" and you'll see all the
    details of my system. It's one of the earlier socket 754 systems
    but I'm very happy with it. The only thing which does not reliably
    work is APM, but this can also happen with a P4 system.

    We'll see if the problem will be gone with the hopefully soon
    finished ACPI driver . Then the only thing that's missing is
    a driver for Cool'n'Quiet.

    Heiko

  5. Re: It's time for a new OS/2 box (advice appreciated)

    Oops: s/Semprion/Sempron/g
    Sorry.

    > OK, I've done some more research. Looks like you're right, but so was I.
    > Kind of.
    >
    > Athlon XP _was_ the top-line 32-bit CPU (and Duron was the value-priced
    > one, i.e. Celeron competitor). However, the Athlon 64 line has now
    > completely taken over the "top-line" segment from AMD. The Duron has been
    > discontinued already, and the Athlon XP is being discontinued under that
    > name. The Semprion is mostly a rebranding of the Athlon XP, except that
    > it's now being marketed as the "value" alternative -- kind of the new
    > Duron (Celeron competitor).
    >
    > The first Semprions (using Socket A) are really just rebranded Athlon XPs,
    > as you say. However, as subsequent Semprions are moving to the newer
    > Socket 754, they're nonetheless using the Thoroughbred Athlon core instead
    > of the marginally superior Barton core of the latest XPs (to keep costs
    > down). These Semprions also have a smaller L2 cache, presumably for the
    > same reason.



    --
    Alex Taylor
    http://www.cs-club.org/~alex

    Remove hat to reply (reply-to address).

  6. Re: It's time for a new OS/2 box (advice appreciated)

    On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 23:11:38 +0200 (CEST), Mat Nieuwenhoven
    wrote:
    > They are called Sempron (without the i),


    Yes, I caught that right after hitting "send". Oops.


    > and should be seen as Celeron competitors. The latest, Sempron 3300+ is
    > 90 nm technology. There are different features depending on which
    > Sempron you have, and AMD has made is very difficult to determine which
    > has what. The latest 3300+, stepping E3, has the 'Palermo' core which
    > supports SSE3 instructions. They can be recognized by the last part of
    > the part number, if it ends in 'BO' it supports SSE3, if 'BA' then not.
    > Semprons can have 128 or 256 k cache. You're better off with a Athlon64
    > 3000+, which costs about the same as a Sempron 3300+ but is faster and
    > has the 64-bit stuff. I got all this info from the latest german c't
    > magazine.


    Last night I found a very useful .GIF table at Toms Hardware site, which
    lists all of the AMD chips released since the original Athlon, including
    their model numbers, cores, supported instruction sets, clock speeds, etc.


    > I myself wouldn't buy a 32-bit only chip anymore. Plus, I'd go for a
    > motherboard which already supports the dual core versions (maybe quad core in
    > the future?). A certain VIA chipset doesn't work with duals, apparently
    > (check TheInquirer.net) . I'd also go for a board with good SATA2 support to
    > be future proof.


    At this point, I certainly wouldn't get a Sempron, unless maybe it was one
    of the first-gen rebranded Athlon XPs.

    Looks like the choice is either a Socket A Athlon XP, or an Athlon 64.
    From what I know at this point, the Athlon 64 is probably it, unless I
    learn of some fatal incompatiblity for my purposes...

    Thanks.

    --
    Alex Taylor
    http://www.cs-club.org/~alex

    Remove hat to reply (reply-to address).

  7. Re: AMD and OS/2 (was Re: It's time for a new OS/2 box)

    On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:13:02 UTC, Alex Taylor
    wrote:

    > > You do know that there is a great deal of money difference between the
    > > 32-bit processor and the 64-bit processor?

    >
    > That's not particularly important to me; I'd have expected to spend
    > CDN$300-$500 on a new CPU anyway.
    >

    The place that I have bought all my computers and associated bits
    from for the last 8 or 9 years has an Athlon 64 3700+ on sale this
    weekend for about $440 Cdn (regular about $490).

    > > Plus none of the new
    > > main boards support AGP 4x and slower, which will require new 8x video
    > > card.

    >
    > OK, that's worth knowing. But a new box would imply a new video card
    > anyway...
    >
    >
    > > BTW, Athlon64 main boards with PCI-e connectors will be
    > > generally available in the next three months.
    > >

    Same place has had Asus, Soltek and DFI boards with PCI-e
    connectors for at least two months ( these are on their current
    "specials" list - I didn't check the main list).

    One of their locations is about five minutes from where I work, so
    it's quite convenient.

    I think they also do internet ordering, but since they're local to
    me I can't vouch for how that goes...

    If you're interested, email me and I'll give you the name.. I don't
    think this is necessarily the place for that. (I don't have any
    commercial connection with them, by the way).

    --
    Bob

    For valid address,change artie to rt and remove not

  8. Re: AMD and OS/2 (was Re: It's time for a new OS/2 box)

    Sir:

    Alex Taylor wrote:

    >> So the question is where do you see yourself in three years. Married
    >> with a child on the way or single with tons of cash to blow. If the
    >> first, get 32-bit processor and save the cash for wooing that girl.

    >
    > Girl? What girl? I think I've heard of them... :|
    >
    > My upgrade cycle is about five years, which is why I generally prefer to
    > get the best system I can, and make it last as long as possible. As I
    > mentioned, my current system was bought in February 1999, although it's
    > been upgraded quite a bit since then. I'd expect my next system to last
    > me until 2009 at least.
    >

    Well, then since you've been to Tomshardware.com, look at the day one of
    that Asia computer parts show and see the Athlon64 main boards with
    PCI-e connectors that will be out soon. Gigabytes and Azus from memory,
    have boards.
    PS. You don't want to get as old as most of us without one--girl, that is.
    --
    Bill
    Thanks a Million!

  9. Re: AMD and OS/2 (was Re: It's time for a new OS/2 box)

    William L. Hartzell wrote:
    > Sir:
    >
    > Alex Taylor wrote:
    >
    >
    >>> So the question is where do you see yourself in three years. Married
    >>> with a child on the way or single with tons of cash to blow. If the
    >>> first, get 32-bit processor and save the cash for wooing that girl.

    >>
    >>
    >> Girl? What girl? I think I've heard of them... :|
    >> My upgrade cycle is about five years, which is why I generally prefer to
    >> get the best system I can, and make it last as long as possible. As I
    >> mentioned, my current system was bought in February 1999, although it's
    >> been upgraded quite a bit since then. I'd expect my next system to last
    >> me until 2009 at least.
    >>

    > Well, then since you've been to Tomshardware.com, look at the day one of
    > that Asia computer parts show and see the Athlon64 main boards with
    > PCI-e connectors that will be out soon. Gigabytes and Azus from memory,

    ECS-elitegroup already for some months and quite cheap
    > have boards.
    > PS. You don't want to get as old as most of us without one--girl, that is.


  10. Re: AMD and OS/2 (was Re: It's time for a new OS/2 box)

    Sir:

    Leo Tick wrote:
    > William L. Hartzell wrote:


    >> Well, then since you've been to Tomshardware.com, look at the day one
    >> of that Asia computer parts show and see the Athlon64 main boards with
    >> PCI-e connectors that will be out soon. Gigabytes and Azus from memory,

    > ECS-elitegroup already for some months and quite cheap


    I see the KN1 for $107, which has one 16x and 2 1x PCI-e slots and three
    ordinaty PIC slots. Don't believe that the audio or LAN is supported.
    Otherwise it is nice. Uses DDR, not DDR2.

    --
    Bill
    Thanks a Million!

  11. Re: It's time for a new OS/2 box (advice appreciated)

    Alex Taylor wrote:



    > So now I have the choice of getting a dead-end architecture (Athlon XP)
    > with a mainboard that undoubtedly won't allow any CPU upgrade in the
    > future...


    This is how I decided. 1.5 years ago, financially a bit constrained, I
    bought almost-the-latest-and-greatest Asus socket A board with KT333
    chipset, and the oldest and cheapest non-Duron AMD available (1333MHz
    Thunderbird). It is still enough for me, but seeing the Athlons XP going
    away, I'm about to buy some Barton based XP (the board will accept it),
    and use those PR2800 or such for another 2-4 years. And OS/2 would run
    on it flawlessly.

    Cheers,
    Martin

    > or getting a bleeding-edge Athlon 64, which as I gather is still
    > largely unproven for extensive OS/2 use.
    >
    > At least... I've heard a few tales of difficulty regarding Athlon 64 CPUs
    > and OS/2, but not that many (either good or bad). I'd assumed that's
    > because the AMD64 is not yet widely used. But if I'm wrong (and it looks
    > like I was), then TONS of people must be using it. Does that mean that
    > there are lots of people using OS/2 on AMD64 and not having any trouble?
    >
    >
    >
    > I suppose the other option is dual Athlon MPs... but I'm reluctant to go
    > with SMP (or dual-core) because of the complications it can introduce.
    >


  12. Re: It's time for a new OS/2 box (advice appreciated)

    On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:40:09 -0500, William L. Hartzell
    wrote:

    > It may surprise you but you don't need more
    > than 128 MiB of memory and can get by with 64 MiB. But since getting
    > that small of a DDR is expensive, get 512 MiB DDR or DDR2 of memory,
    > depending upon main board. DDR2 is faster, but not needed, except doing
    > compiles.


    What crap you write. I upgraded from 512 to 1024 MB because running a couple
    of VPC machines was impossible with 512.
    Suggesting you can run with 64 is just completely laughable. You are a fool.

  13. Re: AMD and OS/2 (was Re: It's time for a new OS/2 box)

    On 15 Jun 2005 10:13:02 -0500, Alex Taylor wrote:

    > But a dual-core CPU would be seen as SMP under OS/2, wouldn't it? I think
    > I want to avoid SMP, since I've seen problem reports esp. with some GRADD
    > setups, and with some of the Innotek products.


    Only if you use an SMP kernel etc.
    There is nothing to stop you using a Uniprocessor kernel.

  14. OT:

    On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:26:28 UTC, Paul Ratcliffe
    wrote:

    > Suggesting you can run with 64 is just completely laughable. You are a fool.
    >


    Are you trying to enrich my killfile?
    --
    email lutzPUNKTgeyerBEInovelisPUNKTcom
    set BEI @ set PUNKT .

  15. Re: OT:

    On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 07:12:52 GMT, Lutz wrote:

    > On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:26:28 UTC, Paul Ratcliffe
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Suggesting you can run with 64 is just completely laughable. You are a fool.
    >>

    >
    > Are you trying to enrich my killfile?


    I don't know what you mean. I don't know who you are and I care even less.
    Hartzell is the one to go in your killfile, if anyone.

  16. Re: AMD and OS/2 (was Re: It's time for a new OS/2 box)

    On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:28:01 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
    >> But a dual-core CPU would be seen as SMP under OS/2, wouldn't it? I think
    >> I want to avoid SMP, since I've seen problem reports esp. with some GRADD
    >> setups, and with some of the Innotek products.

    >
    > Only if you use an SMP kernel etc.
    > There is nothing to stop you using a Uniprocessor kernel.


    Well, yeah, but then there'd be no point in using a dual-core processor,
    right?

    --
    Alex Taylor
    http://www.cs-club.org/~alex

    Remove hat to reply (reply-to address).

  17. Re: AMD and OS/2 (was Re: It's time for a new OS/2 box)

    On 17 Jun 2005 08:54:02 -0500, Alex Taylor wrote:

    > On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:28:01 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
    >>> But a dual-core CPU would be seen as SMP under OS/2, wouldn't it? I think
    >>> I want to avoid SMP, since I've seen problem reports esp. with some GRADD
    >>> setups, and with some of the Innotek products.

    >>
    >> Only if you use an SMP kernel etc.
    >> There is nothing to stop you using a Uniprocessor kernel.

    >
    > Well, yeah, but then there'd be no point in using a dual-core processor,
    > right?


    I guess not. I was just pointing out that it could be used without the
    drawbacks of SMP.

  18. Re: It's time for a new OS/2 box (advice appreciated)

    Alex Taylor wrote:

    > BTW, I'm thinking I should go with SATA hard disks. I'm currently using
    > all-SCSI, but it's just too damn expensive and I'm constantly running out
    > of disk space. Has SATA reached the point where I can just expect it to
    > work? Dani lists an impressive selection of supported devices.


    No problems with SATA here on eCS. Linux treats them as SCSI devices,
    which imposes a 15 partition limit per device instead of 63 with PATA.
    SATA cabling is magnitudes more convenient, plus better for airflow
    within the case.

    > I don't know much about current motherboards, but I generally get good
    > impressions of Asus and Tyan.


    http://www.mozillaquest.com/Linux04/..._Story-01.html

    I always look at Tyan, but they never seem to have the feature set I'm
    looking for any more.

    My last 3 mobo purchaes were:

    http://tinyurl.com/53wmf
    http://tinyurl.com/dwf35
    http://tinyurl.com/565ya
    --
    "Love does not demand its own way." 1 Corinthians 13:5

    Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

    Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/

    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

  19. Re: It's time for a new OS/2 box (advice appreciated)

    Sir:

    Felix Miata wrote:

    > No problems with SATA here on eCS. Linux treats them as SCSI devices,
    > which imposes a 15 partition limit per device instead of 63 with PATA.
    > SATA cabling is magnitudes more convenient, plus better for airflow
    > within the case.

    They make round PATA cables, plus you can roll up the flat cables into a
    round tube shape.

    --
    Bill
    Thanks a Million!

  20. Re: It's time for a new OS/2 box (advice appreciated)

    On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 06:52:53 -0400, Felix Miata
    wrote:
    >> I don't know much about current motherboards, but I generally get good
    >> impressions of Asus and Tyan.

    >
    > http://www.mozillaquest.com/Linux04/..._Story-01.html
    >
    > I always look at Tyan, but they never seem to have the feature set I'm
    > looking for any more.


    Actually, right now I'm taking a serious look at the Tyan Tomcat K8E
    S2865G2NR: http://www.tyan.com/products/html/tomcatk8e.html

    It seems to be available without onboard audio (which I don't want since
    I'll be adding an SBLive anyway) but it does have both PCI-e AND a full
    four PCI slots. Plus SATA-II and onboard ATI Rage XL video (which can
    tide me over if necessary until I feel like upgrading video to something
    else; there's a PCI-e x16 slot for that purpose as well).

    My only reservation is the dual onboard GbE NICs. What the hell am I
    going to do with dual GbE interfaces? I don't even have a use for ONE,
    although all Athlon64 boards seem to have them. On the bright side, at
    least one of them seems to have OS/2 drivers (Broadcom BCM5721).

    --
    Alex Taylor
    http://www.cs-club.org/~alex

    Remove hat to reply (reply-to address).

+ Reply to Thread