Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - os2monkey

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
1
Hardware / Hyperthreading & SMP
« on: 2012.04.23, 10:17:04 »
So I just upgraded my cpu to a P4 3.0ghz that supports hyper-threading.

I had activated acpi installed by default via 2.1, and then I installed the ACPI 3.19.14 version on advice previously that is was more stable, and then rebooted.
When I rebooted my computer showed 2 cpus, but it started acting really strange, with both cpus often going up to 99%, and I could not load any apps or shut down the system.

Fortunately I had a backup image of my hard drive and restored it without acpi running.
I could try to install acpi again with just the version included with ECS 2.1.
But, i'm thinking maybe I shouldn't bother since i've been told previously by you guys that it might not help performance anyways.

So I'm just wondering if you guys think I should try acpi again, or just leave it off. Is it known not to be stable with HT cpu's?

Thanks

2
Hardware / Re: RAM vs CPU upgrade
« on: 2012.04.20, 07:22:49 »
Your right.
I just realized I had my monitor setup to only have 64k colors under 800x600. I set it to 16M and then ran the benchmark test again and it then showed 2mb video ram.
I then switched to 1024x768 and ran the benchmark again and then it reported 4mb.
So why do lower resolutions not access more video ram?

I'm not sure if I am imagining it but it does seem much faster, even with just the 2MB under 800x600.

3
Hardware / Re: RAM vs CPU upgrade
« on: 2012.04.20, 05:59:07 »
I suspect it is because you only have 1 meg allocated for the video RAM (Aperture size). There should be a way (probably in the BIOS) to increase that to 8 meg (at least 4 meg).
I just booted into bios, and under video ram it is set for 8meg.. so i'm not sure why it's just reporting 1 under the benchmark, unless there is some ECS specific setting I need to find.

4
Hardware / Re: RAM vs CPU upgrade
« on: 2012.04.19, 21:29:15 »


I question why you are using 800x600 resolution. I suspect it is because you only have 1 meg allocated for the video RAM (Aperture size). There should be a way (probably in the BIOS) to increase that to 8 meg (at least 4 meg). That should allow you to have better resolution (match it to the monitor), and should help with performance. Again, windows might do that with the driver, which may be one reason why you see better performance.

Just find it much easier on my eyes to use 800x600 when working :).. on my 17" monitor.
Thanks for the video ram advice, i'll look into that.

5
Hardware / Re: RAM vs CPU upgrade
« on: 2012.04.19, 09:19:33 »
Wow Robert - Lots of good info there. Thanks.
The cpu i'm upgrading to supports hyper-threading but is only one real core, so i'm not sure if that is going to help much - but it will increase the bus speed & provide a bigger l2 cache.

Here is the benchmark I ran on my current celeron d- and i'll post the benchmark on my new cpu when I get it.

Sysbench 0.9.5c result file created Wed Apr 18 15:12:04 2012

Machine name       - Celeron D 2.6GHZ
Manufacturer       - IBM ThinkCentre 8215-A1U
Motherboard        - IBM ThinkCentre 8215-A1U
Chipset            - Intel Corporation - 82945G Processor to I/O Controller
Processor          - Intel model f49 found (not in cpu table) with MMX
External cache     - 16Kb internal instruction cache, 0Kb internal data cache
Graphics card      - Intel Corporation - 82945G Integrated Graphics Controller
Storage Controller - Intel Corporation - 82801GB/GR/GH (ICH7 Family) Serial ATA Storage Controller
Storage Controller - Intel Corporation - 82801GB/GR/GH (ICH7 Family) Serial ATA Storage Controller
Machine data
Coprocessor        = Yes
Processors         = 1
RAM                = 1013.17 MB

Operating System data
OS/2 version       = 20.45
CSDLevel           = XR0C004_
FIXLevel           = Unknown
Revision number    = 14.097
Priority           = Dynamic
Maxwait            = 1
Timeslice          = (32,32)
Protectonly        = NO
Swap file size     = 2.00MB
  ...initially     = 2.00MB

Video data
Resolution         = 800x600x16 bits/pixel
Number planes      = 0
Screen Access      = Direct
Bank Switched      = No
Bytes/scanline     = 1600
Aperture size      = 1048576
Manufact. code     = 32902
Chipset code       = 10098

 Graphics
   BitBlt S->S copy      :     1050.005    Million pixels/second
   BitBlt M->S copy      :      475.224    Million pixels/second
   Filled Rectangle      :     6084.763    Million pixels/second
   Pattern Fill          :     6084.308    Million pixels/second
   Vertical Lines        :       34.713    Million pixels/second
   Horizontal Lines      :      554.655    Million pixels/second
   Diagonal Lines        :       30.340    Million pixels/second
   Text Render           :      539.889    Million pixels/second
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Total                 :      525.622    PM-Graphics-marks

 CPU integer
   Dhrystone             :     2553.500    VAX 11/780 MIPS equivalent
   Hanoi                 :     1689.000    moves/25 microseconds
   Heapsort              :      885.700    Million Instructions Per Second
   Sieve                 :     1124.700    Million Instructions Per Second
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Total                 :     1763.772    CPU integer-marks

 CPU float
   Linpack               :      199.600    MFLOPS
   Flops                 :      558.100    MFLOPS
   Fast Fourier Transfrm :      174.080    VAX FFT's
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Total                 :      119.972    CPU floating point-marks

 Direct Interface to video extensions - DIVE
   Video bus bandwidth   :     1466.978    Megabytes/second
   DIVE fun              :     4139.827    fps normalised to 640x480x256
   M->S, DD,   1.00:1    :     5009.107    fps normalised to 640x480x256
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Total                 :     1811.463    DIVE-marks

 File I/O - Drive C:
   4Kb seq.   Uncached w :    13310.718    Kilobytes/second
   4Kb seq.   Uncached r :    41652.839    Kilobytes/second
   4Kb random Uncached w :     1164.673    Kilobytes/second
   4Kb random Uncached r :      821.436    Kilobytes/second
   4Kb seq.   Cached   w :    70787.649    Kilobytes/second
   4Kb seq.   Cached   r :    35978.336    Kilobytes/second
   4Kb random Cached   w :     4066.788    Kilobytes/second
   4Kb random Cached   r :      468.845    Kilobytes/second
   8Kb seq.   Uncached w :    27277.669    Kilobytes/second
   8Kb seq.   Uncached r :    52837.172    Kilobytes/second
   8Kb random Uncached w :     2330.947    Kilobytes/second
   8Kb random Uncached r :     1190.293    Kilobytes/second
   8Kb seq.   Cached   w :    57429.321    Kilobytes/second
   8Kb seq.   Cached   r :    36236.217    Kilobytes/second
   8Kb random Cached   w :     3933.750    Kilobytes/second
   8Kb random Cached   r :     1350.551    Kilobytes/second
   16K seq.   Uncached w :    32913.760    Kilobytes/second
   16K seq.   Uncached r :    70615.883    Kilobytes/second
   16K random Uncached w :     4030.815    Kilobytes/second
   16K random Uncached r :     2168.189    Kilobytes/second
   16K seq.   Cached   w :    70218.133    Kilobytes/second
   16K seq.   Cached   r :    36341.589    Kilobytes/second
   16K random Cached   w :     9843.824    Kilobytes/second
   16K random Cached   r :     2091.073    Kilobytes/second
   32K seq.   Uncached w :    56221.186    Kilobytes/second
   32K seq.   Uncached r :    70596.643    Kilobytes/second
   32K random Uncached w :     7934.493    Kilobytes/second
   32K random Uncached r :     4580.384    Kilobytes/second
   32K seq.   Cached   w :    70351.194    Kilobytes/second
   32K seq.   Cached   r :    48745.621    Kilobytes/second
   32K random Cached   w :    13798.661    Kilobytes/second
   32K random Cached   r :     4659.228    Kilobytes/second
   64K seq.   Uncached w :    61810.560    Kilobytes/second
   64K seq.   Uncached r :    70297.067    Kilobytes/second
   64K random Uncached w :    12213.575    Kilobytes/second
   64K random Uncached r :     8445.075    Kilobytes/second
   64K seq.   Cached   w :    69102.749    Kilobytes/second
   64K seq.   Cached   r :    42030.690    Kilobytes/second
   64K random Cached   w :    22013.786    Kilobytes/second
   64K random Cached   r :     8666.712    Kilobytes/second
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Total                 :    28763.202    File I/O-marks

 Memory
   5    kB copy          :     7396.968    Megabytes/second
   10   kB copy          :     7983.248    Megabytes/second
   20   kB copy          :     7238.889    Megabytes/second
   40   kB copy          :     7042.285    Megabytes/second
   80   kB copy          :     7174.005    Megabytes/second
   160  kB copy          :     4401.406    Megabytes/second
   320  kB copy          :     1679.824    Megabytes/second
   640  kB copy          :     1008.681    Megabytes/second
   1280 kB copy          :     1031.302    Megabytes/second
   5    kB read          :     8242.499    Megabytes/second
   10   kB read          :     8350.863    Megabytes/second
   20   kB read          :     4913.521    Megabytes/second
   40   kB read          :     5079.646    Megabytes/second
   80   kB read          :     5060.817    Megabytes/second
   160  kB read          :     4355.099    Megabytes/second
   320  kB read          :     3454.977    Megabytes/second
   640  kB read          :     3155.511    Megabytes/second
   1280 kB read          :     3153.333    Megabytes/second
   5    kB write         :     5264.695    Megabytes/second
   10   kB write         :     5298.985    Megabytes/second
   20   kB write         :     5294.234    Megabytes/second
   40   kB write         :     5233.454    Megabytes/second
   80   kB write         :     5248.536    Megabytes/second
   160  kB write         :     3867.531    Megabytes/second
   320  kB write         :     1769.341    Megabytes/second
   640  kB write         :     1491.700    Megabytes/second
   1280 kB write         :     1497.871    Megabytes/second
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Total                 :     5217.752    M
emory-marks

6
Hardware / Re: RAM vs CPU upgrade
« on: 2012.04.18, 21:52:37 »
Benchmarking does sound like a fun idea to see the real difference. I'll totally post the before after results :).

7
Hardware / Re: Sound blaster card selection help
« on: 2012.04.18, 21:51:37 »
Just thought I would follow up in case anyone else is looking for a sound card that works with VPC, that the Soundblaster 512 with the EMU10K1 chipset works perfectly for me - I just had to load the multimedia control panel and remove the previous sound settings, and reinstall with
the sound blaster live drivers - and now VPC has sound.

Just make sure you don't buy an OEM branded soundblaster card (Dell, etc).

8
Hardware / Re: RAM vs CPU upgrade
« on: 2012.04.18, 19:46:14 »
Acceleration support is on.
I was able to find it by going to command prompt, changing to the c:\snap folder, and then running the command gaoption show.
And it then gives you a huge list of the supported features:
  Prefer 32 bit per pixel.. On
  Compressed Framebuffer... On
  Allow DDC BIOS........... On
  PCI bus mastering........ On
  Video memory packets..... On
  Hardware acceleration.... Full
  Multi Head Display....... Off
  VESA DPVL Mode........... Off

Global options for all devices:

  Force VBE Fallback ...... Off
  Force VGA Fallback ...... Off
  Allow non-certified ..... Off
  Disable write combining . Off
  Use BIOS for LCD panel... Auto
  Video Memory Limit....... Off
  Shared AGP memory size... 4096 Kb
  Use system memory driver. Off
  Disable DDC detection.... Off
  Enable AGP FastWrite..... Off
  Maximum AGP data rate.... 8X
  Virtual Display.......... Off


So anyways.. maybe I will try the cpu upgrade. I'm assuming if I upgrade the cpu the OS will be able to detect the change without reinstalling?
I wouldn't want to reinstall the OS.. Last time I upgraded a cpu on a windows XP machine it was able to detect the change automatically.

Thanks again everyone.

9
Hardware / Re: RAM vs CPU upgrade
« on: 2012.04.18, 08:15:32 »
I just found under the snap folder there is a "hardware report" program. I ran it and it generated this:
Manufacturer:    Intel
Chipset:         i945G
Memory:          7872 Kb
DAC:             Intel Integrated DAC
Clock:           Intel Integrated Clock
Driver Revision: 3.2, Build 29
Driver Build:    Jul 31 2006

Not sure if anyone would know if that chipset should support accelerated?

10
Hardware / Re: RAM vs CPU upgrade
« on: 2012.04.18, 08:08:27 »

There are a couple of possibilities. One is the video driver. I don't know if SNAP will run in accelerated mode, but if it will, you should be using SNAP. If SNAP runs in VESA mode, it will be very slow, and you would probably get better performance from PANORAMA, with the buffer enabled, but that is not as fast as SNAP in accelerated mode. I expect that windows drivers will run in accelerated mode, and that may be why you see a difference.


Hi Doug,

Thanks for the insight.
I am running snap drivers right now, but not sure how to know if it's running accelerated or not - any idea how I can find that info?
I picked snap over panorama since snap supported all the refresh rates on my monitor.

11
Hardware / RAM vs CPU upgrade
« on: 2012.04.18, 06:24:56 »
I have a ThinkCentre 8215 with a Celeron D 2.6GHZ w/ 1GB RAM with ECS 2.1.

The system works fine but i've noticed web browser rendering sometimes seems to lag. (I have a clone of the same system running XP pro and it seems to browse the web faster)
 
It would be pretty cheap (like $5) to upgrade to a pentium 4 HT, which would increase the bus speed from 533mhz to 800mhz, and allow support for acpi.

The other alternative is for me to upgrade the ram to 2 gb or 4gb, although it looks like ddr2 ram has become pretty pricey these days. (between $20-50)

So i'm tempted to try just the cpu considering how cheap it is - but i've read that firefox uses a lot of ram so not sure if maybe I would be wasting my time if ram is likely the issue.

So what do you guys think :)? Should 1gb be enough ram for web browsing?


12
Marketplace / Re: IBM OS/2 Flyer 1993 - 1999 as PDF
« on: 2012.03.24, 05:36:54 »
Another funny thing I was thinking the other day.. I love IBM and their products probably more then they ever liked themselves.
They have a long line of abandoned products that could have changed the world if only they had believed in themselves as much as other people did.

13
Marketplace / Re: IBM OS/2 Flyer 1993 - 1999 as PDF
« on: 2012.03.24, 05:32:44 »
possibly switching to Apple as my kids already did

Ack :o!!
Sorry i'm a bit anti apple these days.

I would recommend looking into PCLinuxOS.
It's where I would be if I didn't opt for ECS.
Really good linux distro - it's a rolling release so as long as you keep it up to date regularly then you never have to reinstall to a new "version" like other distros.
The community there is really good too.

Just out of curiosity what's making you move away from ECS?


14
Communication / Re: Comm Program for OS/2 Suggestions
« on: 2012.03.24, 05:21:55 »
I am still deciding on updating the BBS and whether or not to do dial up still or not -- do have quite a few modems lying around (all USR Couriers).
Couriers are very nice modems... better than anything I previously used. Is your BBS available via telnet now?
If so give me the address and i'll check it out sometime.
I've sometimes considered putting another telnet only board back up for nostalgia but i've just been too busy.
There was something extra special about a real modem though. I remember how awesome the sound was when I had like 6 people hitting my old setup at once. My basement could get seriously noisy. It was also too expensive so it didn't last long.

15
Hardware / Re: Sound blaster card selection help
« on: 2012.03.24, 05:07:36 »
Thanks Pete,
That was a helpful link.
This is also a good resource if anyone else is looking:
http://www.os2world.com/soundcards/index.html

Ended up getting a Soundblaster 512 with the EMU10K1 chipset, which is on both of the charts.
Hopefully it does work for me. I'll just have to forget about it if it doesn't since i'm wasting a bit too much time & money on it  ;D
Need to get the technology acquisition disorder under control again.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9