From: John Kim (jokim_at_CHS.CUSD.CLAREMONT.EDU)
Date: Tue Dec 14 1993 - 21:49:59 EST
In message Tue, 14 Dec 1993 18:10:52 -0600 (CST),
Sean Chou <ychou_at_uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> writes:
>> dropped characters. I eventually figured out FUELDOS.EXE was the
>> culprit, but when I checked the port with some FOSSIL drivers, it
>> showed a 16450.
>
> How did it perform otherwise during multitasking, if FUELDOS wasn't
> loaded? I'm considering getting a serial modem to free up my PCMCIA slots
> (for what, I don't know...)...
Dunno. DOS can't multitask. :)
Performance is OK under OS/2, although it still loses characters if you try
to run CPU or disk intensive stuff while doing a download. The major
problems I've been having is due to heavy loads on the UNIX host I use.
If I run m2zmodem at timecritical priority, I can download with almost no
dropped character, but that hits the CPU at what feels like 60-80%.
Running DOS comm programs at 9600+bps speeds is hopeless. I'm averaging
5-10 dropped characters per screen. Then again, I haven't played with the
settings much. I'm just going to get a PCMCIA modem with a 16550.
> Well, the SLC2/50 is quite a ways off from a DX2/50 so it's not quite
> a fair comparison. I talked to IBM again and asked about a DX2/66
> upgrade. He said that he didn't know and that even if he did, he
> wouldn't be able to tell me. He did say, however, that there was a
> special model out called the 750CE that uses the DX2/66 chip; however,
> it's only available to "special" orders (100s purchased for a compnay,
> etc.).
That's news to me. The 750 is based on the 486SL chip, which Intel has
discontinued -- there are no plans for a SL/2. The SL has a lot of the
support chips normally found on your motherboard built-in, and consumes less
power than the SL-enhanced SX/DX chips. It also has its own local bus.
I know IBM has a contract with Intel that lets them modify and manufacture
Intel chips for sale, so maybe that's what they did. It'd be nice to have.
:)
Oh, Norton SI reports 71 on a 486DX/33 with 256k external cache, but only 51
on the TP750 which has not external cache. Have either of you tried any
other benchmarks?
> It's too bad that the 750 isn't MCA but then again, it'll be eaiser
> for us to get stuff like an extra hard drive and the specs for the
> floppy will probably be mor used. Have you come across anything non-IBM
> that uses the floppy?
Actually, for a notebook, being MCA wouldn't be that bad. The floppy drive
still connects via a normal floppy connector (although the pins are
rearranged on the TP750), and the hard drive still connects via an IDE
connector (ditto). The MCA would be helpful for things like multitasking
serial/parallel/floppy/hard drive accesses. Also, if you get the docking
station, the expansion slots would've been MCA.
I'd like to see a slip-in 2.5" CD-ROM player to replace the floppy. Or an
extra hard drive (I'm not sure what sort of connector the floppy is in). Or
an extra battery. If I had the color model, I would kill for the TV/tuner.
My sister is a film/video student, and being able to preview what she's
shooting in full 10.4" color while on the road would be great (she'll
probably get this computer as a hand-me-down in a few years :).
>> scrolling and the OS/2 drivers don't. The VESA drivers under DOS let it
>> emulate a VESA chipset. Otherwise, it runs as a Paradise card
>> (drivers for the Paradise are not accelerated).
>
> Is there really a need to emulate VESA if you don't use any apps that
> need it (or that support the WD Paradise)?
I don't think so. I'm not sure how the Windows drivers handle it. And I'm
not sure of the VESA instruction set takes advantage of hardware
acceleration.
>> Gee, I wish I had blown red, blue, and green pixels. A color screen
>> would be awfully nice. :)
>
> The screen is mighty nice. The latest PC/Computing compares some 486
> class notebooks (with PCMCIA slots) and the IBM TP750 got good reviews
> though not as good as you would expect (or what PC/Mag seems to think).
> They said their users preferred the Toshiba 1950's screen over the TP
> even though it's much smaller. Also, they reported that screen size
> doesn't seem to matter much. All I can say is can I have some of whatever
> it is they're smoking?
Maybe the money they had left over in their wallets when they bought
the 1950CT (about $2900) over the TP750C (about $4500)? :)
Hey, is that 10.4" screen really capable of 262k colors (6 bits per primary
or a full VGA palette)? That'd be amazing. The previous best I'd heard
was 4096 colors (4 bits per primary). It's equivalent to going from 16
shades per primary to 64 shades per primary.
-- John H. Kim | "If you'd told me within one year of losing the jokim_at_jarthur.cs.hmc.edu | election I'd be sitting in my living room rooting This mail sent by NUPop | for Al Gore..." - Dan Quayle, on NAFTA debate
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:52:16 EST