modem question and modem string wanted

Franc Zabkar wrote:

98se and puppy Linux live cd does recognize my ISA modem
(cl-md56xx cirrus logic)

The xx is important. Some 56xx modems were controllerless,
others had a hardware controller.

I'm fairly certain that _no_ ISA-based modems were controllerless.

The best modems were in fact ISA-based, because they always had on-board
processors and did all the communication work themselves, as opposed to
controller-less modems (which as a rule were are all PCI-based modems).

The OP is advised to remove the PCI modem and get XP to recognize the
ISA modem. His anemic system doesn't need extra load of dealing with a
controller-less modem.

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:30:17 -0500, 98 Guy wrote:

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:

CPU speed and internal cache are important if we're dealing with
such ancient hardware.

Amount of RAM is far more important.

Sorry. You can't simply dismiss CPU type or clock speed and say it's
less important than installed ram.

If you optimize XP (remove a lot of running services and do a few other
things) then you can run XP on 256 mb. It helps if you have a fast hard
drive and controller, and AGP-4x or faster video.

But the CPU can be a show-stopper even with 512 mb or 1 gb of memory.

I don't care how much ram you have - XP on anything less than an 800 mh
P-3 will be a dog.



Sorry, but I disagree with both of you. What hardware you need for
acceptable performance depends very greatly on what apps you run.

My wife is a perfect example. She used to run Windows XP on an
extremely low-power machine--a 400MHz CPU with 256MB of RAM. She was
completely satisfied with its performance and turned me down whenever
I proposed upgrading it for her.

Why was she satisfied with such a low-power machine? Because all she
did was e-mail, an occasional web search, and solitaire (and *very*
occasionally created a simple word processing document). And I know
several other people with very light computer use who are also
satisfied with low-power machines.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:30:17 -0500, 98 Guy wrote:

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:

CPU speed and internal cache are important if we're dealing with
such ancient hardware.

Amount of RAM is far more important.

Sorry. You can't simply dismiss CPU type or clock speed and say it's
less important than installed ram.

If you optimize XP (remove a lot of running services and do a few other
things) then you can run XP on 256 mb. It helps if you have a fast hard
drive and controller, and AGP-4x or faster video.

But the CPU can be a show-stopper even with 512 mb or 1 gb of memory.

I don't care how much ram you have - XP on anything less than an 800 mh
P-3 will be a dog.



Sorry, but I disagree with both of you. What hardware you need for
acceptable performance depends very greatly on what apps you run.

My wife is a perfect example. She used to run Windows XP on an
extremely low-power machine--a 400MHz CPU with 256MB of RAM. She was
completely satisfied with its performance and turned me down whenever
I proposed upgrading it for her.

Why was she satisfied with such a low-power machine? Because all she
did was e-mail, an occasional web search, and solitaire (and *very*
occasionally created a simple word processing document). And I know
several other people with very light computer use who are also
satisfied with low-power machines.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:05:40 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:30:17 -0500, 98 Guy wrote:

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:

CPU speed and internal cache are important if we're dealing with
such ancient hardware.

Amount of RAM is far more important.

Sorry. You can't simply dismiss CPU type or clock speed and say it's
less important than installed ram.

If you optimize XP (remove a lot of running services and do a few other
things) then you can run XP on 256 mb. It helps if you have a fast hard
drive and controller, and AGP-4x or faster video.

But the CPU can be a show-stopper even with 512 mb or 1 gb of memory.

I don't care how much ram you have - XP on anything less than an 800 mh
P-3 will be a dog.



Sorry, but I disagree with both of you. What hardware you need for
acceptable performance depends very greatly on what apps you run.

My wife is a perfect example. She used to run Windows XP on an
extremely low-power machine--a 400MHz CPU with 256MB of RAM. She was
completely satisfied with its performance and turned me down whenever
I proposed upgrading it for her.

Why was she satisfied with such a low-power machine? Because all she
did was e-mail, an occasional web search, and solitaire (and *very*
occasionally created a simple word processing document). And I know
several other people with very light computer use who are also
satisfied with low-power machines.


I agree.

The reason for a PCI graphic card, was my onboard video card was
acting up. (I know it is a sign of my motherboard going bad. I
just hope it can hold up tell tax time).

I really like this system.


Greg

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:05:40 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:30:17 -0500, 98 Guy wrote:

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:

CPU speed and internal cache are important if we're dealing with
such ancient hardware.

Amount of RAM is far more important.

Sorry. You can't simply dismiss CPU type or clock speed and say it's
less important than installed ram.

If you optimize XP (remove a lot of running services and do a few other
things) then you can run XP on 256 mb. It helps if you have a fast hard
drive and controller, and AGP-4x or faster video.

But the CPU can be a show-stopper even with 512 mb or 1 gb of memory.

I don't care how much ram you have - XP on anything less than an 800 mh
P-3 will be a dog.



Sorry, but I disagree with both of you. What hardware you need for
acceptable performance depends very greatly on what apps you run.

My wife is a perfect example. She used to run Windows XP on an
extremely low-power machine--a 400MHz CPU with 256MB of RAM. She was
completely satisfied with its performance and turned me down whenever
I proposed upgrading it for her.

Why was she satisfied with such a low-power machine? Because all she
did was e-mail, an occasional web search, and solitaire (and *very*
occasionally created a simple word processing document). And I know
several other people with very light computer use who are also
satisfied with low-power machines.


I agree.

The reason for a PCI graphic card, was my onboard video card was
acting up. (I know it is a sign of my motherboard going bad. I
just hope it can hold up tell tax time).

I really like this system.


Greg

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:08:56 -0500, 98 Guy wrote:

Franc Zabkar wrote:

98se and puppy Linux live cd does recognize my ISA modem
(cl-md56xx cirrus logic)

The xx is important. Some 56xx modems were controllerless,
others had a hardware controller.

I'm fairly certain that _no_ ISA-based modems were controllerless.

The best modems were in fact ISA-based, because they always had on-board
processors and did all the communication work themselves, as opposed to
controller-less modems (which as a rule were are all PCI-based modems).

The OP is advised to remove the PCI modem and get XP to recognize the
ISA modem. His anemic system doesn't need extra load of dealing with a
controller-less modem.

Controller-less modems work fine. It is the ISA modem that does not
in xp. I tried everything (Short of reinstalling xp). xp didn't
reorganized the modem.

My system is a Compaq desktop ep pro series



Greg

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:08:56 -0500, 98 Guy wrote:

Franc Zabkar wrote:

98se and puppy Linux live cd does recognize my ISA modem
(cl-md56xx cirrus logic)

The xx is important. Some 56xx modems were controllerless,
others had a hardware controller.

I'm fairly certain that _no_ ISA-based modems were controllerless.

The best modems were in fact ISA-based, because they always had on-board
processors and did all the communication work themselves, as opposed to
controller-less modems (which as a rule were are all PCI-based modems).

The OP is advised to remove the PCI modem and get XP to recognize the
ISA modem. His anemic system doesn't need extra load of dealing with a
controller-less modem.

Controller-less modems work fine. It is the ISA modem that does not
in xp. I tried everything (Short of reinstalling xp). xp didn't
reorganized the modem.

My system is a Compaq desktop ep pro series



Greg

Greg wrote:

The reason for a PCI graphic card, was my onboard video card
was acting up. (I know it is a sign of my motherboard going
bad. I just hope it can hold up tell tax time).

What motherboard with ISA slots has on-board video???

Greg wrote:

The reason for a PCI graphic card, was my onboard video card
was acting up. (I know it is a sign of my motherboard going
bad. I just hope it can hold up tell tax time).

What motherboard with ISA slots has on-board video???

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:08:56 -0500, 98 Guy put finger to
keyboard and composed:

I'm fairly certain that _no_ ISA-based modems were controllerless.

PCtel made a PnP ISA HSP (softmodem) chipset (PCT288I):
http://www.modemsite.com/56K/pctel.asp

They were used in Commwave/Multiwave ISA modems.

Here is a datasheet:
http://www.datasheetarchive.com/pdf-...-308/16942.pdf

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.