Hi Lawrence,
You wrote to Coridon Henshaw:
LG> LG> There is a minute amount of logicality to this default
LG> LG> configuration. When
LG> LG> responding to IRQs, the CPU gives priority to the lower numbered IRQ.
LG> CH> That's not entirely true.
LG> CH> Due to the cascaded nature of the IRQ chips, IRQs 9-15 generally
LG> CH> have a higher priority to IRQs 1-8. The exact priority is BIOS/OS
LG> CH> selectable, and may change from system to system.
LG>A good point, Coridon. One I'd failed to consider.
LG>Since IRQ 9-15 do cascade through IRQ2, it is quite likely
LG>that they would get higher priority than IRQs 3 through 7
Unless the BIOS changes the default interrupt priority OS/2 will set the
interrupt priority as 3,4,5,6,7,0,1,8,9(2),10,11,12,13,14,15. See
message to Coridon for reference.
LG>... so why then is it that nobody will create 16-bit SIO
LG>interfaces so we can get those IRQ critical devices where
LG>they belong?
LG>... and why, then, is the FPU down on IRQ13, and the IDE drives on IRQ 
14/15
LG>Seems a bit dichotomous to put the -fastest- devices on the
LG>lowest priority channel. No?
No :-). It stops fast devices hogging the system.
LG>Nevertheless, based on what you've pointed out, which I
LG>cannot find fault with, I would then modify my earlier
LG>statements to recommend moving sound cards from IRQ10 to
LG>IRQ5, and leaving the NIC on IRQ10 -- would you agree?
No, 'tother way round is better if you want to give the network
priority over sound. otoh, if the sound card is on 5 you'll have less
potential problems with sounds (and never notice the effects on the
network...)
George
 * SLMR 2.1a * Wastebasket: Something to throw things near.
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------