George White said in a message to Lawrence Garvin:
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
 GW> Unless the BIOS changes the default interrupt priority OS/2 will
 GW> set the interrupt priority as 
 GW> 3,4,5,6,7,0,1,8,9(2),10,11,12,13,14,15. See message to Coridon for
 GW> reference.
Hmm.. which basically puts us back where I started from. 
LG>Seems a bit dichotomous to put the -fastest- devices on the
LG>lowest priority channel. No?
 GW> No :-). It stops fast devices hogging the system.
Okay...... 
LG> Nevertheless, based on what you've pointed out, which I cannot find 
LG> fault with, I would then modify my earlier statements to recommend 
LG> moving sound cards from IRQ10 to IRQ5, and leaving the NIC on IRQ10 
LG> -- would you agree?
 GW> No, 'tother way round is better if you want to give the network
 GW> priority over sound. otoh, if the sound card is on 5 you'll have
 GW> less potential problems with sounds (and never notice the effects
 GW> on the network...)
Based on what you've now posted, I'm back to my original philosophy.
(And some say I'm hard to get along with....pshaw!)
--- 
---------------