> >  Why do you say that? I thought OS/2 Hardware was the correct
 > > place to enquire about hardware problems? But anyway...

 > RJ> This isn't a hardware echo, it's about an operating system called
 > RJ> OS/2. You have a hardware problem. There is no such thing as "OS/2
 > RJ> hardware". Anyhow, onward ...

 >  Actually the guys in the OS/2 hardware echo sent me here,
 > saying i may get a better response, as os/2 zone 3 was all
 > topic related and it was much closer to home than the USA.
 > BTW there is a fidonet area called OS2HW which is the
 > hardware topics for OS/2. Are you sure you are getting all
 > your OS/2 feeds from your HUB provider?

Ah, I follow you now. You were talking about an echo called OS2HW, which
I've never heard of and which doesn't appear in my (admittedly old - June
'94) areas list. I thought you were trying to imply that there was such a
thing as hardware specifically for OS/2, which I conceive to be so unlikely
as to be impossible (although there has been some hardware which only works
with Windoze for some stupid reason, notably printers and video cards). 

I doubt that such an area as OS2HW would interest me enough to request it,
as there is very little that's hardware-specific enough about OS/2 to
warrant such an echo. The only things that come to mind are faults in
Warp's handling of some network cards on install and the virtualisation of
IRQs when sharing is on, but these are still software issues.

 > RJ> If none of that bears fruit, start looking at address assignments on
 > RJ> the multi-serial card for conflicts with things like sound cards. But
 > RJ> then again, you did say it was all working on the other motherboard,
 > RJ> didn't you.

 >  I have actually fixed this by assigning the mouse to IRQ2
 > would you believe.
 >  The last time i assigned the IRQ2 (my network card) it
 > completely destroyed the operating system. When the 7 CD Rom
 > changer did a disk change, it got an IRQ conflict, and the
 > screen went black. When i rebooted my desktop was gone, so i
 > had to re-create it. This is why i never tried the IRQ2
 > again, but i was desperate, so i tried it again,

I'm not a bit surprised that it once caused you problems, and predict that
it will again. IRQ2 is reserved for the use of the second 8259A, and also
daisy-chains to IRQ9 on anything but a PC or XT. The solution is worse than
your original problem!

Some advice from an old hardware guy, for what it's worth: get organised. 

Find a piece of cardboard and write down all the address assignments (and
their ranges), IRQ assignments and related data for every component in your
system, and attach it to the side of the box. Then you'll know how to
configure new bits as they go into the system, and you'll know instantly
what is causing a conflict if it occurs.

And use standard assignments wherever possible, unless you enjoy constantly
hunting down and patching out obscure problems in your software. That's why
I went to the trouble of writing the serial IRQs in the last message.

 > RJ> If all else fails, put the 586-133 back in. The P100 won't be much
 > RJ> faster anyway.

 >  Well the P100 is much faster actually, in graphical terms. I
 > wanted to get away from the VLB as it was difficult to keep
 > putting in the VLB, and it popping out all the time. PCI is
 > much easier :)

The P100 doesn't do the graphics but yes, the average PCI video card is
faster than the average VLB or ISA one.

Rob

--- FMail 0.94