Safe Mode bootup after installing NIC
sona...@yahoo.com
I just reinstalled all the SW in my Win98se PC from scratch and had it
working perfectly. Then I installed a new Belkin NIC in a PCI slot.
Immediately after doing this, I could no longer boot properly. The PC
would only let me boot into Safe Mode. I tried the following, but they
did not work:
Moving the NIC to different PCI slots and rebooting.
Trying another NIC of the same model to ensure it was not defective.
Reinstalling the NIC driver.
When I removed the NIC, once again I was able to boot properly. But I
really need this NIC because I want to start using DSL.
The PC is rather old but, on the other hand, I'm using an old OS, so I
don't think I'm overloading its resources. Here are its specs:
Pentium 200Mhz processor.
256MB of RAM.
40GB Hard Drive.
Please let me know what I can do to resolve this problem. Thank You.
Patrick
Franc Zabkar
keyboard and composed:
>I just reinstalled all the SW in my Win98se PC from scratch and had it
>working perfectly. Then I installed a new Belkin NIC in a PCI slot.
>Immediately after doing this, I could no longer boot properly.
What exactly do you mean by "properly"?
Are you aware that Windows will appear to hang for several minutes
while it is looking for a non-existent DHCP server if you have your
NIC configured to obtain an IP address automatically?
-- Franc Zabkar
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
sona...@yahoo.com
By "properly" I mean in Normal mode; i.e., no DOS-like screen asking me
to choose from a range of several boot-up options. And only one of
those options; namely, Safe Mode, allowed me to boot at all. If I
chose Normal from the list, it wouldn't boot normally, but would
restart again and go back to the same list of bootup options.
No, I was not aware of that non-existent DHCP server issue you
mentioned. But, now that you mention it, there were several occasions
when, instead of going into Safe mode, the PC would just show a blank
screen for about 2 minutes before finally completing the boot up.
This seems to describe what you just wrote about. If that is indeed
the cause of the hanging and the "Safe mode" problem, can you tell me
how to fix it? I don't recall having configured anything at all for
the NIC, so perhaps it configured itself incorrectly. The NIC is a
brand new Belkin F5D5000. Please let me know. Thanks
Dave B.
work. I'd try to find a NIC from the same era as your pc. If you ever have
street cleanups, you can usually find one for free inside a discarded PC.
sona...@yahoo.com
from Linksys, but I had the same problem with it.
Can you think of any other places to get an older NIC other than from
picking through the garbage?
glee
NIC to an interrupt not in use.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
<sona...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128740809.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Franc Zabkar
keyboard and composed:
>Franc:
>
>By "properly" I mean in Normal mode; i.e., no DOS-like screen asking me
>to choose from a range of several boot-up options. And only one of
>those options; namely, Safe Mode, allowed me to boot at all. If I
>chose Normal from the list, it wouldn't boot normally, but would
>restart again and go back to the same list of bootup options.
>No, I was not aware of that non-existent DHCP server issue you
>mentioned. But, now that you mention it, there were several occasions
>when, instead of going into Safe mode, the PC would just show a blank
>screen for about 2 minutes before finally completing the boot up.
>This seems to describe what you just wrote about. If that is indeed
>the cause of the hanging and the "Safe mode" problem, can you tell me
>how to fix it?
Is the PC going into Safe mode by itself, or are you selecting this
mode? If it is doing it on its own, then maybe you have two issues.
>I don't recall having configured anything at all for
>the NIC, so perhaps it configured itself incorrectly. The NIC is a
>brand new Belkin F5D5000. Please let me know. Thanks
Go to Control Panel -> Network -> Configuration -> select TCP/IP -
your_ethernet_adapter -> Properties -> IP Address.
Your NIC is probably configured to obtain an IP address automatically.
It would normally obtain this address from the DHCP server within your
DSL modem. However, in your case the NIC waits until the DHCP search
times out, after which it chooses an IP address within Microsoft's
reserved range, ie 169.254.x.x.
You can avert this behaviour until you get your modem by choosing to
"specify an IP address". In my case I chose an address in the range
169.254.x.x and a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0. I used the same values
that were automatically assigned to the NIC by Windows after the DHCP
timeout. You can see these values by going to Start -> Run and typing
"winipcfg".
sona...@yahoo.com
When I am brought to the screen that has the list of bootup options,
"Safe Mode" is selected by default, so that if I don't choose another
option, it goes to Safe Mode automatically. Thus, according to you, I
"have 2 issues". What are these 2 issues?
Can you please clarify the statement "[The NIC] would normally obtain
this address from the DHCP server within your DSL modem ." I don't
know what a DHCP server is. If this is "normally" what is supposed to
happen, does that mean my DSL modem is somehow defective or does it
simply mean it just doesn't work that way with the particular modem I
have?
Also, what do you mean by "You can avert this behaviour until you get
your modem"? I do have my modem. It was connected to the NIC at the
time that I booted up. It is a Westell, model 6100.
Thanks for your detailed response.
Patrick
sona...@yahoo.com
The NIC was not using an IRQ that was in use by another device.
Device manager said, "No conflicts" regarding the NIC.
Franc Zabkar
keyboard and composed:
>To answer your first question:
>When I am brought to the screen that has the list of bootup options,
>"Safe Mode" is selected by default, so that if I don't choose another
>option, it goes to Safe Mode automatically. Thus, according to you, I
>"have 2 issues". What are these 2 issues?
This one and the bootup delay. Or maybe the two issues are related???
>Can you please clarify the statement "[The NIC] would normally obtain
>this address from the DHCP server within your DSL modem ." I don't
>know what a DHCP server is. If this is "normally" what is supposed to
>happen, does that mean my DSL modem is somehow defective or does it
>simply mean it just doesn't work that way with the particular modem I
>have?
DHCP is an automatic method by which your NIC is assigned an IP
address by a device acting as a DHCP server. In this case the device
would be your modem. You can see the address that your modem has given
you by running "winipcfg". In my case it is 10.1.1.3, in yours it may
be 192.168.x.x. If the modem is not communicating properly, then the
address would be 169.254.x.x.
>Also, what do you mean by "You can avert this behaviour until you get
>your modem"? I do have my modem. It was connected to the NIC at the
>time that I booted up. It is a Westell, model 6100.
>Thanks for your detailed response.
>Patrick
Sorry, I had the erroneous impression that you had only gotten as far
as installing your NIC and that you hadn't as yet connected a modem.
The absence of the modem would have explained the bootup delay and may
have given you the false impression that Windows was hanging during
the boot process. That's why I asked you what you meant by "not
booting properly". I also have a socket 7 PC of around the same
vintage as yours. It stalls for about three minutes during booting if
the modem is powered down. When I first observed this behaviour I
spent quite some time looking for a non-existent problem.
Franc Zabkar
keyboard and composed:
>Glee:
>
>The NIC was not using an IRQ that was in use by another device.
>Device manager said, "No conflicts" regarding the NIC.
FWIW, here are a few ideas you might like to try.
What does "Start -> Run -> winipcfg -> More info" tell you about your
NIC? Does winipcfg display an "Adapter Address", ie the physical
address of the NIC?
What do you see in the Configuration window in Control Panel ->
Network?
You might like to see what happens if you boot to the command prompt
only and then type either "win /d:m" or "win /d:n". This gives you the
option of Safe Mode with or without networking.
WIN [/D:[F][M][S][V][X]]
/D Used for troubleshooting when Windows does not start correctly.
:M Enables Safe mode.
This is automatically enabled during Safe start
(function key F5).
:N Enables Safe mode with networking.
This is automatically enabled during Safe start
(function key F6).
You could also try selecting the "Logged /bootlog.txt" boot option.
Hopefully the log file will tell you where the boot process is falling
down.
Do you have any ISA cards? I ask this because I have a special purpose
ISA card in a 486 box whose jumpered (non-PnP) resources are not
detected by Windows 95. Such a card could give rise to an undetected
conflict.
Do you have a LAN chip on your motherboard? Some motherboards of that
era had a LAN chip but required an optional cable and slot bracket to
make use of it.
sona...@yahoo.com
Thanks for your response. I'm afraid I didn't explain myself as
clearly as I should have, so let me give you all the details now:
The very FIRST time I installed the NIC and driver and then rebooted, I
got the long boot up that looked like the PC was hanging, but then it
did end up actually getting me to the desktop. But after another few
boots, it started booting into Safe Mode instead. During THAT time,
there was NOTHING attached to the NIC. Removing the NIC allowed me to
boot normally, with no problems.
Not knowing what to do, I brought the PC to a PC shop where a tech
simply put the NIC into another PCI slot and then the PC booted
normally. So I thought that was the fix to the problem, BUT, when I
went home and rebooted a few times, I started getting the long hanging
boot again. AND, once again, after a few more boot ups, it booted only
into Safe Mode. Thus, the long hanging boot always seemed to be a
precursor to the Safe Mode boot. Then I noticed that my modem was no
longer working either. At this point, there was still nothing
connected to the NIC.
Back home, I removed the NIC and driver again and then reinstalled
both. Once again, I got that long hanging boot up. Then, just to see
what would happen, I CONNECTED my DSL modem to the NIC and to the
splitter that I had just connected to my phone line. Right after doing
this, the PC rebooted itself into Safe Mode.
So, then I removed the NIC and reimaged my entire hard drive so I could
start with a clean slate. And that's where I am now.
Based upon what you wrote, I think perhaps that when I FIRST installed
the NIC, since nothing was attached to it, the long boot up was caused
by the futile search for the IP address. But WHY then would it
eventually boot into Safe Mode after booting a few more times?
Furthermore, why would it boot into Safe Mode immediately upon
connecting the DSL modem to the NIC? With the modem attached, the NIC
should be able to get the IP address it needs, right? I think you
can see now that we're not dealing simply with a problem of a slow
"hanging" bootup caused by a NIC not being able to get an IP address.
It ALWAYS eventually goes into Safe Mode.
Are you suggesting that I reinstall the NIC and driver, reboot, type in
winipcfg and see if the modem is not communicating properly by
checking if the assigned address is 169.254.x.x.?
Do you then want me to check the Configuration window of Control Panel
- Network?
Is it possible that my PC does not have all the Windows files
pertaining to networking that it needs? Do I need to try to install
these networking components from my Win98 CD?
Or is the problem just that my PC is too old to support this NIC?
Perhaps an older one would work.
My modem is an ISA card.
I do not have a LAN chip on my motherboard.
Thanks for your help with this.
Patrick
Franc Zabkar
keyboard and composed:
>Franc:
>
>Thanks for your response. I'm afraid I didn't explain myself as
>clearly as I should have, so let me give you all the details now:
>The very FIRST time I installed the NIC and driver and then rebooted, I
>got the long boot up that looked like the PC was hanging, but then it
>did end up actually getting me to the desktop. But after another few
>boots, it started booting into Safe Mode instead. During THAT time,
>there was NOTHING attached to the NIC. Removing the NIC allowed me to
>boot normally, with no problems.
>Not knowing what to do, I brought the PC to a PC shop where a tech
>simply put the NIC into another PCI slot and then the PC booted
>normally. So I thought that was the fix to the problem, BUT, when I
>went home and rebooted a few times, I started getting the long hanging
>boot again. AND, once again, after a few more boot ups, it booted only
>into Safe Mode. Thus, the long hanging boot always seemed to be a
>precursor to the Safe Mode boot. Then I noticed that my modem was no
>longer working either. At this point, there was still nothing
>connected to the NIC.
>Back home, I removed the NIC and driver again and then reinstalled
>both. Once again, I got that long hanging boot up. Then, just to see
>what would happen, I CONNECTED my DSL modem to the NIC and to the
>splitter that I had just connected to my phone line. Right after doing
>this, the PC rebooted itself into Safe Mode.
Do you mean that Windows completed booting normally, albeit with a
long delay? And do you mean that, after booting normally, you then
connected the modem, and Windows spontaneously rebooted itself into
Safe Mode? Or are you saying that the next manual reboot, with modem
attached, ended up in Safe Mode?
>So, then I removed the NIC and reimaged my entire hard drive so I could
>start with a clean slate. And that's where I am now.
>
>Based upon what you wrote, I think perhaps that when I FIRST installed
>the NIC, since nothing was attached to it, the long boot up was caused
>by the futile search for the IP address.
It looks that way.
>But WHY then would it
>eventually boot into Safe Mode after booting a few more times?
PCI cards are assigned their resources at every bootup via Plug and
Play. It could be that you see the Safe mode problem only when an
incompatible set of resources is arrived at. If the system ever boots
properly, I would take note of the resource assignments and compare
them against those you see in Safe mode. You can do this using
msinfo32.exe.
Note that, whereas your motherboard's BIOS initially allocates the PnP
resources, Windows may choose to reallocate them in a different way.
Unfortunately when it does so, it writes the new resource table (ESCD
table) to the BIOS EEPROM chip. At the next boot your BIOS then once
again rewrites the ESCD table with a combination that *it* thinks is
most appropriate. At least I think that's how it works. If you would
prefer that Windows and BIOS did not compete against each other, go to
Device Manager, System Devices, Plug and Play BIOS, Properties,
Settings, and check the box marked "Disable NVRAM/ESCD updates".
>Furthermore, why would it boot into Safe Mode immediately upon
>connecting the DSL modem to the NIC? With the modem attached, the NIC
>should be able to get the IP address it needs, right?
Yes, if you've configured your NIC to obtain an IP address
automatically. This is the default configuration.
> I think you
>can see now that we're not dealing simply with a problem of a slow
>"hanging" bootup caused by a NIC not being able to get an IP address.
I agree.
>It ALWAYS eventually goes into Safe Mode.
I notice that the "win" command has options for safe mode with and
without networking. There is also a "bootlog" option. If you become
desperate I'd experiment with those. It might be an idea to record the
resources and log files that result from each option.
>Are you suggesting that I reinstall the NIC and driver, reboot, type in
>winipcfg and see if the modem is not communicating properly by
>checking if the assigned address is 169.254.x.x.?
The number you see there will tell you whether the NIC and modem are
communicating properly. If you see 169.254.x.x, then this tells you
that Windows assigned an IP address to the NIC, not the modem. I don't
think you need to reinstall anything, though.
>Do you then want me to check the Configuration window of Control Panel
>- Network?
That will show the adapters, protocols, services, and bindings.
Someone who is knowledgeable in this area may see something pertinent.
>Is it possible that my PC does not have all the Windows files
>pertaining to networking that it needs? Do I need to try to install
>these networking components from my Win98 CD?
AFAIK the Configuration window alluded to above should tell you
whether any software component is missing.
>Or is the problem just that my PC is too old to support this NIC?
>Perhaps an older one would work.
>My modem is an ISA card.
Mine is also an old PC. BTW, which motherboard do you have?
I have one ISA and one PCI NIC. Both work OK, unless their resources
are improperly allocated. Specifically, my ISA NIC misbehaves if I
install it on IRQ 12, but doing so never gives rise to safe mode
issues.
I can't think of any insurmountable reason why a NIC, whether ISA or
PCI, should not function in your system.
>I do not have a LAN chip on my motherboard.
>
>Thanks for your help with this.
>Patrick
If you supply enough information, perhaps someone will see the
solution. At this point you haven't really given us much to work with.
glee
along with another driver on the system. A step-by-step confirmation boot or a
logged boot when it happens to freeze, might show what it is. But, from the fact it
is intermittent, or at least did not happen all the time, I am not clear that it is
the case here. :-\
"Franc Zabkar" <fza...@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:bhbhk1tdggjgd1urs...@4ax.com...
glee
that your system is "obviously rather aged" and may have had an underpowered Power
Supply Unit (PSU), with the addition of a NIC (any NIC) being the straw that breaks
the camel's back.
You may want to try a larger replacement PSU. Have a look at what wattage your
current PSU supplies, and also look at all the power draws on the system (hard
drives, optical drives, AGP card, USB devices, and so forth).
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
<sona...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128824147.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Franc Zabkar
put finger to keyboard and composed:
>It sounds like there may be a driver being installed by the NIC that is not getting
>along with another driver on the system. A step-by-step confirmation boot or a
>logged boot when it happens to freeze, might show what it is. But, from the fact it
>is intermittent, or at least did not happen all the time, I am not clear that it is
>the case here. :-\
I looked around at Google Groups. It appears that the OP's problem is
quite common. Unfortunately there weren't too many solutions. One
person solved his problem by swapping PCI slots, suggesting that his
was a resource issue. Another found that replacing Microsoft's default
NIC driver with the manufacturer's one solved his problem. IME old ISA
NICs were supplied with a DOS based setup program that allowed you to
lock the card's resources. These resource assignments would be written
to the card's serial EEPROM chip, preventing PnP from changing them.
Windows would then see the card as a standard NE2000 compatible and
load the standard Novell drivers. Maybe that's one option the OP could
consider, assuming it is available to him.
Franc Zabkar
put finger to keyboard and composed:
>I ran your problem by some other MVPs and one of them made the astute observation
>that your system is "obviously rather aged" and may have had an underpowered Power
>Supply Unit (PSU), with the addition of a NIC (any NIC) being the straw that breaks
>the camel's back.
>
>You may want to try a larger replacement PSU. Have a look at what wattage your
>current PSU supplies, and also look at all the power draws on the system (hard
>drives, optical drives, AGP card, USB devices, and so forth).
The power consumption of a typical NIC would be extremely low (5V @
<0.5A ?), certainly far less than the extra power required for the CPU
to switch from idle mode to a "high power" mode, and probably
significantly less than that required for a HD to spin up. If the PSU
were really that marginal, then I'd expect the system to misbehave
whenever the CD ROM drive spins a disc. But then I've seen stranger
things ...
The OP may be able to eliminate the possibility of a marginal PSU by
disconnecting his CD ROM drive. Alternatively he could install CPUidle
which drastically reduces the power consumption of the CPU.
sona...@yahoo.com
You wrote: If you supply enough information, perhaps someone will see
the solution. At this point you haven't really given us much to work
with.
The motherboard is an Intel AN430TX . As I said in my initial post,
the PC is quite old -- 8 years, in fact.
What other information would you like?
sona...@yahoo.com
glee wrote:
> I ran your problem by some other MVPs and one of them made the astute observation
> that your system is "obviously rather aged" and may have had an underpowered Power
> Supply Unit (PSU), with the addition of a NIC (any NIC) being the straw that breaks
> the camel's back.
My power supply is 200 watts. I don't know about the power draw of the
other devices. All I can say is that I have 2 Hard Drives, 2 CD
Drives, a Zip Drive, a modem, TV tuner card, Promise IDE card, PCI
video card, and now a NIC.
sona...@yahoo.com
Franc Zabkar wrote:
> Do you mean that Windows completed booting normally, albeit with a
> long delay? And do you mean that, after booting normally, you then
> connected the modem, and Windows spontaneously rebooted itself into
> Safe Mode?
But the next manual reboot, with modem attached would also put me in
Safe Mode. Once I get the first Safe Mode boot, I can't go back to any
other type of bootup, hanging or not, without uninstalling the NIC.
Franc wrote
> I can't think of any insurmountable reason why a NIC, whether ISA or
> PCI, should not function in your system.
What if the NIC requires a version of PCI that my old PC does not have?
Would that be an insurmountable reason? My motherboard is supposed
to be PCI 2.1 compliant, but who knows for sure? Maybe the NIC thinks
it isn't.
glee
fairly large load for a 200-W PSU. As Franc mentioned on this subject, an easy way
to test that is to unplug the power and data cables from some of the drives...in
this case, disconnect one of the CD drives and the zip drive...and perhaps remove
the TV tuner card, then insert the NIC, start the machine, and load the drivers.
Run like this for a couple of days and see if the problem still exists....if not,
then it is most likely a matter of needing a larger PSU (although it could also
indicate a conflict with the tuner card if that is a component you remove).
<sona...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128893291....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Hugh Candlin
news:1128893291....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Have a look at this old thread to see why.
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=e5s4FRnZ...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl
--
====================
Top Articles for Windows 98
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;187602
Franc Zabkar
keyboard and composed:
>Franc:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\VxD\DHCP\DhcpInfo00
winipcfg
NIC resource list (IRQ, DMA, IO range, memory range)
Control Panel -> Network -> Configuration
reboot in logged mode (bootlog.txt)
reboot in safe mode without networking (win /d:m)
reboot in safe mode with networking (win /d:n)
exclude adapter memory area (win /d:x)
Franc Zabkar
keyboard and composed:
>
>Franc Zabkar wrote:
>> Do you mean that Windows completed booting normally, albeit with a
>> long delay? And do you mean that, after booting normally, you then
>> connected the modem, and Windows spontaneously rebooted itself into
>> Safe Mode?
>Yes, spontaneously.
It appears that the system falls over as soon as the modem sends data
to the NIC. I wonder if there is an undetected IRQ conflict, or
perhaps the NIC is attempting to share reserved system memory.
I notice that page 47 of your motherboard manual lists several
reserved memory areas below 1MB:
ftp://download.intel.com/support/motherboards/desktop/an430tx/28295501.pdf
Perhaps the NIC's memory address range is in conflict with a critical
system area. What are the NIC's resources, ie IRQ, DMA, IO range,
memory range?
If you do have a memory conflict, then booting to a command prompt and
typing "win /d:x" may help confirm it.
WIN [/D:[F][M][S][V][X]]
/D Used for troubleshooting when Windows does not start correctly.
:X Excludes all of the adapter area from the range of memory
that Windows scans to find unused space. Equivalent to
SYSTEM.INI file setting: EMMExclude=A000-FFFF.
>But the next manual reboot, with modem attached would also put me in
>Safe Mode. Once I get the first Safe Mode boot, I can't go back to any
>other type of bootup, hanging or not, without uninstalling the NIC.
Clearly something has changed in your system after the first safe mode
reboot. The only thing I can think of is that some data have been
written to the registry. I doubt that any other files would have been
touched.
AFAICS, the following registry key records the results of the last
successful DHCP renewal, ie the last time your NIC obtained an IP
address from a DHCP server:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\VxD\DHCP\DhcpInfo00
Among other things it shows your last IP address, the address of the
DHCP server, and your NIC's physical (MAC) address.
To see these for yourself, go to Start -> Run and type regedit.exe.
Then navigate to the above key, highlight it, and select Registry ->
Export registry file. Choose "selected branch" for the "export range"
and Save it to a .reg file. If you include this file's contents in
your next post, perhaps someone can see what is happening.
FWIW, here's my theory. I suspect that a fresh install resets all the
parameters at the above key and allows the system to boot normally ...
as long as the modem is not connected. Otherwise I suspect that if
these parameters have a prior history, then Windows attempts to
confirm them by communicating with the NIC, whether or not the modem
is attached, and that this then precipitates a serious system error
necessitating a safe mode reboot. This process is repeated at every
subsequent reboot until the above parameters are reset, either by a
reinstallation, or by a manual edit of the registry. You could test
this hypothesis by reinstalling the NIC and taking a snapshot of the
entire registry before you connect the modem. Then take another
snapshot after connecting the modem and compare the two results.
This post describes how to detect the changes:
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion/msg/a163aac85017f2dd?dmode=source&hl=en
Alternatively, here is a tool that others recommend:
http://www.regview.com/regview/
If you do find that the above registry key is a symptom of your
problem, then you could probably export the contents of a "good"
registry key to a small .reg file, and then import it back into the
registry when the safe mode problem reappears. This will not
immediately solve your problem but will at least confirm what is
happening.
>Franc wrote
>> I can't think of any insurmountable reason why a NIC, whether ISA or
>> PCI, should not function in your system.
>
>What if the NIC requires a version of PCI that my old PC does not have?
> Would that be an insurmountable reason? My motherboard is supposed
>to be PCI 2.1 compliant, but who knows for sure? Maybe the NIC thinks
>it isn't.
It appears that there *are* some missing PCI features. I have no idea
whether they are significant, though. In any case your ISA card would
be unaffected by them.
See
ftp://download.intel.com/support/motherboards/desktop/an430tx/67430116.PDF
3. PCI 2.1 Specification Optional Features
The following optional features in the PCI 2.1 Specification are not
implemented on the AN430TX motherboard:
• Cache Support Pins SBO# and SDONE (Section 2.2.7)
• PRSNTx# (Section 2.2.8)
• CLKRUN# (Section 2.2.8)
• 64 Bit Bus Extension Pins (Section 2.2.9)
• 66 MHz support (Section 2.2.8)
• JTAG/Boundary scan (Section 2.2.10)
sona...@yahoo.com
I seem to have solved the problem! Let me tell you what I just did:
I simply removed the modem and installed the NIC and its driver and
rebooted. It was a normal boot without Safe Mode.
Then I discovered something which I had evidently missed before. I
took your suggestion and ran msinfo32.exe and discovered that THERE
WERE NO IRQ's LEFT ON MY PC. Thus, when I had originally installed the
NIC with the modem already installed, there wasn't a free IRQ to assign
it to. THAT'S WHY I GOT THE SAFE MODE BOOT UP! The NIC evidently
needed its own IRQ in order to work correctly and simply didn't have
one.
Question: Someone on another forum just told me that shared IRQ's
usually are not a problem. As a matter of fact, I noticed several
instances of shared IRQs on my system, such as the TV card sharing
irq11 with the usb host adapter. But I always thought that each
device was supposed to have only one IRQ associated with it. That is
obviously the case with my modem and NIC because the problem was only
solved when I removed the modem. Or perhaps it was another resource
conflict, like DMA channel or IO Port, that was causing the problem?
Thank You.
Richard G. Harper
network card will not. The card must be designed to share IRQs in order to
be able to do so.
--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgha...@gmail.com
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
<sona...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128974472....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
sona...@yahoo.com
necessary to be in Safe Mode?
If so, why?
Gary S. Terhune
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
<sona...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128996482....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
sona...@yahoo.com
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> Just the opposite. You want a Normal startup to look for conflicts.
>
Immediately after I installed the NIC that was conflicting with my
installed modem, I rebooted and got that long "hanging" boot that I
described above. But when I got to the desktop and went to Device
Manager, I did not see any ! icons next to either the NIC or the modem.
Do you have any idea why that would be? That's what confuses me the
most, now that I have identified the problem as a resource allocation
problem and resolved it.
Franc Zabkar
keyboard and composed:
>Franc:
>
>I seem to have solved the problem! Let me tell you what I just did:
>I simply removed the modem and installed the NIC and its driver and
>rebooted. It was a normal boot without Safe Mode.
>
>Then I discovered something which I had evidently missed before. I
>took your suggestion and ran msinfo32.exe and discovered that THERE
>WERE NO IRQ's LEFT ON MY PC. Thus, when I had originally installed the
>NIC with the modem already installed, there wasn't a free IRQ to assign
>it to.
Well, I guess that bears out what was stated almost from the outset,
namely that you had an undetected resource conflict. In hindsight you
could have saved yourself a lot of trouble had you posted the resource
list.
> THAT'S WHY I GOT THE SAFE MODE BOOT UP! The NIC evidently
>needed its own IRQ in order to work correctly and simply didn't have
>one.
I suspect that you had two situations where an ISA device was
competing for the same IRQ as a PCI device. Initially it was a PCI NIC
and some ISA device on your motherboard or in a slot, then it was an
ISA NIC and some existing PCI device.
In my system I occasionally have problems when my onboard sound (an
ISA device) finds itself sharing an IRQ with an onboard PCI device.
Win98SE's Device Manager identifies the sharing but does not flag it
as a problem. Unfortunately this configuration causes the sound to
stutter and repeat continuously.
I work around the problem by assigning a fixed IRQ to the soundcard
via DM, and I reserve the same IRQ for ISA devices in the BIOS setup.
I can also change the PCI INTA/B/C/D priority in the BIOS if need be.
>Question: Someone on another forum just told me that shared IRQ's
>usually are not a problem.
PCI devices can share IRQs as long as IRQ Steering is enabled. My
plug-in PCI NIC shares one IRQ with the onboard USB controller and the
onboard graphics. ISA devices are another matter, though. Generally
they don't like to share unless they coexist on the same card.
>As a matter of fact, I noticed several
>instances of shared IRQs on my system, such as the TV card sharing
>irq11 with the usb host adapter. But I always thought that each
>device was supposed to have only one IRQ associated with it.
They are probably both PCI devices.
> That is
>obviously the case with my modem and NIC because the problem was only
>solved when I removed the modem. Or perhaps it was another resource
>conflict, like DMA channel or IO Port, that was causing the problem?
>Thank You.
I presume you are referring to your internal dial-up modem, not the
DSL modem. If this is an ISA "hardware" non-PnP modem, then it would
most likely have occupied IRQ 3 or IRQ 4 and would have appeared as a
standard COM port in DM.
In any case, just because you solved your problem by removing your
modem doesn't prove that your modem was the culprit. The nature of PnP
is such that resources are shuffled about like musical chairs whenever
the device list changes. It could be that the actual problem device is
now occupying an IRQ vacated by your modem.
Gary S. Terhune
Windows 98 is capable of IRQ Sharing. It doesn't necessarily see anything
wrong with two or more devices sharing an IRQ, provided a couple of other
settings are different. It just so happens that your new NIC can't play the
IRQ sharing game according to Win98 specs, or, maybe, the fault lies in the
other device(s) that were sharing that IRQ. The fact that modem and NIC are
rather similar in purpose, and presumably share many other built-in
routines, may also have something to do with it. Just too many similarities,
and when you throw in the shared IRQ, they started resembling two very large
people trying to get to somewhere sharing the same narrow hallway that only
fits one of them. The IRQ is the starting gate, and they both use the same
one at the same time. On your mark, get set, Ooof!
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
<sona...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129020206.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
sona...@yahoo.com
>
> Well, I guess that bears out what was stated almost from the outset,
> namely that you had an undetected resource conflict. In hindsight you
> could have saved yourself a lot of trouble had you posted the resource
> list.
Indeed it does bear it out. From now on, my procedure will be to check
the resource configuration BEFORE doing any device installation. Then
I'll be able to track whatever changes are made thereafter.
Franc Zabkar wrote:
> I suspect that you had two situations where an ISA device was
> competing for the same IRQ as a PCI device. Initially it was a PCI NIC
> and some ISA device on your motherboard or in a slot, then it was an
> ISA NIC and some existing PCI device.
An ISA NIC? I do not have one. The Belkin NIC is PCI. My only ISA
device was the modem.
Franc Zabkar wrote:
>
> In my system I occasionally have problems when my onboard sound (an
> ISA device) finds itself sharing an IRQ with an onboard PCI device.
> Win98SE's Device Manager identifies the sharing but does not flag it
> as a problem.
Why wouldn't Win98se flag it as a problem if it was one?
And does that mean that any instance of shared IRQs could conceivably
be the cause of the problem, even if DM does not flag them as such?
Franc Zabkar wrote:
> PCI devices can share IRQs as long as IRQ Steering is enabled. My
> plug-in PCI NIC shares one IRQ with the onboard USB controller and the
> onboard graphics.
In that case, why did the PCI NIC try to use the modem's IRQ3 instead
of sharing an IRQ with another PCI device, like the Video card or TV
tuner card?
For reference, here is my current IRQ configuration:
0 System Timer
1 Keyboard
2 Cascade
3 NIC
4 COM1
5 Sound
6 Floppy disk controller
7 LPT1
8 Real Time Clock
9 Video
10 Promise IDE Card
11 TV Card and USB Host controller
12 Mouse port
13 Math Co-Processor
14 Primary IDE Controller and Bus Master IDE Controller
15 Secondary IDE Controller and Bus Master IDE Controller
Franc Zabkar wrote:
>
> I presume you are referring to your internal dial-up modem, not the
> DSL modem. If this is an ISA "hardware" non-PnP modem, then it would
> most likely have occupied IRQ 3 or IRQ 4 and would have appeared as a
> standard COM port in DM.
Yes, the dial-up USRobotics modem. It used IRQ3 and appeared under the
"Modems" icon in DM.
Franc Zabkar wrote:
>
> In any case, just because you solved your problem by removing your
> modem doesn't prove that your modem was the culprit. The nature of PnP
> is such that resources are shuffled about like musical chairs whenever
> the device list changes. It could be that the actual problem device is
> now occupying an IRQ vacated by your modem.
>
I think the fact that the modem stopped working at one point strongly
indicates a conflict between it and the NIC, don't you?
Thanks for your help with this Franc.
Patrick
sona...@yahoo.com
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> WAG -- Windows may not have seen any conflict, even though one existed.
> IRQ sharing game according to Win98 specs, or, maybe, the fault lies in the
> other device(s) that were sharing that IRQ.
That makes a lot of sense to me. Now that I look back on it, this is
what must have happened: The NIC had to share an IRQ with one of the
other PCI devices installed, but it doesn't like sharing its IRQ and it
had no free IRQ to use, so it caused a conflict.
I suppose that the fact that DM didn't display any ! even though there
was indeed a conflict is a testament to Win98's poor implementation of
PnP. Do you agree?
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> The fact that modem and NIC are
> rather similar in purpose, and presumably share many other built-in
> routines, may also have something to do with it. Just too many similarities,
> and when you throw in the shared IRQ, they started resembling two very large
> people trying to get to somewhere sharing the same narrow hallway
Based on what Franc wrote above, I don't think this is true. He said
ISA devices, like my modem, don't like to share IRQ's, so the modem
COULDN'T have been sharing its IRQ with the NIC. (In fact, I remember
seeing this in DM). Thus, the NIC must have been sharing the IRQ of
another PCI device. What removing the modem did was simply to free its
IRQ for use by the NIC -- but its IRQ was never shared with the NIC.
Thanks for your explantion.
Patrick
>
sona...@yahoo.com
indeed have been trying to share the same IRQ at one point.
I installed and removed the NIC multiple times. On ONE of those
occasions, the NIC and modem were not using the same interrupt, but on
other occasions they might have been. That would explain why after one
reinstallation of the NIC the modem stopped working.
Gary S. Terhune
of the NIC or the modem, or rather the drivers developers, might be as much
or more to blame. They have to provide the proper instructions to Windows in
order for Windows to properly handle them.
If this is a new model NIC, Belkin may simply not have bothered to heavily
test it against 98 PnP. But my guess is the modem... Those things *often*
wreak havoc with Win98 PnP. Some of them are just horrible.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
<sona...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129062735.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
sona...@yahoo.com
Does the resolution of the problem after removing the modem
necessarily prove that it was a resource allocation problem? If the
device is no longer there, then its driver won't be loaded, right?
Thus, couldn't the problem have been with the driver and not the IRQ's?
Gary S. Terhune
drivers. It's kind of a total-Gestalt situation. Only testing would prove
things one way or another. Different drivers for the modem, if available,
for instance. My guess is that the NIC and Modem just don't play well
together when on the same IRQ. Changing the modem or the NIC for a different
model, particularly if they are based upon different strategies, would
probably resolve the issue. But I say again that modems are notorious for
not playing well with other devices. That's just the nature of the beast.
That's why it's common to assign a specific IRQ to the modem (like IRQ5, if
my memory serves me right) and take it out of the IRQ Sharing queue in BIOS.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
<sona...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129095182....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Franc Zabkar
keyboard and composed:
>Franc Zabkar wrote:
>>
>> Well, I guess that bears out what was stated almost from the outset,
>> namely that you had an undetected resource conflict. In hindsight you
>> could have saved yourself a lot of trouble had you posted the resource
>> list.
>
>Indeed it does bear it out. From now on, my procedure will be to check
>the resource configuration BEFORE doing any device installation. Then
>I'll be able to track whatever changes are made thereafter.
>
>
>Franc Zabkar wrote:
>> I suspect that you had two situations where an ISA device was
>> competing for the same IRQ as a PCI device. Initially it was a PCI NIC
>> and some ISA device on your motherboard or in a slot, then it was an
>> ISA NIC and some existing PCI device.
>
>An ISA NIC? I do not have one. The Belkin NIC is PCI. My only ISA
>device was the modem.
Sorry, I was under the wrong impression that your second NIC was an
old Linksys ISA device. It's been a long thread and yesterday was 1440
minutes ago ...
>Franc Zabkar wrote:
>>
>> In my system I occasionally have problems when my onboard sound (an
>> ISA device) finds itself sharing an IRQ with an onboard PCI device.
>> Win98SE's Device Manager identifies the sharing but does not flag it
>> as a problem.
>
>Why wouldn't Win98se flag it as a problem if it was one?
I don't know.
>And does that mean that any instance of shared IRQs could conceivably
>be the cause of the problem, even if DM does not flag them as such?
That's what I see in my system. I also found a reference to this
effect in Scott Mueller's "Upgrading and Repairing PCs". He
specifically states that ISA and PCI don't share.
>Franc Zabkar wrote:
>> PCI devices can share IRQs as long as IRQ Steering is enabled. My
>> plug-in PCI NIC shares one IRQ with the onboard USB controller and the
>> onboard graphics.
>
>In that case, why did the PCI NIC try to use the modem's IRQ3 instead
>of sharing an IRQ with another PCI device, like the Video card or TV
>tuner card?
I don't know. All I know is that my old socket 7 PC of the same
vintage has difficulty assigning non-conflicting resources due to the
high number of ISA components. I've had to go to extreme lengths to
make everything work harmoniously. For example, I've added an IRQ 9
jumper wire to my ISA modem (it doesn't normally support this IRQ).
One thing you could check is whether you have IRQ steering enabled.
This should be enabled by default, but you never know. AFAIK, if IRQ
steering is disabled, then PCI devices will not be able to share IRQs.
Go to Device Manager, System Devices, PCI bus, Properties, IRQ
Steering. In addition to the main check box, there will be 4 check
boxes which tell Windows where to look for resource information. I
don't claim to understand them, but I suppose you could experiment
with these options if things get desperate.
Yes, it looks that way.
>Thanks for your help with this Franc.
>Patrick
This is how msinfo32 identifies my hardware:
[Conflicts/Sharing]
IRQ 12 PCI Ethernet Adapter
IRQ 12 SiS 7001 PCI to USB Open Host Controller
IRQ 12 SiS 5597/5598
IRQ 12 IRQ Holder for PCI Steering
IRQ 12 IRQ Holder for PCI Steering
IRQ 12 IRQ Holder for PCI Steering
IRQ 14 Primary IDE controller (dual fifo)
IRQ 14 SiS 5513 Dual PCI IDE Controller
IRQ 15 Secondary IDE controller (dual fifo)
IRQ 15 SiS 5513 Dual PCI IDE Controller
The above is a problem free configuration. There are no actual
conflicts, and Device Manager is also happy with this resource
assignment. Each of the three PCI devices get along with each other
due to their respective "IRQ Holder for PCI Steering".
However on the odd occasion I find that the above PCI devices will be
assigned to IRQ 10 which is where the WSS component of my onboard ISA
sound device also lives. Even though DM does not flag this situation
as a conflict, my sound doesn't work properly. I have to shuffle my
resource list until the WSS device is on its own. Another annoying
complication is that no ISA device will work on IRQ 12 because of a
design limitation of the chipset (IRQ 12 and PS2 Mouse Data share a
common pin).
To complicate matters further, even in those situations where there is
no real conflict, and where sharing is allowed, sometimes you will
experience operational issues. For example, certain graphics drivers
are aggressive in that their interrupt service routines hog the CPU
for too long, leaving other devices waiting for service.
Franc Zabkar
keyboard and composed:
>I just thought of another possibility.
If your USR modem was a "hard" ISA modem rather than a "softmodem" or
controllerless Winmodem, then it would have required no drivers, only
an INF file. The COM port that it occupied would have used the same MS
drivers that your other serial port (COM1) is presently using.
Speaking of which, if nothing is attached to COM1, and assuming it is
located on the motherboard, then you could probably disable it in the
BIOS setup. This would free up an IRQ for your USR modem.
sona...@yahoo.com
Franc Zabkar wrote:
>
Patrick wrote:
> >Why wouldn't Win98se flag it as a problem if it was one?
>
> I don't know.
I think another poster has answered this. He said that PnP is only as
good as the device drivers that communicates with it and tell it the
resource requirements of that device. Thus PnP probably simply didn't
know about the conflict because the devices' drivers didn't tell it
there was one.
Patrick wrote:
> >And does that mean that any instance of shared IRQs could conceivably
> >be the cause of the problem, even if DM does not flag them as such?
> >
> Franc Zabkar wrote:
> That's what I see in my system. I also found a reference to this
> effect in Scott Mueller's "Upgrading and Repairing PCs". He
> specifically states that ISA and PCI don't share.
But does it apply to ANY instance of a shared IRQ? In other words,
could 2 PCI devices sharing an IRQ actually be in conflict even if DM
says they're OK?
> >Franc Zabkar wrote:
> >> PCI devices can share IRQs as long as IRQ Steering is enabled. My
> >> plug-in PCI NIC shares one IRQ with the onboard USB controller and the
> >> onboard graphics.
> >
> >In that case, why did the PCI NIC try to use the modem's IRQ3 instead
> >of sharing an IRQ with another PCI device, like the Video card or TV
> >tuner card?
>
> I don't know.
To answer my own question, I suspect that it comes down once again to
the drivers not telling PnP about their resource requirements.
> >Franc wrote:
> One thing you could check is whether you have IRQ steering enabled.
I do.
> However on the odd occasion I find that the above PCI devices will be
> assigned to IRQ 10 which is where the WSS component of my onboard ISA
> sound device also lives. Even though DM does not flag this situation
> as a conflict, my sound doesn't work properly. I have to shuffle my
> resource list until the WSS device is on its own.
That's not surprising. Sound cards are notorious for needing to get
their own way when it comes to allocating resources. If PnP didn't
catch it, I guess that's why they call it Plug and Pray, after all.
Patrick
sona...@yahoo.com
Franc Zabkar wrote:
> If your USR modem was a "hard" ISA modem rather than a "softmodem" or
> controllerless Winmodem, then it would have required no drivers, only
> an INF file.
Good point. So it had to be an IRQ conflict problem.
When you troubleshoot issues like this, what steps do you take and in
what order?
I guess checking for exclamation points in D.M., is the easiest thing
to do, so that should be done first, but if there are none, do you
immediately continue your search for nondetected IRQ problems or do you
first check for a driver compatibility problem by doing a Safe Mode
boot so the drivers doesn't load and then see if that resolves the
problem? In short, what is the most logical order of troubleshooting
steps?
>
> Speaking of which, if nothing is attached to COM1, and assuming it is
> located on the motherboard, then you could probably disable it in the
> BIOS setup. This would free up an IRQ for your USR modem.
>
Yes, I already thought of that actually. It looks like it can be
disabled right from D.M., in fact. Thanks.
sona...@yahoo.com
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> Could be. It's kind of a total-Gestalt situation. Only testing would prove
> things one way or another. Different drivers for the modem, if available,
> for instance.
Actually, as Franc just pointed out, it couldn't be. My USRobotics
Sportster modem does not have a driver, but only an .INF file. I had
forgotten. Thus, there could be no driver conflict.
> My guess is that the NIC and Modem just don't play well
> together when on the same IRQ. Changing the modem or the NIC for a different
> model, particularly if they are based upon different strategies, would
> probably resolve the issue.
Looks like that must have been the problem, since it was resolved once
I removed the modem, allowing the NIC to take IRQ3. Since I won't need
to use my modem anymore, this is an acceptable solution. I don't need
to buy any new hardware.
Franc Zabkar
keyboard and composed:
>Franc Zabkar wrote:
>> Speaking of which, if nothing is attached to COM1, and assuming it is
>> located on the motherboard, then you could probably disable it in the
>> BIOS setup. This would free up an IRQ for your USR modem.
>Yes, I already thought of that actually. It looks like it can be
>disabled right from D.M., in fact. Thanks.
I'm not sure that DM can actually turn off the COM port. I could be
wrong though. I do know that DM cannot turn off a COM port that is
jumpered, but that's obviously not the case with your motherboard.
Franc Zabkar
keyboard and composed:
>
>Franc Zabkar wrote:
>>
>Patrick wrote:
>> >Why wouldn't Win98se flag it as a problem if it was one?
>>
>> I don't know.
>
>I think another poster has answered this. He said that PnP is only as
>good as the device drivers that communicates with it and tell it the
>resource requirements of that device. Thus PnP probably simply didn't
>know about the conflict because the devices' drivers didn't tell it
>there was one.
I don't think the device drivers have anything to do with PnP or the
resource list. PnP has to happen first anyway, ie the resources have
to be assigned *before* the drivers are loaded.
>Patrick wrote:
>> >And does that mean that any instance of shared IRQs could conceivably
>> >be the cause of the problem, even if DM does not flag them as such?
>> >
>> Franc Zabkar wrote:
>> That's what I see in my system. I also found a reference to this
>> effect in Scott Mueller's "Upgrading and Repairing PCs". He
>> specifically states that ISA and PCI don't share.
>
>But does it apply to ANY instance of a shared IRQ? In other words,
>could 2 PCI devices sharing an IRQ actually be in conflict even if DM
>says they're OK?
You mean two PCI devices? I guess it's possible but I haven't
encountered it as yet.
>> >Franc Zabkar wrote:
>> >> PCI devices can share IRQs as long as IRQ Steering is enabled. My
>> >> plug-in PCI NIC shares one IRQ with the onboard USB controller and the
>> >> onboard graphics.
>> >
>> >In that case, why did the PCI NIC try to use the modem's IRQ3 instead
>> >of sharing an IRQ with another PCI device, like the Video card or TV
>> >tuner card?
>>
>> I don't know.
>
>To answer my own question, I suspect that it comes down once again to
>the drivers not telling PnP about their resource requirements.
I think it works the other way around. PnP is at a lower level than
the drivers. In fact there is an option in the BIOS setup for "PnP
aware OS" which, when set to "No", means that BIOS has to allocate the
resources on behalf of an OS that is incapable of doing so.
sona...@yahoo.com
Franc Zabkar wrote:
> I don't think the device drivers have anything to do with PnP or the
> resource list. PnP has to happen first anyway, ie the resources have
> to be assigned *before* the drivers are loaded.
>
> the drivers. In fact there is an option in the BIOS setup for "PnP
> aware OS" which, when set to "No", means that BIOS has to allocate the
> resources on behalf of an OS that is incapable of doing so.
Yes, that makes sense. It looks like the person who posted that
information did not know what he was talking about. I guess it's just
a case of PnP being buggy, thus the derisive epithet Plug and Pray.
Can you give me more details on the bootlog bootup that you referred to
some time ago? I'd like to know all the details on how to use it for
troubleshooting.
Also, that win /n bootup. You mentioned all the switches, but I'm
still not quite sure what to do once it boots me in Safe Mode.
Thanks.
sona...@yahoo.com
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> PnP is *still* a work in progress, but I would suggest that the manufacturer
> of the NIC or the modem, or rather the drivers developers, might be as much
> or more to blame. They have to provide the proper instructions to Windows in
> order for Windows to properly handle them.
>
> "I don't think the device drivers have anything to do with PnP or the resource
> list. PnP has to happen first anyway, ie the resources have to be assigned
> *before* the drivers are loaded.
> >
> > Windows may not have seen any conflict, even though one existed.
> > your new NIC can't play the IRQ sharing game according to Win98 specs, or, > > maybe, the fault lies in the other device(s) that were sharing that IRQ.
> >
> > This looks like the answer. It's strictly a problem with the HW, not
> > the drivers, which have nothing to do with the PnP allocation of IRQ's.
>
Gary S. Terhune
<sona...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129157100.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Franc Zabkar wrote:
> > I don't think the device drivers have anything to do with PnP or the
> > resource list. PnP has to happen first anyway, ie the resources have
> > to be assigned *before* the drivers are loaded.
> >
> > I think it works the other way around. PnP is at a lower level than
> > the drivers. In fact there is an option in the BIOS setup for "PnP
> > aware OS" which, when set to "No", means that BIOS has to allocate the
> > resources on behalf of an OS that is incapable of doing so.
>
> Yes, that makes sense. It looks like the person who posted that
> information did not know what he was talking about. I guess it's just
> a case of PnP being buggy, thus the derisive epithet Plug and Pray.
I think maybe you're referring to me, and all I said, though possibly not
well, is that while PnP may assign two devices to share a certain IRQ, and
even show no conflict, that does not mean that the devices will necessarily
play well together. I also suggested that the devices and their drivers that
make use of those shared resources are more likely responsible than Windows
in this case.
On a *separate* note, PnP isn't just a Windows function, it's also a
function of the devices themselves. If a device doesn't do PnP well, then
it's time to switch slots in order to prompt Windows to configure them
differently, or to use BIOS to assign resources manually. Blaming Windows
PnP makes little sense, since hundreds or even thousands of devices have no
problem with it. If I have a socket wrench that fits 99% of the 1/2" bolt
heads I run into, but not the other 1%, does that mean the socket wrench is
poorly constructed? Does that make sense to you?
The whole "Hidden Resources Conflict" idea should not be confused with being
a real Resources conflict.
Gary S. Terhune
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
<sona...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129158152.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
sona...@yahoo.com
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> all I said, though possibly not
> well, is that while PnP may assign two devices to share a certain IRQ, and
> even show no conflict, that does not mean that the devices will necessarily
> play well together.
Yes, I understood that. The issue we were then trying to answer was
WHY Win98 assigned shared IRQ's to devices that were unable to share
their IRQ's. That seems to be the heart of the problem -- my NIC
couldn't share its IRQ with any other device. If Win98 hadn't made it
share (or if it had flagged the sharing as a problem with an !), then I
either would not have encountered the Safe Mode boot problem at all or
would have been able to resolve it faster.
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> On a *separate* note, PnP isn't just a Windows function, it's also a
> function of the devices themselves. Blaming Windows PnP makes little sense, > since hundreds or even thousands of devices have no
> problem with it. If I have a socket wrench that fits 99% of the 1/2" bolt
> heads I run into, but not the other 1%, does that mean the socket wrench is
> poorly constructed? Does that make sense to you?
Yes. You're saying it's the device itself that isn't communicating its
needs to PnP. The problem was that in your prior post, you seemed to
be saying that the driver was the cause of PnP not understanding the
device's resource requirements, thus allowing PnP to make an invalid
resource allocation. But, as Franc said, the driver wouldn't even have
been loaded at that point. That's the part of your last post that I
was trying to correct. Perhaps I was too blunt in the way I said it
in my previous post.
>
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> The whole "Hidden Resources Conflict" idea should not be confused with being
> a real Resources conflict.
>
> I don't think I did confuse them. Clearly, there was a real resource conflict because the problem was resolved when I removed the modem, thus freeing an IRQ.
Clearly, D.M. hid the conflict from my eyes because it did not mark it
with an !.
Thanks for you help with this.
Patrick
Franc Zabkar
keyboard and composed:
>
>Franc Zabkar wrote:
>> I don't think the device drivers have anything to do with PnP or the
>> resource list. PnP has to happen first anyway, ie the resources have
>> to be assigned *before* the drivers are loaded.
>>
>> I think it works the other way around. PnP is at a lower level than
>> the drivers. In fact there is an option in the BIOS setup for "PnP
>> aware OS" which, when set to "No", means that BIOS has to allocate the
>> resources on behalf of an OS that is incapable of doing so.
>
>Yes, that makes sense. It looks like the person who posted that
>information did not know what he was talking about.
I don't much of the detail of PnP, either.
> I guess it's just
>a case of PnP being buggy, thus the derisive epithet Plug and Pray.
AFAIK, all that happens during the "enumeration" process is that each
PnP capable device provides a list of those resources which it can
work with. For example, a completely hypothetical device may tell BIOS
or the OS that it can use IRQ 10, 11, or 12, DMA 3 or 4, IO ranges 300
- 31f or 200 - 21f, and various memory ranges. Another device may
indicate that it can do IRQ 5, 10, 11, and DMA 2 or 3. The PnP BIOS or
PnP OS, or both, then allots the resources amongst the known devices
in a manner that it considers to be free of contention. Device A (eg
ISA PnP) doesn't know anything about device B (eg PCI PnP), so it is
up to the OS (or the PC user) to recognise potential conflicts.
>Can you give me more details on the bootlog bootup that you referred to
>some time ago? I'd like to know all the details on how to use it for
>troubleshooting.
>Also, that win /n bootup. You mentioned all the switches, but I'm
>still not quite sure what to do once it boots me in Safe Mode.
>Thanks.
I haven't had the need to use them myself, but if you boot to the
command prompt you can then type "win /?". This will give you a list
of troubleshooting options for those cases when Windows doesn't start
properly.
For example, if you type "win /d:n", Windows will attempt to start in
safe mode with networking. Typing
==================================================================
C:\WIN98SE>win /?
Starts Windows.
WIN [/D:[F][M][S][V][X]]
/D Used for troubleshooting when Windows does not start correctly.
:F Turns off 32-bit disk access.
Equivalent to SYSTEM.INI file setting: 32BitDiskAccess=FALSE.
:M Enables Safe mode.
This is automatically enabled during Safe start (function
key F5).
:N Enables Safe mode with networking.
This is automatically enabled during Safe start (function
key F6).
:S Specifies that Windows should not use ROM address space
between F000:0000 and 1 MB for a break point.
Equivalent to SYSTEM.INI file setting:
SystemROMBreakPoint=FALSE.
:V Specifies that the ROM routine will handle interrupts from
the hard disk controller.
Equivalent to SYSTEM.INI file setting: VirtualHDIRQ=FALSE.
:X Excludes all of the adapter area from the range of memory
that Windows scans to find unused space.
Equivalent to SYSTEM.INI file setting: EMMExclude=A000-FFFF.
==================================================================
Gary S. Terhune
news:1129163557....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> > all I said, though possibly not
> > well, is that while PnP may assign two devices to share a certain IRQ,
and
> > even show no conflict, that does not mean that the devices will
necessarily
> > play well together.
>
> Yes, I understood that. The issue we were then trying to answer was
> WHY Win98 assigned shared IRQ's to devices that were unable to share
> their IRQ's. That seems to be the heart of the problem -- my NIC
> couldn't share its IRQ with any other device. If Win98 hadn't made it
> share (or if it had flagged the sharing as a problem with an !), then I
> either would not have encountered the Safe Mode boot problem at all or
> would have been able to resolve it faster.
Again, either the device is a PnP-compatible device and can share Resources,
or it can't, or it may claim to but not do so very well. I fail to see how
this is a Windows problem. Are you sure the NIC won't share with *any*
device. Have you tried it? Are you sure it isn't the modem that can't share?
I'm asking honestly, since I don't recall all of your details and don't feel
like re-reading the whole thread. Windows PnP doesn't *make* a device share
Resources if the device notifies Windows that it can't do so. It examines
the device to see what it claims to support, and then takes its word for it.
And, again, what makes you think that there is a Resource conflict? Just
because two devices on the same IRQ causes problems doesn't mean there's a
Resource Conflict. In your case, my guess is that there was no problem at
all -- until Windows tried to load the drivers of either the modem or the
NIC. Only in the sense that Windows 98 isn't advanced enough to stop at that
point and analyze the problem, perhaps cime up with a solution or at least
resort to disabling the problem device, posting an error message, and then
moving on...only in that sense can I see, at least from teh evidence that's
available, how you can blame Windows 98 PnP.
>
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> > On a *separate* note, PnP isn't just a Windows function, it's also a
> > function of the devices themselves. Blaming Windows PnP makes little
sense, > since hundreds or even thousands of devices have no
> > problem with it. If I have a socket wrench that fits 99% of the 1/2"
bolt
> > heads I run into, but not the other 1%, does that mean the socket wrench
is
> > poorly constructed? Does that make sense to you?
>
> Yes. You're saying it's the device itself that isn't communicating its
> needs to PnP. The problem was that in your prior post, you seemed to
> be saying that the driver was the cause of PnP not understanding the
> device's resource requirements, thus allowing PnP to make an invalid
> resource allocation. But, as Franc said, the driver wouldn't even have
> been loaded at that point. That's the part of your last post that I
> was trying to correct. Perhaps I was too blunt in the way I said it
> in my previous post.
Here's the paragraph I assume your referring to:
"PnP is *still* a work in progress, but I would suggest that the
manufacturer
of the NIC or the modem, or rather the drivers developers, might be as much
or more to blame. They have to provide the proper instructions to Windows in
order for Windows to properly handle them."
I realize that my language was muddled, and said so in my response to you in
this sub-thread. In that what I said could be construed to say that drivers
alone tell Windows how to treat the device with regard to sharing, that's
wrong. My brain had leaped to interaction between Windows and the device and
its drivers and that got mixed up with the purely PnP discussion.
>
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> The whole "Hidden Resources Conflict" idea should not be confused with
being
> a real Resources conflict.
>
> I don't think I did confuse them. Clearly, there was a real resource
conflict because the problem was resolved when I removed the modem, thus
freeing an IRQ.
Clearly, D.M. hid the conflict from my eyes because it did not mark it
with an !.
So you're claiming something akin to criminal neglect on the part of DM,
<g>? No, you're still not getting it. Hardware can conflict without it being
due to a Resource Conflict, and DM only flags true Resource Conflicts. I
simply don't agree with your premise that, "Clearly, there was a real
resource conflict because the problem was resolved when I removed the modem,
thus freeing an IRQ"
Oh, and I'm willing to bet that the entire problem was the ISA modem and the
motherboard and/or Windows sharing resources between ISA and PCI devices.
None of that ever worked very well. That's why most decently configured
boards with ISA devices use BIOS to reserve the IRQs that ISA devices use.
But I can't even say that that is strictly a "Resources Conflict".
Again, what you are calling a "Resource Conflict", or a "Hidden Resource
Conflict", is not what is strictly defined as a Resource Conflict. If it
were, DM would have flagged it. I don't deny that there were *other*
conflicts, just not a Resource Conflict in the classic sense.
glee
You still have not even determined without doubt that a resource conflict *was* in
fact the problem. You removed the modem and the NIC issues ceased....that does not
necessarily prove it had anything to do with resources. As was mentioned sometime
earlier in one of my replies, your system is woefully underpowered....removing the
modem may have simply allowed the PSU to power the NIC successfully. When your PSU
is as marginal as yours and the system is as max'ed out as it is, one card could
well make the difference between working and not working.
Until you test reinstalling the modem and trying to have it assigned to different
resources than what is being used by the NIC, you have no idea if it even is a
resources issue.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
<sona...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129163557....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
sona...@yahoo.com
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> Again, either the device is a PnP-compatible device and can share Resources,
> or it can't, or it may claim to but not do so very well. I fail to see how
> this is a Windows problem.
OK. Perhaps it isn't. Evidently the device simply wasn't
communicating correctly witn PnP.
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> Are you sure the NIC won't share with *any*
> device. Have you tried it? Are you sure it isn't the modem that can't share?
I installed that NIC several times. On at least one occasion, it was
not sharing the modem's IRQ. On another, it was. On both occasions,
the Safe Mode bootup occurs. The conclusion seems to be that the NIC
wants its own IRQ (the Belkin tech support person confirmed this).
Furthermore, as Franc said, ISA devices, like my modem, typically don't
like to share resources with PCI devices, like my NIC. This is
understandable, since they're so old.
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> Windows PnP doesn't *make* a device share
> Resources if the device notifies Windows that it can't do so. It examines
> the device to see what it claims to support, and then takes its word for it.
OK. Then perhaps the NIC simply WASN'T notifying Windows. It probably
simply wasn't tested properly on Win98's PnP.
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> And, again, what makes you think that there is a Resource conflict? Just
> because two devices on the same IRQ causes problems doesn't mean there's a
> Resource Conflict. In your case, my guess is that there was no problem at
> all -- until Windows tried to load the drivers of either the modem or the
> NIC.
Removing one of those devices, the modem, solved the problem. It freed
the modem's IRQ for exclusive use by the NIC. So it had to have been a
resource conflict.
As I stated previously, the modem does not have a driver. And, since
my PC is currently running the NIC driver without a problem, it was not
conflicting with any other SW on my PC.
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> Here's the paragraph I assume your referring to:
> "PnP is *still* a work in progress, but I would suggest that the
> manufacturer
> of the NIC or the modem, or rather the drivers developers, might be as much
> or more to blame. They have to provide the proper instructions to Windows in
> order for Windows to properly handle them."
>
> I realize that my language was muddled, and said so in my response to you in
> this sub-thread. In that what I said could be construed to say that drivers
> alone tell Windows how to treat the device with regard to sharing, that's
> wrong. My brain had leaped to interaction between Windows and the device and
> its drivers and that got mixed up with the purely PnP discussion.
OK. The issue has now been clarified, so I'm happy.
> >
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> > The whole "Hidden Resources Conflict" idea should not be confused with
> being
> > a real Resources conflict.
> >
> > I don't think I did confuse them. Clearly, there was a real resource
> conflict because the problem was resolved when I removed the modem, thus
> freeing an IRQ.
> Clearly, D.M. hid the conflict from my eyes because it did not mark it
> with an !.
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> So you're claiming something akin to criminal neglect on the part of DM,
> <g>?
No. As I said above, and as you said yourself, the problem was most
likely due to the device itself not giving proper instructions to PnP.
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> Hardware can conflict without it being
> due to a Resource Conflict, and DM only flags true Resource Conflicts.
> and I'm willing to bet that the entire problem was the ISA modem and the
> motherboard and/or Windows sharing resources between ISA and PCI devices.
> None of that ever worked very well. That's why most decently configured
> boards with ISA devices use BIOS to reserve the IRQs that ISA devices use.
> But I can't even say that that is strictly a "Resources Conflict".
"the ISA modem and the motherboard and/or Windows sharing RESOURCES
(emphasis mine) between ISA and PCI devices" is NOT a "RESOURCES
Conflict"? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? If not, I didn't get
your meaning. Please be more specific.
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> Again, what you are calling a "Resource Conflict", or a "Hidden Resource
> Conflict", is not what is strictly defined as a Resource Conflict. If it
> were, DM would have flagged it. I don't deny that there were *other*
> conflicts, just not a Resource Conflict in the classic sense.
Please describe the difference between those "classic sense" conflicts
and those "other" conflicts. It's not clear to me. Thanks.
Hugh Candlin
news:1129175300.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> > And, again, what makes you think that there is a Resource conflict? Just
> > because two devices on the same IRQ causes problems doesn't mean there's
a
> > Resource Conflict. In your case, my guess is that there was no problem
at
> > all -- until Windows tried to load the drivers of either the modem or
the
> > NIC.
>
> Removing one of those devices, the modem, solved the problem. It freed
> the modem's IRQ for exclusive use by the NIC. So it had to have been a
> resource conflict.
Not necessarily. You have been advised on a couple of occasions
of other possible reasons, which you have chosen to ignore.
> As I stated previously, the modem does not have a driver.
Yes it does.
A lot of your difficulty is that you are only seeing
that which you want to see, you are only accepting
that which you understand, and you are not keeping
an open mind to ALL of the possibilities.
sona...@yahoo.com
glee wrote:
> Until you test reinstalling the modem and trying to have it assigned to
> different resources than what is being used by the NIC, you have no idea if it > even is a resources issue.
You'r absolutely right glee. I'm just looking into all of the
possibilities because I'm learning a lot from this discussion. The PSU
could very well be the problem. Thanks for the post.
sona...@yahoo.com
Hugh Candlin wrote:
> You have been advised on a couple of occasions
> of other possible reasons, which you have chosen to ignore.
No, I haven't ignored them at all. I took into account the possibility
that it could be a Power Supply problem or one of the other things that
were mentioned. When somebody posts their opininon of what the
problem could be, I simply follow his line of argument as far as it
takes me, to see how valid his conclusion is.
I find that I learn a great deal about how PC's work that way.
The person I was writing to in the previous post seems to think it IS
some kind of resource conflict, although not what he calls a "classic"
conflict. So I'm just following through on his ideas and getting him
to explain himself better.
Patrick wrote:
> > As I stated previously, the modem does not have a driver.
Hugh Candlin wrote:
> Yes it does.
As you can see from reading the thread, Franc had previously written
that my modem does not have a driver. If you believe it does, please
respond to Franc's posting and EXPLAIN why you think he is wrong.
Just saying "Yes it does" doesn't help anyone. Thank You.
Hugh Candlin wrote:
> A lot of your difficulty is that you are only seeing that which you want to
> see, you are only accepting that which you understand, and you are
not
> keeping an open mind to ALL of the possibilities.
As a matter of fact, that is precisely the opposite of what I am doing!
I have carefully considered every opinion that has been written on this
thread. There have been several people who have given me some very
good ideas and I have learned from them all. You may have noticed that
several people have very different ideas about what caused my problem,
so there is no consensus whatsoever about that.
Furthermore, you can see from reading this thread that when there is
something I do not understand, I ask for clarification so that I DO
understand.
My mind is WIDE open to ALL of the possibilities expressed here, which
is why I have responded to most of them, thus making this thread as
long as it is.
Thank you for your opinion nonetheless, Mr. Candlin.
Franc Zabkar
<fza...@iinternode.on.net> put finger to keyboard and composed:
Oops, I hadn't quite finished typing before I posted this.
>>Franc Zabkar wrote:
>I haven't had the need to use them myself, but if you boot to the
>command prompt you can then type "win /?". This will give you a list
>of troubleshooting options for those cases when Windows doesn't start
>properly.
>
>For example, if you type "win /d:n", Windows will attempt to start in
>safe mode with networking. Typing ...
I meant to add that typing "win /d:x" is a way to prevent Windows from
using the area in memory between 640K and 1MB. This sometimes
alleviates conflicts with legacy devices that use the same memory. In
the old DOS days we used to Exclude or Include these memory segments
as dictated by individual circumstances.
>==================================================================
>C:\WIN98SE>win /?
>
>Starts Windows.
>
>WIN [/D:[F][M][S][V][X]]
>
>/D Used for troubleshooting when Windows does not start correctly.
> :X Excludes all of the adapter area from the range of memory
> that Windows scans to find unused space.
> Equivalent to SYSTEM.INI file setting: EMMExclude=A000-FFFF.
>==================================================================
The "Logged: Bootlog.txt" option is available to you as a choice from
the same menu that allows you to select Safe Mode. There is also a
step-by-step mode. The former allows you to capture the boot process
in a log file. This file records the success or failure of certain
events. For example, it will tell you which files and drivers have
been loaded. I don't much more about it as I've been fortunate enough
not to have needed it. Perhaps someone else could explain this to both
of us. :-)
FWIW, the following is an excerpt from an old bootlog. It looks like I
had a problem at one stage with the onboard graphics.
[0010295A] Starting GENERIC NEC FLOPPY DISK
(FLOP\GENERIC_NEC__FLOPPY_DISK_\BIOS&*PNP0700&0C00)
[0010295B] Started GENERIC NEC FLOPPY DISK
(FLOP\GENERIC_NEC__FLOPPY_DISK_\BIOS&*PNP0700&0C00)
[0010295B] Enumerating GENERIC NEC FLOPPY DISK
(FLOP\GENERIC_NEC__FLOPPY_DISK_\BIOS&*PNP0700&0C00)
[0010295B] Enumerated GENERIC NEC FLOPPY DISK
(FLOP\GENERIC_NEC__FLOPPY_DISK_\BIOS&*PNP0700&0C00)
[00102981] Loading PNP drivers of Communications Port
(BIOS\*PNP0501\09)
[00102981] Loaded PNP drivers of Communications Port
(BIOS\*PNP0501\09)
[00102982] Starting Communications Port (BIOS\*PNP0501\09)
[00102983] Started Communications Port (COM1) (BIOS\*PNP0501\09)
[00102983] Enumerating Communications Port (COM1) (BIOS\*PNP0501\09)
[00102983] Enumerated Communications Port (COM1) (BIOS\*PNP0501\09)
[0010298D] Loading PNP drivers of Communications Port
(BIOS\*PNP0501\0A)
[0010298D] Loaded PNP drivers of Communications Port
(BIOS\*PNP0501\0A)
[0010298D] Starting Communications Port (BIOS\*PNP0501\0A)
[0010298E] Started Communications Port (COM4) (BIOS\*PNP0501\0A)
[0010298E] Enumerating Communications Port (COM4) (BIOS\*PNP0501\0A)
[00102993] Enumerated Communications Port (COM4) (BIOS\*PNP0501\0A)
[001029A9] Loading PNP drivers of Printer Port (BIOS\*PNP0400\0B)
[001029A9] Loaded PNP drivers of Printer Port (BIOS\*PNP0400\0B)
[001029A9] Starting Printer Port (BIOS\*PNP0400\0B)
[001029AA] Started Printer Port (LPT1) (BIOS\*PNP0400\0B)
[001029AA] Enumerating Printer Port (LPT1) (BIOS\*PNP0400\0B)
[001029AB] Enumerated Printer Port (LPT1) (BIOS\*PNP0400\0B)
[001029B7] Loading PNP drivers of Standard PCI Graphics Adapter (VGA)
(PCI\VEN_1039&DEV_0200&SUBSYS_02001039&REV_68\BUS_00&DEV_14&FUNC_00)
[001029B7] Loaded PNP drivers of Standard PCI Graphics Adapter (VGA)
(PCI\VEN_1039&DEV_0200&SUBSYS_02001039&REV_68\BUS_00&DEV_14&FUNC_00)
[001029B7] Starting Standard PCI Graphics Adapter (VGA)
(PCI\VEN_1039&DEV_0200&SUBSYS_02001039&REV_68\BUS_00&DEV_14&FUNC_00)
[001029B7] VDD: [001029B7] Cant start theVGA, after init
complete.[001029B7]
Gary S. Terhune
news:1129175300.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>
> > Again, either the device is a PnP-compatible device and can share
Resources,
> > or it can't, or it may claim to but not do so very well. I fail to see
how
> > this is a Windows problem.
>
> OK. Perhaps it isn't. Evidently the device simply wasn't
> communicating correctly witn PnP.
If by not "communicating correctly" you mean the device wasn't accurately
and completely portraying itself to Windows, then yes, that's what I'm
suggesting. The era in which your mobo was manufactured was one in which the
device manufacturers were still learning how to make PnP-Aware devices. And
here, I should apologize for buying into another false definition. PnP is
not the same thing as IRQ Sharing or PCI Steering, etc. PnP is simply the
mechanism by which devices tell Windows what it needs to know in order to
properly configure the devices automatically, with little or no human
intervention. See http://www.pcguide.com/ref/mbsys/res/pnp.htm
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> > Are you sure the NIC won't share with *any*
> > device. Have you tried it? Are you sure it isn't the modem that can't
share?
>
> I installed that NIC several times. On at least one occasion, it was
> not sharing the modem's IRQ. On another, it was. On both occasions,
> the Safe Mode bootup occurs. The conclusion seems to be that the NIC
> wants its own IRQ (the Belkin tech support person confirmed this).
> Furthermore, as Franc said, ISA devices, like my modem, typically don't
> like to share resources with PCI devices, like my NIC. This is
> understandable, since they're so old.
Exactly. But while both modem and NIC much prefer owning an IRQ exclusively,
I'd bet that the modem is at least slightly less adaptive than the NIC. My
only point here is that the modem is just as persnickety about this as the
NIC, probably moreso. Problem is, neither one of them is willing to come
right out and say so, at least not to Windows via PnP. Besides, as you'll
read in the articles beginning with the link above, it's more the mobo and
BIOS that do the maijor configuration chores.
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> > Windows PnP doesn't *make* a device share
> > Resources if the device notifies Windows that it can't do so. It
examines
> > the device to see what it claims to support, and then takes its word for
it.
>
> OK. Then perhaps the NIC simply WASN'T notifying Windows. It probably
> simply wasn't tested properly on Win98's PnP.
More like they have been masquerading all along as devices capable of
sharing resources when they aren't really. Think "marketing department".
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> > And, again, what makes you think that there is a Resource conflict? Just
> > because two devices on the same IRQ causes problems doesn't mean there's
a
> > Resource Conflict. In your case, my guess is that there was no problem
at
> > all -- until Windows tried to load the drivers of either the modem or
the
> > NIC.
>
> Removing one of those devices, the modem, solved the problem. It freed
> the modem's IRQ for exclusive use by the NIC. So it had to have been a
> resource conflict.
Yes, but that information isn't reported to Windows. The BIOS sets them up
according to the capabilities that the devices claim to possess, and on the
face of it, there are no conflicts -- *until* Windows attempts to load the
drivers, at which point the device perhaps tries to snag more resources than
it originally claimed it needed. DM doesn't see this higher layer of
interaction. It pretty much only sees what BIOS reports to it. This is where
my talk of device and drivers got muddled. I was thinking in terms of what
more the drivers attempt to make the system do at a later stage in the boot
cycle than that which involves "Resource Conflicts".
> As I stated previously, the modem does not have a driver. And, since
> my PC is currently running the NIC driver without a problem, it was not
> conflicting with any other SW on my PC.
As Hugh so succinctly states, "Yes, it does." As for "any other SW on (your)
PC", that's never been an issue in this discussion that I know of, except if
you include drivers as being software -- which they are, but they're
classified separately. Drivers provide the interface between Windows
instructions and the hardware it's instructing. Mostly a matter of
translating intent into action, not unlike you translating your intention to
travel to the local supermarket into the specific movements that get you
there, whether by foot or by vehicle. In this case, there's no software,
just wetware.
No. As you;ll discover when you read teh PC Guide articles (be sure to click
on through the ehtire collection on the subject) Windows takes its cue from
BIOS. If BIOS assigns different I/O Ranges to two devices that share the
same IRQ, because that's all the devices demand at that point in time, then
that's what DM reports. If the device only claims to need one range of I/O
and one range of memory when queried by BIOS, but then, after its drivers
load, actually tries to claim more, DM has no knowledge of the later
demands.
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> > So you're claiming something akin to criminal neglect on the part of DM,
> > <g>?
>
> No. As I said above, and as you said yourself, the problem was most
> likely due to the device itself not giving proper instructions to PnP.
>
>
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> > Hardware can conflict without it being
> > due to a Resource Conflict, and DM only flags true Resource Conflicts.
> > and I'm willing to bet that the entire problem was the ISA modem and the
> > motherboard and/or Windows sharing resources between ISA and PCI
devices.
> > None of that ever worked very well. That's why most decently configured
> > boards with ISA devices use BIOS to reserve the IRQs that ISA devices
use.
> > But I can't even say that that is strictly a "Resources Conflict".
>
> "the ISA modem and the motherboard and/or Windows sharing RESOURCES
> (emphasis mine) between ISA and PCI devices" is NOT a "RESOURCES
> Conflict"? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? If not, I didn't get
> your meaning. Please be more specific.
The whole idea of PCI Steering and Sharing is that more than one device can
share the same IRQ, provided they are designed to do so. But if they also
demand the same Memory range and I/O range, then there is a conflict. As
noted above, these demands can change when the drivers are actually loaded,
compared to what the hardware reports to BIOS.
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> > Again, what you are calling a "Resource Conflict", or a "Hidden Resource
> > Conflict", is not what is strictly defined as a Resource Conflict. If it
> > were, DM would have flagged it. I don't deny that there were *other*
> > conflicts, just not a Resource Conflict in the classic sense.
>
> Please describe the difference between those "classic sense" conflicts
> and those "other" conflicts. It's not clear to me. Thanks.
I think I've already done so. Fact is, you're straining my own knowledge on
the subject. I'm not utterly conversant with all the details. I leave that
to others who have studied such things and can actually translate them into
intelligible English (like Franc, for example) It might interest you to know
that I have no disagreement with what Franc has had to say on the subject --
I'm not saying he's 100% correct, but I don't know enough to know where he's
not, if he is. But I also don't see that any of his explanations are in
direct opposition to my own descriptions. It's your own narrow
interpretations that cause them to appear so.
Read the PC Guide articles, and I'll do so as well. (I've done so two or
three times in the past, but at this stage in my life, I find it necessary
to review such details more often.) Since these particular articles were
apparently written just before Windows 98 was released, in the ISA + PCI
era, they ought to relate to your own system fairly well. There's even an
article called, ""Plug and Pray" :^)". I suspect that it will surprise you.
sona...@yahoo.com
was looking for in the first place. I will read them thoroughly.
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> It might interest you to know
> that I have no disagreement with what Franc has had to say on the subject --
Except regarding his belief that my modem has no driver, but only an
.INF File.
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> But I also don't see that any of his explanations are in
> direct opposition to my own descriptions. It's your own narrow
> interpretations that cause them to appear so.
I didn't make an interpretation, actually. I simply read the words
that you wrote and, as you yourself described them, "I realize that my
language was muddled." But let's not belabor the point. Your
intention is much clearer now and I'm sure the articles will make them
even clearer. Thanks very much for your help on this!
Gary S. Terhune
news:1129194625.4...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Except regarding his belief that my modem has no driver, but only an
> .INF File.
I'm not going to get into that one. It's more a matter of semantics, like
most of this discussion has been.
Franc Zabkar
<grys...@mvps.org> put finger to keyboard and composed:
><sona...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1129194625.4...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Except regarding his belief that my modem has no driver, but only an
>> .INF File.
>
>I'm not going to get into that one. It's more a matter of semantics, like
>most of this discussion has been.
At the risk of appearing pedantic, I'll endeavour to explain why I
consider the difference to be significant.
There are three types of internal modems, "soft", controllerless, and
"hard" (controller based). Softmodems have a DAA (telephone line
interface), controllerless modems have a DAA and DSP (digital signal
processor), and "hard" modems have a DAA, DSP, and controller.
Among other things, a modem's controller handles AT command parsing,
UART emulation, data compression and error correction. The DSP handles
all the CPU intensive tasks.
Examples of softmodem chipsets are PCtel HSP, Motorola SM56,
Smartlink, and Conexant HSF. Controllerless examples include Conexant
HCF, Intel HaM, Lucent Win Modem, and USR Winmodem.
This is a block diagram of the modem's functional parts:
PCI/ --- PnP --- UART/ --- controller --- DSP --- DAA - phone line
ISA logic COM port
bus logic
A full hardware modem will have all the above parts and will appear to
the OS like a standard COM port. Therefore it will require no drivers
other than those normally associated with a serial port. Such a modem
will be visible to DOS, if its resources have been assigned.
A controllerless modem, OTOH, has no COM port and no controller. It
therefore requires drivers to emulate these missing components. A
softmodem requires additional drivers to add DSP functionality.
The reason that a modem requires an INF file is that this text file
contains a list of commands and responses supported by the modem's
firmware or drivers. Because each modem's command set is peculiar to
its chipset, software applications require APIs to communicate
transparently with the modem. For example, if an app needs to place
the modem in voice answer mode, then it consults the following
registry key:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Class\Modem\000n\VoiceAnswer
In my case this key has 7 AT commands that perform the requested
function. Other modems will have different commands for the same
thing.
The complete set of commands and responses are to be found in the INF
file. The installation process for a "hard" modem primarily involves
adding the INF file's data to this registry key:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Class\Modem\000n
where 000n is the number of the modem, if you have more than one.
mae
--
mae
"Franc Zabkar" <fza...@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message news:vgcuk11m2cmliimsn...@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 02:36:10 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune"
| <grys...@mvps.org> put finger to keyboard and composed:
|
| ><sona...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >news:1129194625.4...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
--snip-
sona...@yahoo.com
appreciate it very much! Several others on this site have helped me as
well.
Since my PC works well now without the modem, and since I don't need a
modem anymore, it's not really worthwhile for me to go back and
determine with absolute certainty what the cause of the Safe Mode
bootup was.
At the very least, I have more knowledge about my PC now, so that if
this kind of problem ever occurs again, I will be able to troubleshoot
it much more effectively.
That being said, I propose ending this thread now and moving on to
others.
Once again, thanks to everybody for their generous input.
Patrick
Gary S. Terhune
sona...@yahoo.com has a hardware modem that does not require any drivers
(as he claims) and only uses the serial port, why there would be an IRQ
assigned to the modem?
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
"Franc Zabkar" <fza...@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:vgcuk11m2cmliimsn...@4ax.com...
Hugh Candlin
news:u54h9cN0...@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Thank you, Franc. Always appreciated. Now, can you explain to me why, if
> sona...@yahoo.com has a hardware modem that does not require any drivers
> (as he claims) and only uses the serial port, why there would be an IRQ
> assigned to the modem?
The IRQs are assigned to the Serial Ports.
Internal modems are treated just like serial ports.
Ergo, ipso facto, et cetera.......
Gary S. Terhune
"Hugh Candlin" <N...@Spam.Com> wrote in message
news:OCANTUP...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Exactly! So if one is to claim that an external modem requires no drivers,
because it uses a serial port (or parallel or USB), that also holds true for
the IRQ. There is no IRQ assigned to the modem, only to the port it's using.
Can't have it both ways. Which is why this thread has been so confusing. If,
in fact, it *was* both ways, then either the modem has drivers or the IRQ
assignment to the modem was in fact unnecessary.
sona...@yahoo.com
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> can you explain to me why, if
> sona...@yahoo.com has a hardware modem that does not require any drivers
> (as he claims) and only uses the serial port, why there would be an IRQ
> assigned to the modem?
First of all:
I was trusting Franc's expertise when I said the modem has no drivers.
I originally thought it did, but Franc said otherwise, so I went with
what he said (as you can see by reading the thread carefully).
Secondly:
It is an internal modem, you know. So an IRQ is assigned to it. If it
were external, it would use the serial port's IRQ.
Perhaps we should put an end to the thread now? It's gone on for quite
some time.
Gary S. Terhune
confusion that developed here. But first, I was mistaken (I think) when I
restricted my previous description to an "external" modem. It could also be
an internal pure-hardware ISA modem. *If* that were the case, there would be
no drivers, but there would also be no IRQ assigned. Here's the paragraph
Franc wrote on that.
"If this is an ISA "hardware" non-PnP modem, then it would
most likely have occupied IRQ 3 or IRQ 4 and would have appeared as a
standard COM port in DM."
Note the starting "If". You appear to have read that as saying that you had
such a modem and therefore had no drivers. Which isn't what Franc was
saying. Many ISA modems are not "pure-hardware" modems and require both IRQ
and other Resources to be assigned to them. They also need Windows drivers.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
<sona...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129323302.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
sona...@yahoo.com
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> Here's the paragraph Franc wrote on that.
>
> "If this is an ISA "hardware" non-PnP modem, then it would
> most likely have occupied IRQ 3 or IRQ 4 and would have appeared as a
> standard COM port in DM."
>
> Note the starting "If". You appear to have read that as saying that you had
> such a modem and therefore had no drivers. Which isn't what Franc was
> saying. Many ISA modems are not "pure-hardware" modems and require both IRQ
> and other Resources to be assigned to them. They also need Windows drivers.
No, I didn't read it as saying that I HAVE such a modem. I knew Franc
was saying simply that ISA "hardware" non-PnP modems don't have
drivers.
But it does look like I misunderstood what he meant by the term
"hardware" modem. Franc didn't define the term and, based on what
you just wrote, it looks like the term has a more technical definition
than I thought. That looks like the root of the problem.
Perhaps you can fill in the details and explain precisely what is the
difference between "hardware" and "soft" modems. BTW, my modem is a US
Robotics Sportster 56K FaxModem. Based on that information, perhaps
you can tell me what category it fits into. Thanks.
Gary S. Terhune
sub-thread, at explaining the technical differences. I *believe* the
Sportster is a WinModem chipset. But you should look at it carefully and
figure out exactly what model it is, perhaps using this page to help you
identify it:
http://www.usr.com/support/s-main-menu.asp
If it's a WinModem, it's not controllerless, but it doesn't have all
signal-processing abilities built in. Some of that is done by Windows. FWIW,
here's how I think of them, though I'm not sure,. and in fact I very much
doubt, that this is a totally accurate and reliable rule-of-thumb:
When your modem is what I called a "pure-hardware" modem, you won't
necessarily see it listed in DM. Or if you do see it, it has no resources
assigned other than those that are assigned to the COM or parallel or USB
port it's connected to. When it's a "WinModem" type, you will see the modem
listed as a separate device, complete with its own resources. When it's a
softmodem, there will be an entry for the modem *and* an entry for the
controller. I forget how they deal with resources. (I don't happen to have a
machine running with a modem installed at this moment.)
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
<sona...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129340589.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
glee
> I don't think I can do better than Franc did, 8 posts back up this
> sub-thread, at explaining the technical differences.
Agreed....nor can I. Franc has been a resource in the groups as long as I can
remember.
> I *believe* the
> Sportster is a WinModem chipset. But you should look at it carefully and
> figure out exactly what model it is, perhaps using this page to help you
> identify it:
> http://www.usr.com/support/s-main-menu.asp
I appear to have a very similar modem in a machine here:
U.S. Robotics 56K FAX INT PnP
I have previously thought that this was a "hardware" modem, but it has a Resources
tab in DM, showing IRQ3 and an I/O Range of 02F8-02FF. From this discussion I would
assume it is a controllerless modem, based on the fact that true hardware modems
that I have here do *not* have any resources tab in DM. I never actually paid much
attention to it, as I rarely even turn that machine on.
> If it's a WinModem, it's not controllerless, but it doesn't have all
> signal-processing abilities built in. Some of that is done by Windows. FWIW,
> here's how I think of them, though I'm not sure,. and in fact I very much
> doubt, that this is a totally accurate and reliable rule-of-thumb:
>
> When your modem is what I called a "pure-hardware" modem, you won't
> necessarily see it listed in DM. Or if you do see it, it has no resources
> assigned other than those that are assigned to the COM or parallel or USB
> port it's connected to.
All the internal hardware modems I have used appear in DM. As you say, they do not
have a Resources tab, and the only assigned resources appear to be of the COM port.
> When it's a "WinModem" type, you will see the modem
> listed as a separate device, complete with its own resources.
That is what I see with the USR modem here.
> When it's a
> softmodem, there will be an entry for the modem *and* an entry for the
> controller. I forget how they deal with resources. (I don't happen to have a
> machine running with a modem installed at this moment.)
I have a Broadxent DSI v.92 modem here, and it also installs a DSI WDM Modem
Enumerator in DM. The modem listing does not have a Resources tab, but the
Enumerator does, with an IRQ and an I/O Range.
HTH....
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
Gary S. Terhune
news:uQ4qafT0...@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> From: "Gary S. Terhune"
> > I don't think I can do better than Franc did, 8 posts back up this
> > sub-thread, at explaining the technical differences.
>
> Agreed....nor can I. Franc has been a resource in the groups as long as I
can
> remember.
Well, either my CRS syndrome has worsened dramatically over the last year or
Franc has not frequented this group much. I kinda don't want to know which,
:<|
<snip lots of good stuff>
> HTH....
Indeed it has, indeed it has.
glee
from perhaps the win95 groups, and also from some alt.comp or comp.sys groups, going
back to 1998-99. I remember him explaining in detail about a monitor problem I had
back then.
"Gary S. Terhune" <grys...@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:eihQlbU0...@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Gary S. Terhune
might leave... ;<)
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
"glee" <gle...@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
news:OgXxkqX0...@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
PCR
him for me, & see if he'll accept it. If not, progress to adequate. Did
take him quite a bit to get here from Win95, though!
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcr...@netzero.net
"Gary S. Terhune" <grys...@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%23ccd2Fa...@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)
>Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>> can you explain why a hardware modem that does not require drivers
>> (as he claims) and only uses the serial port, why there would be an IRQ
>> assigned to the modem?
External serial modems connect to an existing serial port. Serial
ports have two hardware resources; a set of IO ports, and an IRQ. The
system usees standard OS drivers to communicate with the modem over
the serial port, so the only "drivers" needed for straightforward fax
or data use (i.e. not voice messaging) is an .inf that defines the
modem's AT command language, and the responses it gives.
Internal modems vary. The older "hardware" ones based on the ISA bus
are in fact serial modems that are built into the card, along with an
extra serial port; once again, the port is driven natively, and
through it, the modem is "driven" via the AT language etc.
Newer internal modems (both some ISAs and most PCI modems) go beyond
abstracting the serial port into the modem's chipset, to offloading
most of the modem's functionality to the host PC. There's no longer a
standard serial port interface between PC and modem, and there's the
need for special driver code to drive the modem.
Some of these modems are "harder" than others, i.e. the extent to
which the modem's work is done in the card's hardware vs. by the PC's
processor running driver code, can vary. Not all "hardware" internal
modems - especially PCI ones - are "hard" all the way to including all
hardware on the card, complete with "serial port" as interface.
>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
I'm baaaack!
>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)
>It could also be an internal pure-hardware ISA modem. *If* that were
>the case, there would be no drivers,
True
>but there would also be no IRQ assigned.
No, typically there would indeed be typical serial port hardware
resources assigned to the serial port built into the thing.
Typically, serial ports are:
COM1 = IO port 03F8, IRQ 4
COM2 = IO port 02F8, IRQ 3
COM3 = IO port 03E8, IRQ 4
COM4 = IO port 02E8, IRQ 3
Because COM1 and COM3 share the same IRQ, both cannot be used at the
same time - and the same applies to COM2 and COM4. Most PCs of this
vintage use a serial mouse, so certain combinations have to be sought:
COM1 = mouse
COM2 = external modem
COM1 = external modem
COM2 = mouse
So far, so good, but when an internal modem adds a 3rd serial port, it
has to be one of the following...
COM1 = mouse
COM2 = not used
COM4 = internal modem
COM1 = not used
COM2 = mouse
COM3 = internal modem
COM1 = mouse
(COM2 = disabled)
COM2 = internal modem
...and not this...
COM1 = mouse
COM2 = not used
COM3 = internal modem
...as that conflicts the mouse and modem on shared IRQ 4, unless (as
can happen) the modem on COM3 is set to use a non-standard IRQ.
cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)
>From: "Gary S. Terhune"
>I appear to have a very similar modem in a machine here:
>U.S. Robotics 56K FAX INT PnP
>I have previously thought that this was a "hardware" modem, but it has a Resources
>tab in DM, showing IRQ3 and an I/O Range of 02F8-02FF. From this discussion I would
>assume it is a controllerless modem, based on the fact that true hardware modems
>that I have here do *not* have any resources tab in DM. I never actually paid much
>attention to it, as I rarely even turn that machine on.
That looks like a standard resource set for a COM2, which I'd expect
to see in Device manager, but as a serial IO port rather than as part
of the modem's resources (unless it appears in both places).
"Soft" modems usually have resources that are atypical for serial
ports, such as IRQ 5, or IRQ 9, etc. with oddball IO ports, or perhaps
even no IO ports but "memory" assigned instead.
>I have a Broadxent DSI v.92 modem here, and it also installs a DSI WDM Modem
>Enumerator in DM. The modem listing does not have a Resources tab, but the
>Enumerator does, with an IRQ and an I/O Range.
It can get pretty messy, with some "soft" modems having a "modem
enumerator" device, or a non-standard serial port device, as well as
the modem itself in Device Manager - or the modem may appear as a
"communication device" rather than as a modem per se.
If MSD can't see it as an extra serial port UART in DOS mode, and/or a
DOS mode terminal program such as Terminate can't "talk" to it from
DOS mode, then that's a reliable sign that it is to some extent "soft"
Gary S. Terhune
"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquir...@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in
message news:5a23l1l113emv7pc9...@4ax.com...
>
> >--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
> I'm baaaack!
> >--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
You sure are!
Franc Zabkar
<grys...@mvps.org> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>Thank you, Franc. Always appreciated. Now, can you explain to me why, if
>sona...@yahoo.com has a hardware modem that does not require any drivers
>(as he claims) and only uses the serial port, why there would be an IRQ
>assigned to the modem?
The resources really belong to the COM port, not the modem. As far as
the OS is concerned, there is no functional difference between an
internal hardware modem attached to its own on-card COM port and an
external modem attached to a COM port on the motherboard. A modem is
to a COM port as a printer is to a parallel port.
What you are probably seeing in DM is a hardware modem with on-card
PnP logic, ie a jumperless modem. My modem is presently configured
with jumpers (for DOS compatibility), but can be configured as PnP. In
the PnP case, DM has a "Rockwell ACF2" entry in the Modem section but
no corresponding COM entry under Ports. The modem's drivers
(serial.vxd, vmm32.vxd) and resources are those of a standard COM
port. In the jumpered case, DM detects a COM2 and allocates resources
to it. There is a "Rockwell ACF2" entry in the Modem section, but
without a resources tab. Once again its "drivers" are those of a COM
port.
To prove that a modem doesn't need special drivers, boot to pure DOS
mode and issue the following command:
echo AT L3 M2 H1 > COMn where n = 1,2,3, or 4
An external serial modem or an internal "hard" modem will respond by
enabling its speaker, setting its volume to maximum, and taking the
phone line off-hook. You should hear a dialtone. Type "echo ATH >
COMn" to hangup. All this is achieved with a command (echo) internal
to command.com. No drivers are required. Note that a PnP modem must
have had resources allocated to it before this will work.
The following diagram describes what happens at the hardware level.
_
| | | | two |
modem - INTR --o o---- IRQn pin --- 8259 PICs --- CPU INT pin
chipset pin jumper | | |
| | m/board |
modem | ISA bus | chipset | CPU
The signal path from the modem's interrupt pin to the CPU's interrupt
pin is hardwired on the motherboard. The two PICs (programmable
interrupt controllers) handle the 15 ISA IRQs. In this example the
user determines the resource assignments by means of jumpers. Once
set, the modem powers up with the selected resources and neither the
BIOS nor the OS can change them.
An alternative arrangement involves jumperless cards. One
implementation (as used on my ISA modem) replaces the jumpers with a
PnP chip, as follows.
|
modem - INTR - PnP --- IRQ pin -->>
chipset pin logic | ISA bus
Essentially what this does is replace manual jumpering with an
electronic, software controlled, multi-position switch. The following
diagrams show both jumpered and jumperless configurations (IRQ4 is
selected). The latter has a Not Connected (NC) position corresponding
to the resourceless state of a PnP device during the enumeration
process, and when it is disabled.
|--------> to modem chipset's
________|_______ interrupt pin
| | | | | |
o o o o o o
X two row jumper block
o o o o o o (manual selection)
| | | | | |
IRQ 3 4 5 10 11 12 ISA slot connector
|--------> to modem chipset's
| interrupt pin
/
/ electronic switch
/ (software selection)
o o o o o o o
| | | | | |
IRQ 3 4 5 10 11 12 NC ISA slot connector
Depending on the architecture, resources can be assigned at the
hardware level, BIOS level, or OS level. AFAICT, the ACPI and "PnP
aware OS" settings in the BIOS setup partly determine how and when the
resources are distributed, so it's not always DM that has the final
say. The whole process is a bit of a mystery to me because it is not
easy to see who is responsible for what.
For example, the user manual for the OP's motherboard states that its
multi-IO chip (serial/parallel/FDC/KBC/mouse) is PNP compatible.
See
ftp://download.intel.com/support/motherboards/desktop/an430tx/28295501.pdf
It has this to say about the BIOS setting for PnP OS (page 55):
"If you select in Setup to boot with a Plug and Play OS, the BIOS
auto-configures only ISA Plug and Play cards that are required for
booting (IPL devices). If you select to not boot with a Plug and Play
OS, the BIOS auto-configures all Plug and Play ISA cards."
In my case, my motherboard's BIOS is unable to configure my PnP ISA
modem and leaves the task to the OS.
Franc Zabkar
>I appear to have a very similar modem in a machine here:
>U.S. Robotics 56K FAX INT PnP
>I have previously thought that this was a "hardware" modem, but it has a Resources
>tab in DM, showing IRQ3 and an I/O Range of 02F8-02FF. From this discussion I would
>assume it is a controllerless modem, based on the fact that true hardware modems
>that I have here do *not* have any resources tab in DM. I never actually paid much
>attention to it, as I rarely even turn that machine on.
To identify a recent modem as "hard" or "soft", look for two chips, a
PROM, EPROM, or flash EEPROM (part number 27xxxx or 28xxxx or 29xxxx)
and a static RAM (eg 61256, 62256). The former contains the modem
firmware while the SRAM is required to buffer data in error correction
and data compression modes.
If either of these chips are missing, then you probably do not have a
"hard" modem. Be aware that the SRAM is sometimes hidden under the
flash EEPROM chip.
>> If it's a WinModem, it's not controllerless, but it doesn't have all
The USR experts at comp.dcom.modems maintain that the term "WinModem"
is a trademark of USR and refers to their line of controllerless
modems. To confuse the issue, Lucent refer to their controllerless
modems as Win Modems. <shrug>
>> signal-processing abilities built in. Some of that is done by Windows. FWIW,
>> here's how I think of them, though I'm not sure,. and in fact I very much
>> doubt, that this is a totally accurate and reliable rule-of-thumb:
>>
>> When your modem is what I called a "pure-hardware" modem, you won't
>> necessarily see it listed in DM. Or if you do see it, it has no resources
>> assigned other than those that are assigned to the COM or parallel or USB
>> port it's connected to.
>
>All the internal hardware modems I have used appear in DM. As you say, they do not
>have a Resources tab, and the only assigned resources appear to be of the COM port.
Same experience here, although I've always used jumpered modems.
However, if I reconfigure my present hardware ISA modem for PnP
(jumperless) mode, it shows up in DM the same way as yours does. Even
so, it still uses the same drivers and resources as a standard COM
port. I think the difference is that in the former case the resources
are assigned to the COM port, whereas in the latter case they are
assigned to the PnP chip which then programs the COM port.
You get some interesting behaviour if you boot in pure DOS mode and
view DOS's port table using Debug.
debug
-d 40:0 f
0040:0000 F8 03 E8 02 00 00 00 00-78 03 78 02 00 00 0F 02
^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^
COM1 COM2 COM3 COM4 LPT1 LPT2 LPT3
Here you see the IO addresses of the various ports. For example, COM1
exists at 3F8. Note that DOS names the ports in the order in which
they are detected whereas Windows names them according to their IO
address. So COM2 (2E8) above would be seen by Windows as COM4. My PnP
modem does not appear in the above table because my BIOS doesn't
configure it, not even when it is set to "PnP aware OS = No". If I now
type "win" and boot to the GUI, DM allocates resources to a third COM
port (the modem) at 2F8. Switching to a Windows DOS box produces no
change to DOS's port table, even though the modem works properly in
Windows. Typing "mode COM3" in the DOS window produces ...
Illegal device name
- COM3
Sending "echo AT L3 M2 H1 > COM3" to the modem results in silence.
I now use Debug to add COM3 to the port table as follows:
debug
-e 40:4
0040:0004 00.f8 00.02
-d 40:0 f
0040:0000 F8 03 E8 02 F8 02 00 00-78 03 78 02 00 00 0F 02
-q
The "echo" command now produces a dialtone and "mode COM3" returns ...
Status for device COM3:
-----------------------
Retry=NONE
These changes are lost when you exit the DOS box.