PC Review
Forums
Newsgroups
Windows 2000
Microsoft Windows 2000 Hardware
Re: W2K and irq sharing
Forums
Newsgroups
Windows 2000
Microsoft Windows 2000 Hardware
Re: W2K and irq sharing
![]() |
Re: W2K and irq sharing |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hi and thanks for your info.. i'm having simalar
problems... i've got win2k sp4 with an intel 845gebv2l.. with only one pci slot used... it does have 6 pci slots.. and does use onboard audio and video... but i've tried to modems... supermax from diamond.. with software that can serve as answering machine and also the creative modem blaster that suposedly offers answering machine/fax/ and voice.. as it has mic in and speaker out.. my device drivers show no 'conflict'... but when i try the dialer.. with either of these softwars... one being.. 'faxtalk' and the other being supervoice with the creative... v9.2.. my mouse will lock up... for some time then release.. and of course it will not record inbound messages.. or allow me to call out... i've been on the phone with creative for several hours... exploring various options with no luck.. and diamond has no support any longer... sooo i'm up the creek right now... i've reformatted.. reloaded... and i do know that hyperterminal works just fine... but when you go to using the modem supplied software... she locks up for ohh bout 3 to 5 minutes then it will release the mouse.. so anything you can tell me would be great... please feel free to email me at sevans@bak.rr.com and thank you >It is not generally desirable to use IRQ9, as the ACPI >controller wants to grab it, without telling. > >Don't use it if at all possible. > >Newer hardware will reserve it for ACPI in the BIOS, >or you can set it to ISA/Legacy there as well to keep PCI >stuff from trying to snag it. > >"Pavel A." <pavel_a@geeklife.com> wrote in message >news:#wE#RccPDHA.3700@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... >> "Simon." <simonj@sjbwool.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:fk8rfvs2391ciu3cmaq7rjglitdb59ka9q@4ax.com... >> > I thought that IRQ 2 was the chained link between the interrupt chips >> > which means that irq 2 and 9 are the same thing. >> > >> > My memory may be failing though ! >> >> No, irq 9 is not same as irq 2. It's time to begin forgetting about dos ![]() >> -- PA >> >> >> > > >. > |
|
![]() |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Rate This Thread | |
|
|

Main Page 


