New PCI card on old motherboard

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Hello all,

I've (finally) hopped on the Wi-Fi bandwagon, and bought, among other
gear, a pair of PCI 802.11g network adapters.

Problem is, the PCI card is properly detected on my recent motherboard
(2001 ASUS A7V133-C SocketA) but *NOT* on my older motherboard (1997
ASUS P/I-P55T2P4 Socket7).

I've tried 3 different PCI slots, removed all ISA cards, increased the
PCI bus latency (whatever that does)... Still the card does not show up
in the BIOS summary (right before the OS boots). I've loaded Knoppix,
and, unsurprisingly, lspci does not see the adapter either (I thought
Linux might perform initialization which the BIOS forgot).

Is it possible that recent PCI cards DO NOT WORK plain and simple in
older motherboards? Isn't there some kind of backward compatibility?

P.S. why is the old Socket7 called Socket7? It's not like the CPU only
has 7 pins, right?

--
Regards, Grumble
36 answers Last reply
More about card motherboard
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:00:25 +0100, Grumble wrote:

    > Hello all,
    >
    > I've (finally) hopped on the Wi-Fi bandwagon, and bought, among other
    > gear, a pair of PCI 802.11g network adapters.

    Nice. ...haven't gone there yet. I opened up the walls and ran a CAT-5
    and RG6 to my "office" (there are advantages to having the kid move out
    ;-).
    >
    > Problem is, the PCI card is properly detected on my recent motherboard
    > (2001 ASUS A7V133-C SocketA) but *NOT* on my older motherboard (1997
    > ASUS P/I-P55T2P4 Socket7).

    Oops.

    > I've tried 3 different PCI slots, removed all ISA cards, increased the
    > PCI bus latency (whatever that does)...

    The PCI bus latence timer has nothing to do with the congiguration phase.
    Basically, the PCI latency timer is the *minimum* time-slot (in PCI
    cocks) that a device is alowed to "hog" the bus. Once the bus has been
    granted (GNT# active) to a device the timer starts. If the bus arbiter
    then decides to grant access to another device (GNT# de-asserted) the
    first device does *not* have to give up the bus until the latency timer
    goes to zero. If it's already zero it must immediately fork over access
    to the bus.

    It's not your problem (though you went the wrong way with it ;-).

    > Still the card does not show up
    > in the BIOS summary (right before the OS boots). I've loaded Knoppix,
    > and, unsurprisingly, lspci does not see the adapter either (I thought
    > Linux might perform initialization which the BIOS forgot).

    Have you seen this with any other cards? What chipset (Northbridge)?

    > Is it possible that recent PCI cards DO NOT WORK plain and simple in
    > older motherboards? Isn't there some kind of backward compatibility?

    It's certainly possible.

    <straw_grasping_mode>
    Is it a "universal" PCI card or is it a 5V card. It's possible it's
    intended for 3.3V PCI?
    <straw_grasping_mode/>

    > P.S. why is the old Socket7 called Socket7? It's not like the CPU only
    > has 7 pins, right?

    ....umm because it came after Socket-6 (PPro), Socket-5 (early Pentia -
    single supply), Socket-4 (486)? ;-)

    --
    Keith
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:00:25 +0100, Grumble <devnull@kma.eu.org> wrote:

    >Hello all,
    >
    >I've (finally) hopped on the Wi-Fi bandwagon, and bought, among other
    >gear, a pair of PCI 802.11g network adapters.
    >
    >Problem is, the PCI card is properly detected on my recent motherboard
    >(2001 ASUS A7V133-C SocketA) but *NOT* on my older motherboard (1997
    >ASUS P/I-P55T2P4 Socket7).

    Ah the famous P55T2P4. Are you running standard clocking and have you
    checked your BIOS to make sure it's the last one issued?

    >I've tried 3 different PCI slots, removed all ISA cards, increased the
    >PCI bus latency (whatever that does)... Still the card does not show up
    >in the BIOS summary (right before the OS boots). I've loaded Knoppix,
    >and, unsurprisingly, lspci does not see the adapter either (I thought
    >Linux might perform initialization which the BIOS forgot).

    Sometimes cards just don't/didn't show in the BIOS summary list - no idea
    why. Do you have PnP OS enabled in the BIOS Setup? That could prevent the
    BIOS from do a full enumeration of PnP... i.e. leaving it to the OS to
    figure out. I don't recall if the P55T2P4 BIOS had a "Reset Configuration"
    or "Clear NVRAM" option - worth a try if it does. Also try disabling
    something, like COM2 to make sure an IRQ is free.

    >Is it possible that recent PCI cards DO NOT WORK plain and simple in
    >older motherboards? Isn't there some kind of backward compatibility?

    PnP was kinda half-baked back then, with the P55T2P4. I recall having
    monumental "quarrels" with it, on some mbrds, where it would not release
    resources back after they'd been assigned to a card which had subsequently
    been removed. In one case I had to remove everything and boot it with a
    bare config... to "give it a jolt"... and then put things back in an order
    which got the dissenting card recognized before others.

    Rgds, George Macdonald

    "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:00:25 +0100, Grumble <devnull@kma.eu.org> wrote:

    >Is it possible that recent PCI cards DO NOT WORK plain and simple in
    >older motherboards? Isn't there some kind of backward compatibility?

    IOW if setting the IRQ manually in the BIOS for the slot the card is in
    to an IRQ that is not already in use/shared by other devices might help?

    Ed
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 16:34:20 -0600, Ed wrote:

    > On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:00:25 +0100, Grumble <devnull@kma.eu.org> wrote:
    >
    >>Is it possible that recent PCI cards DO NOT WORK plain and simple in
    >>older motherboards? Isn't there some kind of backward compatibility?
    >
    > IOW if setting the IRQ manually in the BIOS for the slot the card is in
    > to an IRQ that is not already in use/shared by other devices might help?

    Were it junt an IRQ issue, the card would still show up in the
    configuration.

    --
    Keith
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    > I've (finally) hopped on the Wi-Fi bandwagon, and bought, among
    > other gear, a pair of PCI 802.11g network adapters.
    >
    > Problem is, the PCI card is properly detected on my recent
    > motherboard (2001 ASUS A7V133-C SocketA) but *NOT* on my older
    > motherboard (1997 ASUS P/I-P55T2P4 Socket7).

    lack of PCI 2.1 or something, it wont work


    Pozdrawiam.
    --
    RusH //
    http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
    Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
    You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 23:49:48 +0000, RusH wrote:

    >> I've (finally) hopped on the Wi-Fi bandwagon, and bought, among
    >> other gear, a pair of PCI 802.11g network adapters.
    >>
    >> Problem is, the PCI card is properly detected on my recent
    >> motherboard (2001 ASUS A7V133-C SocketA) but *NOT* on my older
    >> motherboard (1997 ASUS P/I-P55T2P4 Socket7).
    >
    > lack of PCI 2.1 or something, it wont work

    The differences between 2.0, 2.1, and 2.2 are rather trivial. There's
    nothing in there that would cause your problems.

    --
    Keith
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 13:59:36 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

    ....snip...
    >
    >> P.S. why is the old Socket7 called Socket7? It's not like the CPU only
    >> has 7 pins, right?
    >
    >...umm because it came after Socket-6 (PPro), Socket-5 (early Pentia -
    >single supply), Socket-4 (486)? ;-)
    IIRC, Socket4 was for bigger, 5V Pentium 60/66 - the ones with
    (in)famous FDIV bug.
    486 used Socket3
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 03:25:20 +0000, nobody@nowhere.net wrote:

    > On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 13:59:36 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >
    > ...snip...
    >>
    >>> P.S. why is the old Socket7 called Socket7? It's not like the CPU only
    >>> has 7 pins, right?
    >>
    >>...umm because it came after Socket-6 (PPro), Socket-5 (early Pentia -
    >>single supply), Socket-4 (486)? ;-)
    > IIRC, Socket4 was for bigger, 5V Pentium 60/66 - the ones with
    > (in)famous FDIV bug.
    > 486 used Socket3

    You're probably right. When one gets old... ;-)

    --
    Keith
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote :

    > On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 23:49:48 +0000, RusH wrote:
    >
    >> lack of PCI 2.1 or something, it wont work
    >
    > The differences between 2.0, 2.1, and 2.2 are rather trivial.
    > There's nothing in there that would cause your problems.

    not my problems :) and those trivial differences make day and night
    when it comes to wifi cards. I work as WISP consultant, its a common
    problem. Just like USB2 cards - they dont work in Pentium 1
    motherboards.


    Pozdrawiam.
    --
    RusH //
    http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
    Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
    You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    RusH wrote:

    > not my problems :) and those trivial differences make day and night
    > when it comes to wifi cards. I work as WISP consultant, its a common
    > problem. Just like USB2 cards - they dont work in Pentium 1
    > motherboards.

    The card I tested was an MSI PC54G2:
    http://www.msi.com.tw/program/products/communication/cmu/pro_cmu_detail.php?UID=584
    http://www.msicomputer.com/product/p_spec.asp?model=PC54G2

    NOTE: It was the cheapest I could find ;-)

    Do you think I'll have problems with every PCI 802.11g card,
    or is there one that might work with the P55T2P4?

    --
    Regards, Grumble
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 07:22:33 +0000, RusH wrote:

    > keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote :
    >
    >> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 23:49:48 +0000, RusH wrote:
    >>
    >>> lack of PCI 2.1 or something, it wont work
    >>
    >> The differences between 2.0, 2.1, and 2.2 are rather trivial.
    >> There's nothing in there that would cause your problems.
    >
    > not my problems :)

    Oops! ;-)

    > and those trivial differences make day and night
    > when it comes to wifi cards. I work as WISP consultant, its a common
    > problem. Just like USB2 cards - they dont work in Pentium 1
    > motherboards.

    The differences between these PCI levels have nothing to do with the
    configuration cycles. I don't remember all of them (My fourth edition
    Shanley and Anderson is at work), but some were things like cachable
    memory allowed in 2.0, discourraged in 2.1, and forbidden in 2.2. I'd
    have to look up the complete list.

    BTW, P5 motherboards didn't like USB1.x either. ;-)
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:39:05 -0500, keith wrote:

    > On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 07:22:33 +0000, RusH wrote:
    >
    >> keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote :
    >>
    >>> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 23:49:48 +0000, RusH wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> lack of PCI 2.1 or something, it wont work
    >>>
    >>> The differences between 2.0, 2.1, and 2.2 are rather trivial.
    >>> There's nothing in there that would cause your problems.
    >>
    >> not my problems :)
    >
    > Oops! ;-)
    >
    >> and those trivial differences make day and night
    >> when it comes to wifi cards. I work as WISP consultant, its a common
    >> problem. Just like USB2 cards - they dont work in Pentium 1
    >> motherboards.
    >
    > The differences between these PCI levels have nothing to do with the
    > configuration cycles. I don't remember all of them (My fourth edition
    > Shanley and Anderson is at work), but some were things like cachable
    > memory allowed in 2.0, discourraged in 2.1, and forbidden in 2.2. I'd
    > have to look up the complete list.

    Hmm, after a quick web search, it appears there is a problem with some
    WiFi (Netgear in particular) and other than PCI 2.2. Indeed Netgear
    specifies a PCI 2.2 compliant system for the WG311.

    Now I'm curious. What is the issue (I've never seen a real difference
    before)? I'll have to read up on the differences between PCI 2.1 and 2.2
    tomorrow.

    > BTW, P5 motherboards didn't like USB1.x either. ;-)

    --
    Keith
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Grumble <devnull@kma.eu.org> wrote :

    > NOTE: It was the cheapest I could find ;-)

    there are like 5 makers on the Taiwan, the rest of the band are just
    sticker monkeys, no mater what you buy, you will end up with
    Globalsuntech or one of other OEMs

    > Do you think I'll have problems with every PCI 802.11g card,
    > or is there one that might work with the P55T2P4?

    the cheapest AP goes for 30$, G starts at 50$ I think. Linksys WAP54G
    is ok for the price, very stable + you can make your custom firmware
    (mips running Linux).

    Pozdrawiam.
    --
    RusH //
    http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
    Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
    You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Keith wrote:

    > On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:00:25 +0100, Grumble wrote:
    >
    >> Still the card does not show up in the BIOS summary (right before
    >> the OS boots). I've loaded Knoppix, and, unsurprisingly, lspci does
    >> not see the adapter either (I thought Linux might perform
    >> initialization which the BIOS forgot).
    >
    > Have you seen this with any other cards?

    The PCI graphics card in my system, an old Diamond Monster Fusion with
    a 3dfx Voodoo Banshee chipset, works flawlessly.

    > What chipset (Northbridge)?

    The P/I-P55T2P4 came with an Intel 430HX chipset, aka Triton 2:

    http://www.asus.com.tw/support/english/techref/430hx/index.aspx

    I found this page on Intel's site which lists the 430HX *ONLY* as PCI
    2.1 compliant, where newer chipsets are PCI 2.2 compliant:

    http://intel.com/design/chipsets/embedded/

    That sounds like bad news for my wireless aspirations, no? :-)

    > <straw_grasping_mode> Is it a "universal" PCI card or is it a 5V
    > card. It's possible it's intended for 3.3V PCI?
    > <straw_grasping_mode/>

    The data sheet states:
    Form Fator 32-bit PCI v2.2
    Operation Voltage 3.3V

    Would my motherboard support 3.3V or 5V?

    --
    Regards, Grumble
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:19:47 +0100, Grumble wrote:

    > Keith wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:00:25 +0100, Grumble wrote:
    >>
    >>> Still the card does not show up in the BIOS summary (right before
    >>> the OS boots). I've loaded Knoppix, and, unsurprisingly, lspci does
    >>> not see the adapter either (I thought Linux might perform
    >>> initialization which the BIOS forgot).
    >>
    >> Have you seen this with any other cards?
    >
    > The PCI graphics card in my system, an old Diamond Monster Fusion with
    > a 3dfx Voodoo Banshee chipset, works flawlessly.
    >
    >> What chipset (Northbridge)?
    >
    > The P/I-P55T2P4 came with an Intel 430HX chipset, aka Triton 2:
    >
    > http://www.asus.com.tw/support/english/techref/430hx/index.aspx

    Couldn't remember what chipset that model had. ...should have, since it
    was a goodie, in its day.

    > I found this page on Intel's site which lists the 430HX *ONLY* as PCI
    > 2.1 compliant, where newer chipsets are PCI 2.2 compliant:
    >
    > http://intel.com/design/chipsets/embedded/
    >
    > That sounds like bad news for my wireless aspirations, no? :-)

    Sounds.

    >> <straw_grasping_mode> Is it a "universal" PCI card or is it a 5V card.
    >> It's possible it's intended for 3.3V PCI? <straw_grasping_mode/>
    >
    > The data sheet states:
    > Form Fator 32-bit PCI v2.2
    > Operation Voltage 3.3V
    >
    > Would my motherboard support 3.3V or 5V?

    The HX was 5V PCI only. That may be the issue right there. Though a
    3.3V only card should not fit in a 5V PCI slot. A 3.3V card has a keyway
    in positions 12 and 13 (5V has these grounded) and a 5V card has a keyway
    in positions 30 and 31 (3.3V card has these grounded). A "universal" card
    would have a keyway in both positions. Position 1 is at the rear of the
    case, so if you look at the slots in your T2P4 the key should be towards
    the front of the case (5V slot). Where are the keyways on the card?

    Keith
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:19:47 +0100, Grumble wrote:

    > Keith wrote:

    >> <straw_grasping_mode> Is it a "universal" PCI card or is it a 5V
    >> card. It's possible it's intended for 3.3V PCI?
    >> <straw_grasping_mode/>
    >
    > The data sheet states:
    > Form Fator 32-bit PCI v2.2
    > Operation Voltage 3.3V
    >
    > Would my motherboard support 3.3V or 5V?

    It took a while to refresh my 34YO memory (was thinking about this one
    the way to brunch ;-), but there is something here. ISTR at some point
    (PCI 2.2?) the spec *required* that 3.3V be supplied to the appropriate
    pins (A21, B25, A27, B31, A33, B36, A39, B41, B43, A45, A53, and B54),
    even in 5V slots, to support universal cards.

    According to my third edition Shanley and Anderson (covering PCI 2.1), it
    is "strongly recommended" that 3.3V be supplied in a 5V system, but not
    required. ISTR that PCI 2.2 made this a requirement (will check tomorrow
    with the fourth edition of S&A).

    So... If you're into hacking, you might wire in 3.3V to the connector and
    see. If the WiFi card has the two keyways (indicating a universal card)
    it should work in a 5V system if it has 3.3V on the bus. ...or replace
    the board, though I don't know which socket-7 boards would be 2.2
    compliant.


    --
    Keith
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote :

    > BTW, P5 motherboards didn't like USB1.x either. ;-)

    P5 as this particular Asus or did you mean socket7 ?
    I never saw socket 7 board refusing to work with USB 1.1 PCI card
    (including HX).

    Pozdrawiam.
    --
    RusH //
    http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
    Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
    You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:56:45 +0000, RusH wrote:

    > keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote :
    >
    >> BTW, P5 motherboards didn't like USB1.x either. ;-)
    >
    > P5 as this particular Asus or did you mean socket7 ?
    > I never saw socket 7 board refusing to work with USB 1.1 PCI card
    > (including HX).

    Socket-7 in general, though it may have been the ctappy OSs of the time
    from you know who. USB was all over the floor in those days. OTOH, the
    USB port on my Tyan 1598-C2 (ci. '99 super-7 and K6-III) works just fine.
    It even works with a USB 2.0 flash stick (Crucial Gizmo 2.0).

    --
    Keith
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote :

    > Now I'm curious. What is the issue (I've never seen a real
    > difference before)? I'll have to read up on the differences
    > between PCI 2.1 and 2.2 tomorrow.

    http://www.pcisig.com/specifications/conventional/conventional_pci/2_
    2sum1215.pdf

    The fact is even those wifi card that are specified to work in 2.1/2.2
    PCI have problems with 2.1.

    Pozdrawiam.
    --
    RusH //
    http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
    Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
    You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    George Macdonald wrote:

    > On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:00:25 +0100, Grumble wrote:
    >
    >> Problem is, the PCI card is properly detected on my recent
    >> motherboard (2001 ASUS A7V133-C SocketA) but *NOT* on my older
    >> motherboard (1997 ASUS P/I-P55T2P4 Socket7).
    >
    > Ah the famous P55T2P4. Are you running standard clocking and have
    > you checked your BIOS to make sure it's the last one issued?

    I picked "LOAD BIOS DEFAULTS" in the BIOS, which I believe is even more
    conservative than "LOAD SETUP DEFAULTS". The BIOS has the most recent
    firmware version available (v0207).

    http://www.asus.com.tw/support/download/item.aspx?ModelName=P/I-P55T2P4

    >> I've tried 3 different PCI slots, removed all ISA cards, increased
    >> the PCI bus latency (whatever that does)... Still the card does not
    >> show up in the BIOS summary (right before the OS boots). I've
    >> loaded Knoppix, and, unsurprisingly, lspci does not see the adapter
    >> either (I thought Linux might perform initialization which the BIOS
    >> forgot).
    >
    > Sometimes cards just don't/didn't show in the BIOS summary list - no
    > idea why. Do you have PnP OS enabled in the BIOS Setup? That could
    > prevent the BIOS from do a full enumeration of PnP... i.e. leaving it
    > to the OS to figure out. I don't recall if the P55T2P4 BIOS had a
    > "Reset Configuration" or "Clear NVRAM" option - worth a try if it
    > does. Also try disabling something, like COM2 to make sure an IRQ is
    > free.

    PnP OS is set to 'No' (I'll try 'Yes' to see what difference it makes).
    Thanks for your suggestions. Unfortunately, they didn't seem to do the
    trick. I think the motherboard just won't take any PCI 2.2 cards :-(

    --
    Regards, Grumble
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 12:02:26 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

    >On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:39:05 -0500, keith wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 07:22:33 +0000, RusH wrote:
    >>
    >>> keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote :
    >>>
    >>>> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 23:49:48 +0000, RusH wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> lack of PCI 2.1 or something, it wont work
    >>>>
    >>>> The differences between 2.0, 2.1, and 2.2 are rather trivial.
    >>>> There's nothing in there that would cause your problems.
    >>>
    >>> not my problems :)
    >>
    >> Oops! ;-)
    >>
    >>> and those trivial differences make day and night
    >>> when it comes to wifi cards. I work as WISP consultant, its a common
    >>> problem. Just like USB2 cards - they dont work in Pentium 1
    >>> motherboards.
    >>
    >> The differences between these PCI levels have nothing to do with the
    >> configuration cycles. I don't remember all of them (My fourth edition
    >> Shanley and Anderson is at work), but some were things like cachable
    >> memory allowed in 2.0, discourraged in 2.1, and forbidden in 2.2. I'd
    >> have to look up the complete list.
    >
    >Hmm, after a quick web search, it appears there is a problem with some
    >WiFi (Netgear in particular) and other than PCI 2.2. Indeed Netgear
    >specifies a PCI 2.2 compliant system for the WG311.
    >
    >Now I'm curious. What is the issue (I've never seen a real difference
    >before)? I'll have to read up on the differences between PCI 2.1 and 2.2
    >tomorrow.

    Delayed Transactions, probably...

    >
    >> BTW, P5 motherboards didn't like USB1.x either. ;-)

    Roll-outs are often painful...

    /daytripper
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 21:11:01 +0000, daytripper wrote:

    > On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 12:02:26 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:39:05 -0500, keith wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 07:22:33 +0000, RusH wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote :
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 23:49:48 +0000, RusH wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> lack of PCI 2.1 or something, it wont work
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The differences between 2.0, 2.1, and 2.2 are rather trivial.
    >>>>> There's nothing in there that would cause your problems.
    >>>>
    >>>> not my problems :)
    >>>
    >>> Oops! ;-)
    >>>
    >>>> and those trivial differences make day and night
    >>>> when it comes to wifi cards. I work as WISP consultant, its a common
    >>>> problem. Just like USB2 cards - they dont work in Pentium 1
    >>>> motherboards.
    >>>
    >>> The differences between these PCI levels have nothing to do with the
    >>> configuration cycles. I don't remember all of them (My fourth edition
    >>> Shanley and Anderson is at work), but some were things like cachable
    >>> memory allowed in 2.0, discourraged in 2.1, and forbidden in 2.2. I'd
    >>> have to look up the complete list.
    >>
    >>Hmm, after a quick web search, it appears there is a problem with some
    >>WiFi (Netgear in particular) and other than PCI 2.2. Indeed Netgear
    >>specifies a PCI 2.2 compliant system for the WG311.
    >>
    >>Now I'm curious. What is the issue (I've never seen a real difference
    >>before)? I'll have to read up on the differences between PCI 2.1 and 2.2
    >>tomorrow.
    >
    > Delayed Transactions, probably...

    At configuration time? I think the real problem here is the lack of 3.3V
    at the PCI connector.
    >
    >
    >>> BTW, P5 motherboards didn't like USB1.x either. ;-)
    >
    > Roll-outs are often painful...

    Here M$ is king.

    --
    Keith
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Keith wrote:

    > The HX was 5V PCI only. That may be the issue right there. Though a
    > 3.3V only card should not fit in a 5V PCI slot. A 3.3V card has a
    > keyway in positions 12 and 13 (5V has these grounded) and a 5V card
    > has a keyway in positions 30 and 31 (3.3V card has these grounded).
    > A "universal" card would have a keyway in both positions. Position 1
    > is at the rear of the case, so if you look at the slots in your T2P4
    > the key should be towards the front of the case (5V slot). Where are
    > the keyways on the card?

    I'm not quite sure what a 'keyway' is. I assume it is the 'gap' between
    the golden pins? If so, my card has two such gaps.

    One gap in stead of pins 12-13 and the other in stead of pins 50-51.
    (If I've counted right...)

    No gap at pins 30-31.

    It seems I'm trying to fit a 3.3V card into a 5V PCI slot, then?

    --
    Regards, Grumble
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 21:38:05 +0100, Grumble wrote:

    > Keith wrote:
    >
    >> The HX was 5V PCI only. That may be the issue right there. Though a
    >> 3.3V only card should not fit in a 5V PCI slot. A 3.3V card has a
    >> keyway in positions 12 and 13 (5V has these grounded) and a 5V card
    >> has a keyway in positions 30 and 31 (3.3V card has these grounded).
    >> A "universal" card would have a keyway in both positions. Position 1
    >> is at the rear of the case, so if you look at the slots in your T2P4
    >> the key should be towards the front of the case (5V slot). Where are
    >> the keyways on the card?
    >
    > I'm not quite sure what a 'keyway' is. I assume it is the 'gap' between
    > the golden pins? If so, my card has two such gaps.

    Yes, a "keyway" is the slot through witch a key goes. The PCI connnector
    is "keyed", thus the "keyway" is the slot through which the key passes.
    Your card is thus a "universal" card and as such will work in a 5V or 3.3V
    PCI bus. *However*, it may require 3.3V on the connector which your board
    obviously doesn't supply. Thus it's not recognized because it has no
    power supplied.

    > One gap in stead of pins 12-13 and the other in stead of pins 50-51. (If
    > I've counted right...)
    >
    > No gap at pins 30-31.

    Sorry, the light isn't great in my "office". You are correct, it's 50-51.

    > It seems I'm trying to fit a 3.3V card into a 5V PCI slot, then?

    It's more like you're trying to fit a universal card into a slot that has
    no 3.3V. My bet is that if you even hack in one 3.3V wire from elsewhere
    this card will work. ...perhaps not reliably (may need more and lower
    inductance), but I think this is the problem.

    Yes, I was half-wrong (PCI version didn't matter). It appears that PCI
    2.2 is the problem, but only because your board doesn't follow the PCI 2.1
    recommendations. ;-) or is that :-(

    I did run into this four years or so ago. Fortunately the IBM servers I
    was designing for had plenty of 3.3V available at the PCI connectors.

    --

    Keith
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Keith wrote:

    > On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:19:47 +0100, Grumble wrote:
    >
    >> Keith wrote:
    >>
    >>> <straw_grasping_mode>
    >>> Is it a "universal" PCI card or is it a 5V
    >>> card. It's possible it's intended for 3.3V PCI?
    >>> <straw_grasping_mode/>
    >>
    >> The data sheet states:
    >> Form Factor 32-bit PCI v2.2 Operation
    >> Voltage 3.3V
    >>
    >> Would my motherboard support 3.3V or 5V?
    >
    > It took a while to refresh my 34YO memory (was thinking about this
    > one the way to brunch ;-), but there is something here. ISTR at some
    > point (PCI 2.2?) the spec *required* that 3.3V be supplied to the
    > appropriate pins (A21, B25, A27, B31, A33, B36, A39, B41, B43, A45,
    > A53, and B54), even in 5V slots, to support universal cards.
    >
    > According to my third edition Shanley and Anderson (covering PCI
    > 2.1), it is "strongly recommended" that 3.3V be supplied in a 5V
    > system, but not required. ISTR that PCI 2.2 made this a requirement
    > (will check tomorrow with the fourth edition of S&A).

    The document provided by RusH states:
    http://www.pcisig.com/specifications/conventional/conventional_pci/2_2sum1215.pdf

    The remainder of this paper gives an overview of the differences between
    revisions of 2.1 and the 2.2 draft version of the PCI Local Bus
    specification. This list is not comprehensive and the Final version
    should be used. [...]

    Chapter 4 Electrical Specification

    Section 4.3.4.1. Power Requirements, now requires the system designer to
    provide 3.3 V rail in the connector. Before it was not required, but
    system designer was to provide a way to add it.

    > So... If you're into hacking, you might wire in 3.3V to the
    > connector and see. If the WiFi card has the two keyways (indicating
    > a universal card) it should work in a 5V system if it has 3.3V on the
    > bus. ...or replace the board, though I don't know which socket-7
    > boards would be 2.2 compliant.

    I guess I'll have to look for a PCI 2.1 compliant 802.11g adapter. The
    other solution is a so-called "game adapter" which provides an Ethernet
    to Wi-Fi (802.3 to 802.11) bridge. Although they are still somewhat
    pricey, in my opinion. (I have an ageless ISA Ethernet card handy.)

    --
    Regards, Grumble
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 21:42:31 +0100, Grumble wrote:

    > Keith wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:19:47 +0100, Grumble wrote:
    >>
    >>> Keith wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> <straw_grasping_mode>
    >>>> Is it a "universal" PCI card or is it a 5V
    >>>> card. It's possible it's intended for 3.3V PCI?
    >>>> <straw_grasping_mode/>
    >>>
    >>> The data sheet states:
    >>> Form Factor 32-bit PCI v2.2 Operation
    >>> Voltage 3.3V
    >>>
    >>> Would my motherboard support 3.3V or 5V?
    >>
    >> It took a while to refresh my 34YO memory (was thinking about this
    >> one the way to brunch ;-), but there is something here. ISTR at some
    >> point (PCI 2.2?) the spec *required* that 3.3V be supplied to the
    >> appropriate pins (A21, B25, A27, B31, A33, B36, A39, B41, B43, A45,
    >> A53, and B54), even in 5V slots, to support universal cards.
    >>
    >> According to my third edition Shanley and Anderson (covering PCI
    >> 2.1), it is "strongly recommended" that 3.3V be supplied in a 5V
    >> system, but not required. ISTR that PCI 2.2 made this a requirement
    >> (will check tomorrow with the fourth edition of S&A).
    >
    > The document provided by RusH states:
    > http://www.pcisig.com/specifications/conventional/conventional_pci/2_2sum1215.pdf
    >
    > The remainder of this paper gives an overview of the differences between
    > revisions of 2.1 and the 2.2 draft version of the PCI Local Bus
    > specification. This list is not comprehensive and the Final version
    > should be used. [...]
    >
    > Chapter 4 Electrical Specification
    >
    > Section 4.3.4.1. Power Requirements, now requires the system designer to
    > provide 3.3 V rail in the connector. Before it was not required, but
    > system designer was to provide a way to add it.

    Sure, you can hack it in! ;-)

    >> So... If you're into hacking, you might wire in 3.3V to the
    >> connector and see. If the WiFi card has the two keyways (indicating
    >> a universal card) it should work in a 5V system if it has 3.3V on the
    >> bus. ...or replace the board, though I don't know which socket-7
    >> boards would be 2.2 compliant.
    >
    > I guess I'll have to look for a PCI 2.1 compliant 802.11g adapter. The
    > other solution is a so-called "game adapter" which provides an Ethernet
    > to Wi-Fi (802.3 to 802.11) bridge. Although they are still somewhat
    > pricey, in my opinion. (I have an ageless ISA Ethernet card handy.)

    ISA? You're nutz! ;-) PCI cards are a dime-a-dozen. ...and they work.

    The other alternative is a USB to WiFi. I think I saw several of these
    while browsing about the web on the PCI 2.2 issue. I wasn't paying much
    attention to the trivia (like whether they actually work) though.

    --
    Keith
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Yes.. the problem is PCI version incompability...

    PCI wifi cards need PCI 2.2 or newer.

    And those older boards are only PCI 2.1 compliant.

    How do I know? I had the same problem with my BX chipset motherboard with a
    PCI wireless card.


    "RusH" <logistyka1@pf.pl> wrote in message
    news:Xns95AF8681A302RusHcomputersystems@193.110.122.97...
    >> I've (finally) hopped on the Wi-Fi bandwagon, and bought, among
    >> other gear, a pair of PCI 802.11g network adapters.
    >>
    >> Problem is, the PCI card is properly detected on my recent
    >> motherboard (2001 ASUS A7V133-C SocketA) but *NOT* on my older
    >> motherboard (1997 ASUS P/I-P55T2P4 Socket7).
    >
    > lack of PCI 2.1 or something, it wont work
    >
    >
    > Pozdrawiam.
    > --
    > RusH //
    > http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
    > Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
    > You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    vvv wrote:

    > Yes.. the problem is PCI version incompability...
    >
    > PCI wifi cards need PCI 2.2 or newer.
    >
    > And those older boards are only PCI 2.1 compliant.
    >
    > How do I know? I had the same problem with my BX chipset motherboard
    > with a PCI wireless card.

    Have you ever found a PCI 2.1 compliant 802.11g card?

    Have you tried the U.S. Robotics USR5416?
    http://www.usr.com/products/networking/wireless-product.asp?sku=USR5416

    The specs explicitly mention "PCI 2.1/2.2 compliant".
    http://www.usr.com/products/networking/wireless-product.asp?sku=USR5416&type=specs

    Have you tried a game adapter (Ethernet to WiFi bridge)?

    --
    Regards, Grumble
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Grumble <devnull@kma.eu.org> wrote :

    > Have you tried the U.S. Robotics USR5416?
    > http://www.usr.com/products/networking/wireless-product.asp?sku=USR
    > 5416
    >
    > The specs explicitly mention "PCI 2.1/2.2 compliant".
    > http://www.usr.com/products/networking/wireless-product.asp?sku=USR
    > 5416&type=specs

    like I said earlier, its only buzzword to make feature list bigger.
    This one doesnt like PCI 2.1 either.

    > Have you tried a game adapter (Ethernet to WiFi bridge)?

    This is his only reliable option.

    Pozdrawiam.
    --
    RusH //
    http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
    Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
    You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Grumble wrote:
    >
    > The P/I-P55T2P4 came with an Intel 430HX chipset, aka Triton 2:

    Woo, hoo... famous ol' motherboard, back in the day - one of the first
    to do 83 MHz FSB, IIRC. (I had its archrival, the Abit IT5H... ;-)

    --
    Mike Smith
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:50:17 -0500, Mike Smith wrote:

    > Grumble wrote:
    >>
    >> The P/I-P55T2P4 came with an Intel 430HX chipset, aka Triton 2:
    >
    > Woo, hoo... famous ol' motherboard, back in the day - one of the first
    > to do 83 MHz FSB, IIRC. (I had its archrival, the Abit IT5H... ;-)

    Oh, please! It wasn't the first and when it did it overclocked the piss
    out of everything on the board. The HX chipset was *never* rated for
    anything above 66MHz.

    --
    Keith
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    keith wrote:

    > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:50:17 -0500, Mike Smith wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Grumble wrote:
    >>
    >>>The P/I-P55T2P4 came with an Intel 430HX chipset, aka Triton 2:
    >>
    >>Woo, hoo... famous ol' motherboard, back in the day - one of the first
    >>to do 83 MHz FSB, IIRC. (I had its archrival, the Abit IT5H... ;-)
    >
    >
    > Oh, please! It wasn't the first and when it did it overclocked the piss
    > out of everything on the board. The HX chipset was *never* rated for
    > anything above 66MHz.

    What's with the attitude? For one thing, I said "*one* of the first".
    For another, I never said it wasn't overclocking, nor did I imply that
    it was a no-brainer; i.e. that you didn't have to go looking for PCI
    cards that could handle the higher clock rate. But I guess some people
    just *live* to be nasty to others on Usenet, huh?

    --
    Mike Smith
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 11:43:47 -0500, Mike Smith wrote:

    > keith wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:50:17 -0500, Mike Smith wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Grumble wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>The P/I-P55T2P4 came with an Intel 430HX chipset, aka Triton 2:
    >>>
    >>>Woo, hoo... famous ol' motherboard, back in the day - one of the first
    >>>to do 83 MHz FSB, IIRC. (I had its archrival, the Abit IT5H... ;-)
    >>
    >>
    >> Oh, please! It wasn't the first and when it did it overclocked the piss
    >> out of everything on the board. The HX chipset was *never* rated for
    >> anything above 66MHz.
    >
    > What's with the attitude? For one thing, I said "*one* of the first".


    The "attitude" is because I spent a couple of years working to get the S7
    bus to 75, 83MHz, then 100MHz, which nothing from Intel ever did (indeed
    they made it impossible with their components). Specifications do matter,
    though lusers like you don't care about such trivia.

    > For another, I never said it wasn't overclocking, nor did Iimply that
    > it was a no-brainer; i.e. that you didn't have to go looking for PCI
    > cards that could handle the higher clock rate.

    Many didn't. If you want to play Russian roulette, please don't let me
    stop you.

    > But I guess some people just *live* to be nasty to others on Usenet, huh?

    I guess some people just don't care about reliability or data integrity.
    Over-clocking rulz! <gag-cough>

    --
    Keith
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    keith wrote:
    >
    >
    > The "attitude" is because I spent a couple of years working to get the S7
    > bus to 75, 83MHz, then 100MHz, which nothing from Intel ever did (indeed
    > they made it impossible with their components). Specifications do matter,
    > though lusers like you don't care about such trivia.

    Well, if you're so anal about specifications, then why were you trying
    to overclock? Can't have your cake and eat it, too. Me, I just did it
    'cause it was fun.

    >>For another, I never said it wasn't overclocking, nor did Iimply that
    >>it was a no-brainer; i.e. that you didn't have to go looking for PCI
    >>cards that could handle the higher clock rate.
    >
    > Many didn't. If you want to play Russian roulette, please don't let me
    > stop you.

    "Russian Roulette". LOL <sigh> Have you ever thought of trying decaf?
    It's a *PC*, not a nuclear bomb. Get over yourself.

    >>But I guess some people just *live* to be nasty to others on Usenet, huh?
    >
    > I guess some people just don't care about reliability or data integrity.

    Not when it's my own computer, I'm doing it for fun, and the machine's
    got nothing on it but games.

    > Over-clocking rulz! <gag-cough>

    Again, seriously - what's with the arrogant, uptight, holier-than-thou
    attitude? Who the hell are you, anyway?

    --
    Mike Smith
  35. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    I've have the usr 5416 in my PCI 2.1 and it and it works perfectly. I
    tried several other G (netgear, linksys and d-link), but none worked.
    If you can use a B also the d-link DWL 520 works in a PCI 2.1 slot.
    my configuration: Mobo Asus p2b-f, p3@650 Mhz, 256Mb pc100, win98se
  36. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:01:31 -0800, mikele wrote:

    > I've have the usr 5416 in my PCI 2.1 and it and it works perfectly. I
    > tried several other G (netgear, linksys and d-link), but none worked.
    > If you can use a B also the d-link DWL 520 works in a PCI 2.1 slot.
    > my configuration: Mobo Asus p2b-f, p3@650 Mhz, 256Mb pc100, win98se

    I think it was decided (two months ago, BTW) that PCI 2.1 allowed 3.3V on
    the PCI slot, but didn't require it. PCI 2.2 does, this the card
    specifies PCI 2.2. It's an iffy proposition assuming it will run on in a
    PCI 2.1 slot. Though it may be fine, there is no guarantee.

    I had a similar quandry looking for a sound card for my "antique" Tyan
    1598C2. The card I ended up with only claimed PCI 2.2 compatability, but
    it worked anyway. Claiminng spec conformance doesn't tell all.

    --
    Keith
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs PCI Motherboards