On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 00:14 +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote: > Hallo, > Lee Revell hat gesagt: // Lee Revell wrote: > > > On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 23:03 +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote: > > > The good thing is, that with barebones the manufacturer often tries to > > > follow the standards a bit more, because in the long run it will make > > > it easier for them as far as support etc. is concerned. These > > > barebones are sold under various different brandnames, so they like to > > > keep this side of possible failures as small as possible. > > > > Right, but I don't think there's any standard that says laptops must be > > usable for low latency or prohibits the BIOS from implementing ACPI via > > SMM... > > > > The only way to be sure is if there were a vendor who sold laptops > > certified for low latency. > > As this probably won't happen (soon) It could - it seems to me that it would only be a little work for a vendor to set up such a program relative to the sales it would generate. Just add some kind of RTC based latency test to the burn-in suite. Seems to me if it takes a day to set up and generated even 5-10 sales it would be worthwhile... > maybe it's indeed best to try to > create a kind of whitelist as you suggested. And of course a > blacklist, which could create pressure on manufacturers. Right now all I have is some anecdotal evidence that many Acer laptops seem to have the ACPI/SMM bug. Can someone with an Acer laptop confirm or deny this? > I guess, not > only Linux is affected by a latency-killing BIOS, right? > Yes, in theory. So presumably if you found good anecdotal evidence that a given laptop is good for live audio with Windows it *should* be OK for Linux... > Ciao
