BeUnited is now accepting potential projects for the driver fund. You can go to the newly created “Potential Projects” Forum to post hardware you’d like to see voted on, and comment to show support on which others you’d like to see. This will be used for determining which manufacturers to be contacted for specs, and which devices will be in the polls for voting on for popular demand. Go tell BeUnited what hardware you’d like to see investigated for possible support.
[powered by WordPress.]
Random Haiku:
Be wa totemo
daisuki to omoimasu yo.
Be wa suki desu ka?
translation:
Be is the OS
that I really like a lot.
Do you like it too?
Since 1998 - Until the Last User Leaves...
— BeGroovy, established 1998
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Sep | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 | ||||||
22 queries. 0.055 seconds
[powered by WordPress.]
June 14th, 2001 at 12:40 am
In Response To Francis @ 06/14/2001 10:50:17 AM
Re: How ’bout SCSI 160 ?
We’ve recieved a lot of requests for the 160 - a whole lot. That is one of the first companies we’ve tried to contact - and unfortunately, it is still in the “trying to contact” stage. They are not even responding. Without specs or source not under GPL, we’re stuck.
June 14th, 2001 at 12:42 am
In Response To Anonymous @ 06/14/2001 09:57:34 AM
Re: Well…
We are still trying to determine the damage in the software projects. We’ve gotten a couple of responses from “dead projects” where there’s still a developer wanting to continue, but needs help. We’ll get all that information compiled together and post it soon (sooner than that if we don’t wait for reponses from all projects).
Thanks for the comments Jason, we’re trying best we can with busy lives. Help is always welcome.
June 14th, 2001 at 9:57 am
Well…
Why not try to revive some of the projects on BeUnited. They were there because they were needed things. How about reviving Be3D, BeDTP, get some work done on Rezound2 or some of the other great apps?
Of the apps not on the project list at BeUnited, how about the port of the Pascal stuff for Pixel32? or maybe a nice Fax app that can accept lots of phone numbers and can schedule faxes. This would be useful for small businesses who seem to get great results from multiple faxes to prospective clients/customers. I am not talking a normal fax app here, but one with some more advanced features. It could have a client which could allow users to input a fax number, or choose an already configured user from the fax server then select the cover page to use(PDF format) and then attach GP files, RTF, MS-DOC, TXT, etc. and then the server would handle all the faxing.
Ooooops, sorry about that. I think that a nice fax server/client package for BeOS could work as another tractor app for companies who want a fax server, but don’t want to pay the big cash for one.
Just some ideas.
-Jason “aka Maverick” VanDerMark
Grand Pooba of the New AustinBUG
June 14th, 2001 at 10:50 am
How ’bout SCSI 160 ?
I’ve already written Deej about this a while ago, but was wondering about feedback.
How about support for an Adaptec SCSI 160 host adapter?
Seems to me that the more BeOS users use ATA than SCSI, (no ATA vs. SCSI comments, please!) especially because of the cost, but also a lot of people must also want to use the “baddest” hard drives, and unfortunately, no SCSI 160 cards are supported.
I use an Adaptec 2940U2W (SCSI Ultra 2 Wide) with an Quantum Atlas V (7200rpm), which is a SCSI 160 drive (quite happy with it!). I was a bit bummed that I wouldn’t be able to upgrade to a 160 host adapter, and I thought a lot of others would be interested in the fastest hard drives for their BeOS machines.
BTW: Anyone able to comment whether doing so would really make a difference if you’re using a 100MHz front side bus? Also, does BeOS confer any special adavantages performance-wise with SCSI vs. SCSI on Windows (I know that’s a vague question: I just read that although the performance of high-end ATA drives and SCSI drives are comparable, SCSI excels at multiple request. I just wondered if the “multi-threadedness” of BeOS (when it is used) means that performance can be better on the same card in BeOS than in Windows?
Sorry for the display of ignorance!
Would anyone else here like to see an Adapted SCSI 160 card supported?
— Francis
June 14th, 2001 at 2:07 pm
In Response To Deej @ 06/14/2001 12:40:45 AM
Re: How ’bout SCSI 160 ?
I once contacted Adaptec support im Germany to determine whether there would be any RAID-drivers, or maybe if they planned some. The guy said that, given they have external support (OS-company-wise, or maybe else..?) it was Adaptecs politics to help in bringing new drivers for their procuts. Give them a call and don’t let loose till you received the _appropriate_ contact address for such matter.
June 14th, 2001 at 3:11 pm
In Response To Anonymous @ 06/14/2001 09:57:34 AM
AustinBug?
Jason - I had no idea Austin had a BUG.. I am very interested in this.. Please email me at phyte@bemail.org
Phyte
June 14th, 2001 at 10:01 pm
In Response To Anonymous @ 06/14/2001 09:57:34 AM
Re: Well…
Great idea Jason. I’ve been hoping to see a fax program for BeOS for quite a while. It’s still one of the reasons I periodically have to venture to the dark side. How to find a dev to work on this…
June 14th, 2001 at 11:53 pm
100 UDMA controller
How bout the Promise 100 IDE controller ? I don’t have one, but I keep seeing lots of people asking for one. Should probably focus on drivers that are keeping people from ability to even boot BeOS.
June 15th, 2001 at 7:10 am
In Response To Anonymous @ 06/14/2001 11:53:23 PM
Re: 100 UDMA controller
yes, I know people who want to try BeOS but can’t because of the lack of a promise 100 driver.
June 16th, 2001 at 3:41 am
In Response To Anonymous @ 06/15/2001 07:10:05 AM
Re: 100 UDMA controller
It’s on our list of “potentials”.