10/100 PCMCIA Ethernet

Does anyone know whether QNX 4 going to support any of 10/100 PCMCIA
Ethernet in the near future? I have problem to get one works on my QNX 4
because most of the new Ethernet PCMCIA cards are 10/100.

“Johannes” <jsukamtoh@infolink.co.id> wrote in message
news:a8m30g$doq$1@inn.qnx.com

Does anyone know whether QNX 4 going to support any of 10/100 PCMCIA
Ethernet in the near future? I have problem to get one works on my QNX 4
because most of the new Ethernet PCMCIA cards are 10/100.

Unless someone waves money at QSSL, most probably not.

“Mario Charest” <goto@nothingness.com> wrote in message
news:a8msl5$1j6$1@inn.qnx.com

“Johannes” <> jsukamtoh@infolink.co.id> > wrote in message
news:a8m30g$doq$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Does anyone know whether QNX 4 going to support any of 10/100 PCMCIA
Ethernet in the near future? I have problem to get one works on my QNX 4
because most of the new Ethernet PCMCIA cards are 10/100.

Unless someone waves money at QSSL, most probably not.

Just for the record, this is a sad story.

I hope someone a QSSL does something about this. The need and interest from
clients is there.

We don’t need support for all the 10/100 PCMCIA cards, just a few (one at
least).

Augie

Just a quick comment on Augie’s comment.

He said, “The need and interest from clients is there.”, which is true.

There are many things in QNX6 where there is interest. But the NEED is
really the much bigger deal.

QSSL abandoned QNX4 and forced everyone to switch to QNX6. Yeah, I know
they didn’t FORCE anything, but we all know we’ll never see a new device
driver for ANY new device for QNX4 unless a client pays for it.

QNX6 is still in it’s infancy and already you’ve given up any efforts to
support the most common off-the-shelf hardware for QNX6? Damn. Who would
ever think of putting a laptop on a network? Is that now Buck Rogers
thinking?

What is QSSL new secret business plan? You obviously don’t want to sell
anything to any of you LONG-STANDING QNX4 customers. You remember, the ones
who made you who you are today! Excuse me, no. The ones who made you who
you were 5 years ago before you went downhill.

I, any many others of us, would love to hear from someone in authority at
QSSL about what the hell is going on.

Let’s see a show of hands. Every who cares to, raise your hands and say “Me
Too”.


“Augie Henriques” <augiehenriques@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8s4o6$kl9$1@inn.qnx.com

“Mario Charest” <> goto@nothingness.com> > wrote in message
news:a8msl5$1j6$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

“Johannes” <> jsukamtoh@infolink.co.id> > wrote in message
news:a8m30g$doq$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Does anyone know whether QNX 4 going to support any of 10/100 PCMCIA
Ethernet in the near future? I have problem to get one works on my QNX
4
because most of the new Ethernet PCMCIA cards are 10/100.

Unless someone waves money at QSSL, most probably not.

Just for the record, this is a sad story.

I hope someone a QSSL does something about this. The need and interest
from
clients is there.

We don’t need support for all the 10/100 PCMCIA cards, just a few (one at
least).

Augie





\

“Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)” <QTPS@EarthLink.net> wrote in message
news:a8skvm$29p$1@inn.qnx.com

Just a quick comment on Augie’s comment.

He said, “The need and interest from clients is there.”, which is true.

There are many things in QNX6 where there is interest. But the NEED is
really the much bigger deal.

QSSL abandoned QNX4 and forced everyone to switch to QNX6. Yeah, I know
they didn’t FORCE anything, but we all know we’ll never see a new device
driver for ANY new device for QNX4 unless a client pays for it.

QNX6 is still in it’s infancy and already you’ve given up any efforts to
support the most common off-the-shelf hardware for QNX6? Damn. Who would
ever think of putting a laptop on a network? Is that now Buck Rogers
thinking?

What is QSSL new secret business plan? You obviously don’t want to sell
anything to any of you LONG-STANDING QNX4 customers. You remember, the
ones
who made you who you are today! Excuse me, no. The ones who made you who
you were 5 years ago before you went downhill.

I, any many others of us, would love to hear from someone in authority at
QSSL about what the hell is going on.

Let’s see a show of hands. Every who cares to, raise your hands and say
“Me
Too”.

Hands up :slight_smile:

ps: so emotional letter… nice. better just send specs to some qnx4 guru
and ask to code driver. for some reasonable fee. it’s not so hard, really.
if qssl folks have no time today to support qnx4 what’s the problem, don’t
think that only people @qssl know how qnx4 works inside.

// wbr

Me Too.
Just to be able to do some QNX work still. Existing QNX4 application tuned to a
new customer environment, maybe if it doesn’t require too much work. Conversion
to QNX6, too risky. Conversion to WinNT/Win2000, ok, take your time.


“Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)” wrote:

Just a quick comment on Augie’s comment.

He said, “The need and interest from clients is there.”, which is true.

There are many things in QNX6 where there is interest. But the NEED is
really the much bigger deal.

QSSL abandoned QNX4 and forced everyone to switch to QNX6. Yeah, I know
they didn’t FORCE anything, but we all know we’ll never see a new device
driver for ANY new device for QNX4 unless a client pays for it.

QNX6 is still in it’s infancy and already you’ve given up any efforts to
support the most common off-the-shelf hardware for QNX6? Damn. Who would
ever think of putting a laptop on a network? Is that now Buck Rogers
thinking?

What is QSSL new secret business plan? You obviously don’t want to sell
anything to any of you LONG-STANDING QNX4 customers. You remember, the ones
who made you who you are today! Excuse me, no. The ones who made you who
you were 5 years ago before you went downhill.

I, any many others of us, would love to hear from someone in authority at
QSSL about what the hell is going on.

Let’s see a show of hands. Every who cares to, raise your hands and say “Me
Too”.

“Augie Henriques” <> augiehenriques@hotmail.com> > wrote in message
news:a8s4o6$kl9$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

“Mario Charest” <> goto@nothingness.com> > wrote in message
news:a8msl5$1j6$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

“Johannes” <> jsukamtoh@infolink.co.id> > wrote in message
news:a8m30g$doq$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Does anyone know whether QNX 4 going to support any of 10/100 PCMCIA
Ethernet in the near future? I have problem to get one works on my QNX
4
because most of the new Ethernet PCMCIA cards are 10/100.

Unless someone waves money at QSSL, most probably not.

Just for the record, this is a sad story.

I hope someone a QSSL does something about this. The need and interest
from
clients is there.

We don’t need support for all the 10/100 PCMCIA cards, just a few (one at
least).

Augie





\

I will raise my hand again with you Bill.

QSSL will spend more time and effort, in the end trying to explain and make
excuses for why not. It would be so much easier to listen to Users and
DEVELOPERS and take ACTION.

Microsoft killed DOS (which is still being used), QSSL is trying to do the
same with QNX4.

I would like to use QNX 6, I have tried, but the product is not where it
should be, specially in the areas that matter.

If I had to make a choice again, I would be very hard pressed to go with a
QSSL product.

I would trade a few drivers for QNX 4 for Audrey, in a nanosecond.

That’s my 2 cents.

Augie

“Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)” <QTPS@EarthLink.net> wrote in message
news:a8skvm$29p$1@inn.qnx.com

Just a quick comment on Augie’s comment.

He said, “The need and interest from clients is there.”, which is true.

There are many things in QNX6 where there is interest. But the NEED is
really the much bigger deal.

QSSL abandoned QNX4 and forced everyone to switch to QNX6. Yeah, I know
they didn’t FORCE anything, but we all know we’ll never see a new device
driver for ANY new device for QNX4 unless a client pays for it.

QNX6 is still in it’s infancy and already you’ve given up any efforts to
support the most common off-the-shelf hardware for QNX6? Damn. Who would
ever think of putting a laptop on a network? Is that now Buck Rogers
thinking?

What is QSSL new secret business plan? You obviously don’t want to sell
anything to any of you LONG-STANDING QNX4 customers. You remember, the
ones
who made you who you are today! Excuse me, no. The ones who made you who
you were 5 years ago before you went downhill.

I, any many others of us, would love to hear from someone in authority at
QSSL about what the hell is going on.

Let’s see a show of hands. Every who cares to, raise your hands and say
“Me
Too”.


“Augie Henriques” <> augiehenriques@hotmail.com> > wrote in message
news:a8s4o6$kl9$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

“Mario Charest” <> goto@nothingness.com> > wrote in message
news:a8msl5$1j6$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

“Johannes” <> jsukamtoh@infolink.co.id> > wrote in message
news:a8m30g$doq$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Does anyone know whether QNX 4 going to support any of 10/100 PCMCIA
Ethernet in the near future? I have problem to get one works on my
QNX
4
because most of the new Ethernet PCMCIA cards are 10/100.

Unless someone waves money at QSSL, most probably not.

Just for the record, this is a sad story.

I hope someone a QSSL does something about this. The need and interest
from
clients is there.

We don’t need support for all the 10/100 PCMCIA cards, just a few (one
at
least).

Augie







\

How I wish there is a computer junkyard around my area where I could find
the PCMCIA card and other hardwares that fit into my QNX4 notebook and
extend its life! Or maybe that is the best place for my QNX4 now :frowning: RIP+

“Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)” <QTPS@EarthLink.net> wrote in message
news:a8skvm$29p$1@inn.qnx.com

Just a quick comment on Augie’s comment.

He said, “The need and interest from clients is there.”, which is true.

There are many things in QNX6 where there is interest. But the NEED is
really the much bigger deal.

QSSL abandoned QNX4 and forced everyone to switch to QNX6. Yeah, I know
they didn’t FORCE anything, but we all know we’ll never see a new device
driver for ANY new device for QNX4 unless a client pays for it.

QNX6 is still in it’s infancy and already you’ve given up any efforts to
support the most common off-the-shelf hardware for QNX6? Damn. Who would
ever think of putting a laptop on a network? Is that now Buck Rogers
thinking?

What is QSSL new secret business plan? You obviously don’t want to sell
anything to any of you LONG-STANDING QNX4 customers. You remember, the
ones
who made you who you are today! Excuse me, no. The ones who made you who
you were 5 years ago before you went downhill.

I, any many others of us, would love to hear from someone in authority at
QSSL about what the hell is going on.

Let’s see a show of hands. Every who cares to, raise your hands and say
“Me
Too”.


“Augie Henriques” <> augiehenriques@hotmail.com> > wrote in message
news:a8s4o6$kl9$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

“Mario Charest” <> goto@nothingness.com> > wrote in message
news:a8msl5$1j6$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

“Johannes” <> jsukamtoh@infolink.co.id> > wrote in message
news:a8m30g$doq$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Does anyone know whether QNX 4 going to support any of 10/100 PCMCIA
Ethernet in the near future? I have problem to get one works on my
QNX
4
because most of the new Ethernet PCMCIA cards are 10/100.

Unless someone waves money at QSSL, most probably not.

Just for the record, this is a sad story.

I hope someone a QSSL does something about this. The need and interest
from
clients is there.

We don’t need support for all the 10/100 PCMCIA cards, just a few (one
at
least).

Augie







\

That’s just what the enemy wants you to think.

“Johannes” <jsukamtoh@infolink.co.id> wrote in message
news:a9apk8$a8t$1@inn.qnx.com

How I wish there is a computer junkyard around my area where I could find
the PCMCIA card and other hardwares that fit into my QNX4 notebook and
extend its life! Or maybe that is the best place for my QNX4 now > :frowning: > RIP+

“Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)” <> QTPS@EarthLink.net> > wrote in message
news:a8skvm$29p$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Just a quick comment on Augie’s comment.

He said, “The need and interest from clients is there.”, which is true.

There are many things in QNX6 where there is interest. But the NEED is
really the much bigger deal.

QSSL abandoned QNX4 and forced everyone to switch to QNX6. Yeah, I know
they didn’t FORCE anything, but we all know we’ll never see a new device
driver for ANY new device for QNX4 unless a client pays for it.

QNX6 is still in it’s infancy and already you’ve given up any efforts to
support the most common off-the-shelf hardware for QNX6? Damn. Who
would
ever think of putting a laptop on a network? Is that now Buck Rogers
thinking?

What is QSSL new secret business plan? You obviously don’t want to sell
anything to any of you LONG-STANDING QNX4 customers. You remember, the
ones
who made you who you are today! Excuse me, no. The ones who made you
who
you were 5 years ago before you went downhill.

I, any many others of us, would love to hear from someone in authority
at
QSSL about what the hell is going on.

Let’s see a show of hands. Every who cares to, raise your hands and say
“Me
Too”.


“Augie Henriques” <> augiehenriques@hotmail.com> > wrote in message
news:a8s4o6$kl9$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

“Mario Charest” <> goto@nothingness.com> > wrote in message
news:a8msl5$1j6$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

“Johannes” <> jsukamtoh@infolink.co.id> > wrote in message
news:a8m30g$doq$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Does anyone know whether QNX 4 going to support any of 10/100
PCMCIA
Ethernet in the near future? I have problem to get one works on my
QNX
4
because most of the new Ethernet PCMCIA cards are 10/100.

Unless someone waves money at QSSL, most probably not.

Just for the record, this is a sad story.

I hope someone a QSSL does something about this. The need and
interest
from
clients is there.

We don’t need support for all the 10/100 PCMCIA cards, just a few (one
at
least).

Augie









\

“Johannes” <jsukamtoh@infolink.co.id> wrote in message
news:a9apk8$a8t$1@inn.qnx.com

How I wish there is a computer junkyard around my area where I could find
the PCMCIA card and other hardwares that fit into my QNX4 notebook and
extend its life! Or maybe that is the best place for my QNX4 now > :frowning: > RIP+

There is quite a lot talk about PCMCIA ethernet 10/100 adapters.

Just a question,

Do you really need PCMCIA 10/100 ethernet, or would mini-PCI adapters do the
job for you?
Most of the new notebooks come with mini-PCI ethernet (from my point of
view), they are based on
several (I came across 2) chipsets, so support could be much easier.

BTW: one of those chipsets is supported (Intel), the other one no (3com)

Pavol Kycina

I need the PCMCIA because I used D-Link before in my Toshiba 2140CDS, but
unfortunately it was broken a month ago and I could not find a replacement
for it. It is hard to find 10 mbps around my area, all of them are 10/100
ethernet.

“Pavol Kycina” <kycina@microstep-hdo.sk> wrote in message
news:3cbbdb78$1@asrpx.mshdo

“Johannes” <> jsukamtoh@infolink.co.id> > wrote in message
news:a9apk8$a8t$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
How I wish there is a computer junkyard around my area where I could
find
the PCMCIA card and other hardwares that fit into my QNX4 notebook and
extend its life! Or maybe that is the best place for my QNX4 now
RIP+

There is quite a lot talk about PCMCIA ethernet 10/100 adapters.

Just a question,

Do you really need PCMCIA 10/100 ethernet, or would mini-PCI adapters do
the
job for you?
Most of the new notebooks come with mini-PCI ethernet (from my point of
view), they are based on
several (I came across 2) chipsets, so support could be much easier.

BTW: one of those chipsets is supported (Intel), the other one no (3com)

Pavol Kycina

\

I would like to use QNX 6, I have tried, but the product is not where it
should be, specially in the areas that matter.

If I had to make a choice again, I would be very hard pressed to go with a
QSSL product.


That’s my 2 cents.

Augie

Would anyone care to expand on the problems with QNX6? I am starting to
contemplate converting some of our QNX4 systems and would like to know the
pitfalls.

thanks

Julian Thornhill

“Julian Thornhill” <jth@ion.le.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:aa317v$t1i$1@inn.qnx.com

I would like to use QNX 6, I have tried, but the product is not where it
should be, specially in the areas that matter.

If I had to make a choice again, I would be very hard pressed to go with
a
QSSL product.


That’s my 2 cents.

Augie



Would anyone care to expand on the problems with QNX6? I am starting to
contemplate converting some of our QNX4 systems and would like to know the
pitfalls.

I guess just a habbit. People have existing technology to create specifical
[quite complex] systems. Some time ago they’d choosen QNX4 [QNX2 ? etc.] as
their main helper. Up to this days this technology works very well. In the
sake of what should i leave it and start to inverstigate another technology
? Specially when our business itself vely little dependant on IT sphere and
new winds in operating systems design.

Nothing’s wrong with QNX6. Really. It’s a great system. But sometimes it’s
insufficient reason to drop all and start a new investigation. Time costs
money.

// wbr

Threads are very nice. That’s the only big advantage of QNX6 over QNX4, and
only if you know how to program for them (which isn’t hard).

QNX6 is supported on multiple hardware platforms. But that’s only an
advantage if you use one of those other hardware platforms. I don’t.

QNX4 will significantly outperform QNX6 across the board; compiles, disk IO,
compute bound processes, and memory consumption.


“Julian Thornhill” <jth@ion.le.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:aa317v$t1i$1@inn.qnx.com

Would anyone care to expand on the problems with QNX6? I am starting to
contemplate converting some of our QNX4 systems and would like to know the
pitfalls.

“Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)” <QTPS@EarthLink.net> wrote in message
news:aa3t5g$kdk$1@inn.qnx.com

Threads are very nice. That’s the only big advantage of QNX6 over QNX4,
and
only if you know how to program for them (which isn’t hard).

QNX6 is supported on multiple hardware platforms. But that’s only an
advantage if you use one of those other hardware platforms. I don’t.

QNX4 will significantly outperform QNX6 across the board; compiles, disk
IO,
compute bound processes, and memory consumption.

I would also add a native support of dynamicall linking as an advantage of
QNX6. Sure if you know how to program them (which isn’t hard…). And don’t
forget QNX4’s native networking, at least for me it’s one of the main
advantage of QNX4.

// wbr

“Ian Zagorskih” <ianzag@mail.ru> wrote in message
news:aa38ob$65r$1@inn.qnx.com

“Julian Thornhill” <> jth@ion.le.ac.uk> > wrote in message
news:aa317v$t1i$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …


I would like to use QNX 6, I have tried, but the product is not where
it
should be, specially in the areas that matter.

If I had to make a choice again, I would be very hard pressed to go
with
a
QSSL product.


That’s my 2 cents.

Augie



Would anyone care to expand on the problems with QNX6? I am starting to
contemplate converting some of our QNX4 systems and would like to know
the
pitfalls.


I guess just a habbit. People have existing technology to create
specifical
[quite complex] systems. Some time ago they’d choosen QNX4 [QNX2 ? etc.]
as
their main helper. Up to this days this technology works very well. In the
sake of what should i leave it and start to inverstigate another
technology
? Specially when our business itself vely little dependant on IT sphere
and
new winds in operating systems design.

Nothing’s wrong with QNX6. Really. It’s a great system. But sometimes it’s
insufficient reason to drop all and start a new investigation. Time costs
money.

There is lot’s a things in QNX 6 that are not working the way they should.
There is also some stuff missing that we used to have in QNX 4.

This is what I found out from my sort evaluation of QNX 6. I would have to
go back and look at my notes or try to setup another system to be more
specific.

The one thing that comes to mind is that the development tools are a
problem. I took simple some code I had for QNX 4 and I could not get it to
compile on QNX 6, so I gave up.

It took forever to setup TCP/IP, I’m not even sure it worked at the time.

There is no integration with QNX4 nodes. This is a major draw back. If you
want to look at QNX 4 nodes and QNX 6 machines, this is not possible.

Augie

// wbr

“Pavol Kycina” <kycina@microstep-hdo.sk> wrote in message
news:3cbbdb78$1@asrpx.mshdo

“Johannes” <> jsukamtoh@infolink.co.id> > wrote in message
news:a9apk8$a8t$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
How I wish there is a computer junkyard around my area where I could
find
the PCMCIA card and other hardwares that fit into my QNX4 notebook and
extend its life! Or maybe that is the best place for my QNX4 now > :frowning:
RIP+

There is quite a lot talk about PCMCIA ethernet 10/100 adapters.

Just a question,

Do you really need PCMCIA 10/100 ethernet, or would mini-PCI adapters do
the
job for you?
Most of the new notebooks come with mini-PCI ethernet (from my point of
view), they are based on
several (I came across 2) chipsets, so support could be much easier.

We need 10/100 PCMCIA for existing laptops. If QNX 4 support mini-PCI for
new laptops, fine. But I think they would have a lot more problems doing
this first.

There are a lot of QNX 4 clients that could use laptop systems with the fast
network connection. This is starting to be a requirement.

Augie

BTW: one of those chipsets is supported (Intel), the other one no (3com)

Pavol Kycina

\

Previously, Augie Henriques wrote in qdn.public.qnx4:

[…]



We need 10/100 PCMCIA for existing laptops. If QNX 4 support mini-PCI for
new laptops, fine. But I think they would have a lot more problems doing
this first.

There are a lot of QNX 4 clients that could use laptop systems with the fast
network connection. This is starting to be a requirement.

I completely agree.

[…]

Well your prayers have been answered!! There is a beta release of pccard
software for QNX4 under http://developers.qnx.com/NewStuff/Software
The files are pccard.tar.F and pccard.readme.

NOTE: There is only one network driver for CardBus ethernet cards and that
is the Net.ether905 driver. Please don’t ask for other network drivers, as
this is not going to happen.

Have fun!

Ian Zagorskih wrote:


I would also add a native support of dynamicall linking as an advantage of
QNX6. Sure if you know how to program them (which isn’t hard…). And don’t
forget QNX4’s native networking, at least for me it’s one of the main
advantage of QNX4.

QNX6s’ native working will kick QNX4s’ native networkings’ *ss, once
it’s got some mileage. If you were to start a project today you would be
insane to start it on QNX4 because of the native networking (for
instance, you can’t, and never will get GB ethernet for it). By the
time any significant project that started today would ship, QNX6 native
networking would be the better system (and it is definately good enough
right now for development).

Rennie