Date: Sat, 01 Jun 96 12:27:44 -0400 From: "Francisco Reyes" <reyes01@ibm.net> To: "Darryl Okahata" <darrylo@hpnmhjw.sr.hp.com>, "Andrew V. Stesin" <stesin@elvisti.kiev.ua>, "John Fieber" <jfieber@indiana.edu>, "FreeBSD doc Mailing list" <doc@freebsd.org> Subject: Hardware compatibility list. Second round. Message-ID: <199606011641.QAA56153@pop01.ny.us.ibm.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
After getting some feedback about what to include in a hardware compatibility list here is what I would like to propose. Information to be collected: -Version of FreeBsd tried on -Computer:make,model,cpu,cpu speed, amount of RAM, motherboard, bios and revision, busses(eg ISA, VESA, PCI), chipset -Video:make,model,bus type,resolution -Harddrive:make,model,HD type -Soundcard:make,model,options -Cdrom:make,model,bus type -Monitor:make,model,size,resolution -Network card:make,model,network protocol -Use of computers and how many clients are supported For each piece of hardware we could have a checkbox button indicating if it worked or not or we could have another form for incompatible hardware. One possible good thing about the separate forms may be less confusion and smaller forms. Some of the questions in the "compatible" form may not need to be included in the second. As for comments I am getting the feeling that the best is to either leave an entry field for a general comment that applies to all pieces or have a few lines for each part. Any comments on this? In the comments for the "compatible" hardware people could write work arounds they did to get the hardware working. > -Use of computers and how many clients are supported The way we could use this part of the form would be to include two or three of the complete configurations we get and place them in an area "FreeBSD computes and their uses". We don't even need to include brands in that since it may be a guide for people in terms of how much horsepower they may need. Darryl Okahata wrote: -> This is a good idea, but I think that it would also be useful to ->include information on hardware that could CURRENTLY cause problems, -> e.g.: * Mach64 vs serial ports. -> However ...... -> 1. ...older than six months or more could be -> suspect -> 2. The OS revision(s) (2.1R, 2.2-960321-SNAP, etc.) to which it is known -> to apply. Many bugs that are in 2.1R will probably be fixed in 2.2. ;-) This is something we need to look into. It may be a little difficult to follow up with imcompatible hardware. A possible approach is to keep incompatibilities in the list until someone says otherwise. A date stamp approach or looking at the entry after a new release of FreeBSD may be difficult to track since after we know we need to look into an entry what should we do about it? Delete it? Post a message requesting comments on whether it still doesn't work? Andrew V. Stesin wrote: -> # case "make" and "model" don't work. For those, a "Motherboard" -> # might be better. -->Seconded. The exact motherboard model is much better and informative. I think it is better to have them both! See the new recommended list on top. Many people may not know what their motherboard is. Those who assembled their computer know, but I am hoping that we can get users that although not experts know their way around a computer. Those may not know many details about their systems.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606011641.QAA56153>