Rogue wrote:
There is a limited amount of hardware that can be supported. We do not even try to support all the clockport/Zorro/made-up zorro/solder-to-mainboard type of hardware that is around.

Since you need a CyberStormPPC, SCSI equipment can be used on the 3000/4000/4000T via the CyberStorm's SCSI port, I can't see the reasoning why the onboard SCSI needs to be supported.

Quote:

For the moment I can use my scanner on the PC with USB (impossible with A1/OS4, no USB driver)

Why not buy one of the supposedly cheap SCSI cards? Actually, there is support for one in AmigaOS 4 on the AmigaOne.

Quote:

and on the A4000T with SCSI (impossible with A4000T/OS4 no USB/SCSI driver). I see no reason to change to a product that do not met my requirement(s) be it called AmigaOS4 or whatever.

Wrong. You can connect it to the CyberstormPPC. That controller is supported.

In the end, it's up to you. If you think that this is asking too much, fine, so be it.

Rogue wrote:
The whole "SCSI vs. IDE" debate reminds me about "Beta vs. VHS" or "KDE vs. GNOME" or "Windows vs. OS/2". Especially since it is about as fruitless.

Let's face it. SCSI hardware is a hell of a lot more expensive than IDE. You pay about ? 1.50 per gigabyte on SCSI and about ? 0,3 on SATA. The speed difference is neglectable, you won't notice it unless you run a "make-me-happy" type benchmark program.

Error tolerance is not better on any of those.

So it all boils down to price, and sorry to say so but SCSI is overpriced, a lot more complicated to set up (termination, SCSI ID, cabling) and plainly nobody but workstations ever uses it anyway.

joerg wrote:
@TMTisFree

Quote:

I am ready to pay for an usbscanner.device or a scsi.kmod if that will exist in the future.

Set up a bounty for BPPC/A4000T/A3000 scsi drivers, maybe there are external developers who will implement it. Maybe there is even someone who will implement SCSI drivers for free once the classic Amiga version of OS4 is released.
But there is nobody in the OS4 team who will do it (not interested in SCSI at all, not having the required hardware, no knowledge about SCSI, no knowledge about scripts based SCSI chips (BPPC and A4000T), etc., for most it's all of that together), AFAIK we don't even have anyone who would or could do it if payed full time for it, which might require more money than the complete profit of Hyperion for the classic Amiga version of OS4, and definitely much more than for the few additional sales to users who wont buy OS4 as long as there is no BPPC, A4000T or A3000 SCSI driver.

TetiSoft wrote:
@TMTisFree

Quote:

Or in other words an external switched off(!) scanner
should IMHO not affect the speed on the UW part of the
SCSI bus, and eventually a switched on DVD-RAM does only
affect the bus speed when its used (which may happen
every few seconds when the filesystem checks for a disk
change). Please correct me when I'm wrong.

You could also boot an OS3 installation to use the scanner
on the motherboard SCSI port when you dont need the scanner very often.

BTW, even when the CSPPC has a theoretical maximum speed of 40 MB/sec and you would really reduce that by attaching all your SCSI equipment, its IMHO possible that OS4 will be faster than OS3. Raw bus transfer speed is not
everything, CPU and OS speed are important too.

TetiSoft wrote:
@TMTisFree

Quote:

And then, how I use the SCSI DVD(-RAM)/scanner?

You can attach it to the CSPPC when you want to use it.
When you dont want to attach it there you cant use it.
Quote:

Is the mk68 scsi.device supported/emulated under OS4?

The A1200/A4000/A4000T IDE versions of scsi.device, yes.
The A3000/A4000T SCSI versions of scsi.device dont work.
If the A600 IDE version works cant be tested so it wont be
included

TetiSoft wrote:
@TMTisFree

Quote:

How many millions was it spend for developping an OS to about 1000 persons?

You know in advance how much copies will be sold?
Interesting. Then we can close this thread which was
thought to tell interested people which features/drivers
are present which could eventually change the number
of copies.

To answer your question, I dont know how many millions
the other developers will earn, I only know my own contract.
AFAIK it was made public in the AI vs Hyperion court
documents, maybe somebody can post the URL so you can
verify if I'll be rich next month or not.

Quote:

I understand you probably have to create a driver de novo
for the BPPC SCSI but for the 3000T/A4000T, it was included
with OS3.1, so you have its source I presume?

The A3k/A4kT SCSI driver sources exist, yes, unfortunately
the binaries dont work, the reason is unknown (IIRC we
excluded known possible reasons and created a non-DMA
driver but this didnt work). And until today I assumed
nobody would really need an A3k/A4kT SCSI driver for OS4
just because the only possibility to run OS4 on A3k/A4kT
is to install a CSPPC which has a supported UWSCSI port
which is faster anyway.

TetiSoft wrote:
@TMTisFree

Quote:

My archaic SCSI equipment (SCSI scanner, SCSI DVD-RAM,
U320 HDDs) are running reliably, so, really, I don't see
why I should change them.

You are allowed to use the CSPPC UWSCSI port to use your SCSI equipment.
But its your decision of course.
Quote:

The typical computer user has an OS with support for USB scanner and printer.

The typical OS4 user has an OS which includes DEVS:usbprinter.device
and waits if somebody writes a DEVS:usbscanner.device or not,
some scanners work without any scan software.

orgin wrote:
@TMTisFree

Option B then.

Well if you're interested in paying for it then find the 10 or so people interested in the same drivers as you and a developer that you pay a monthly salary to for one or a few months then.

TetiSoft wrote:
@TMTisFree

> > > > the A3k/A4kT onboard SCSI are not supported.
> > > So, how do you expect I install OS4 then?
> > > I have only SCSI/SATA CD/DVD drives and I certainly don't
> > > want to buy a crappy/slow IDE thing now because I never did.
> > What about attaching your SCSI equipment to the CSPPC
> > UWSCSI controller instead of the A3k/A4kT onboard SCSI
> > controller?
> And thus killing the only advantage of using UWSCSI, speed? No thank you. But good try.
You could copy the OS4 install CD to a harddrive partition
when you dont want to attach a CD/DVD drive to either the motherboard
IDE port or the CSPPC UWSCSI port. The OS4 installation
process uses the volume name to access the install CD so
this should work without problem IMHO.

TetiSoft wrote:
A SCSI flatbed scanner is archaic equipment.
The typical computer user has an all-in-one printer/scanner
with integrated USB card reader for less than 100 Euro.
OS4 supports reading from USB cards, when you dont have
USB equipment, you could use an IDE or PCMCIA card reader.

TetiSoft wrote:
The IDE drive is below 40 Euro. For 80 Euro you get the
IDE drive plus the ATAPI DVD drive! How many thousands
of Euros do you wanna spend for a developer that writes
you an OS4 BPPC SCSI driver? I bet that an AOne or a CSPPC
are cheaper than a fair developer payment.

TetiSoft wrote:
@TMTisFree

Quote:

Quote:

the A3k/A4kT onboard SCSI are not supported.

So, how do you expect I install OS4 then?
I have only SCSI/SATA CD/DVD drives and I certainly don't
want to buy a crappy/slow IDE thing now because I never did.

What about attaching your SCSI equipment to the CSPPC
UWSCSI controller instead of the A3k/A4kT onboard SCSI
controller?

orgin wrote:
@TMTisFree

Do you expect that Hyperion or whichever developer that would have to spend time doing such a driver, would be able to get food on the table due to the extra sales of the OS to on board SCSI only users? Or do you expect to get this task done even if they don't get anything back from doing it?

...the A3k/A4kT onboard SCSI are not supported.

1) Another option may be using for example PFS, but in any case it has to be a file system for which you have an AmigaOS 3.x/m68k version.

joerg wrote:
@Antique

Quote:

Will this change in the near future?

It's very unlikely that FFS2 will support longer volume names, but I could change SFS to support volume names of up to 255 chars.