> Only because jacadcaps is referring to PCMCIA support

That was in reference to support for the PowerMac G4's (except FW800 model's) AirPort slot, which is mechanically PCMCIA*. Nothing to do with PowerBooks (they've PCMCIA too but that's not what jacadcaps referred to in that posting).

* https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6042&forum=11&post_id=82557#82557

> apparently there are other issues, unresolved problems,
> or features they haven't finished.

Yes, obviously, else 2.8 would have been released already ;-)

>That was in reference to support for the PowerMac G4's (except FW800 model's) AirPort slot, which is mechanically PCMCIA*. Nothing to do with PowerBooks (they've PCMCIA too but that's not what jacadcaps referred to in that posting).

Odd, since that reference you point to contains the following.

>So, no PCMCIA cards are electronically compatible with the Airport slot,

So if its only mechanical similar, but not electronically compatible with PCMCIA cards, why are people still asking about PCMCIA drivers for G4 Powermacs and why isn't jacadcaps correcting their misconception?

Edit - I guess it isn't fair to ask you what jacadcaps was thinking when he addressed that post that way. Disregard the question unless he would care to offer his own comments.

[ Edited by Jim on 2011/3/31 20:13 ]

> if its only mechanical similar, but not electronically compatible
> with PCMCIA cards, why are people still asking about PCMCIA
> drivers for G4 Powermacs

Because the only electrical difference are some pins that Apple permuted on purpose. Of course, that small hardware change would require a small change to the existing driver:

"The driver would need to be modified first, but it wouldn't be huge job. The original Airport card uses a Prism-II chipset too."
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=623976

Technically you're correct though. The small hardware change Apple applied effectively renders AirPort non-PCMCIA.

Now that is intereting1 Do you think a driver tweak would be enough?
And what PCMCIA cards might a G4 running MorphOS use?
I assume most of them would also require drivers.

Every time I see an issue like this it makes me appreciate how much work the team performs just getting the hardware to work (and this would actually make it do MORE than Apple intended).
Very Cool.

> Do you think a driver tweak would be enough?

That's what the driver's author says (see the quote). Who am I to disagree with him?

> what PCMCIA cards might a G4 running MorphOS use?

The AirPort slot of the PowerMac G4 (except FW800 model) can use Apple's original AirPort card of course, that's what it's intended for after all. Besides, there seem to be some unofficial solutions:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6042&forum=11&post_id=82673#82673

> I assume most of them would also require drivers.

Drivers are *always* required of course. Luckily, the Prism2 driver for PCMCIA is already there for years, even MorphOS native:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7777&forum=11&post_id=82510#82510

It's just that this driver would need some modifications adapting the hardware modifications Apple applied to turn PCMCIA into what became AirPort.

> Every time I see an issue like this it makes me appreciate how much
> work the team performs just getting the hardware to work

While I very much appreciate the MorphOS Team's work as well, in this particular case they're not involved so far, and judging from what jacadcaps said it seems they're going to restrict themselves to "un-blacklisting" of device level access to the AirPort slot.

> this would actually make it do MORE than Apple intended

How so?

>> this would actually make it do MORE than Apple intended

>How so?

Obviously none at all if they limit it to use with the Prism2 driver.

> Obviously none at all if they limit it to use with the Prism2 driver.

Another driver wouldn't make sense anyway for AirPort, unless you know non-Prism2 cards that are electrically compatible with AirPort. But even if there were such cards there would be no reason to think that they couldn't have been used with MacOS already.

Sorry, I'm over thinking this. Wouldn't it just be easier to plug a PCI card with a supported driver in?

> Wouldn't it just be easier to plug a PCI card with a supported driver in?

On a PowerMac yes. Driver for Prism2 card in PCI is there for years, as said, and it wouldn't even need any modification.

OK, I'm out of expansion slots if SCSI support for Powermacs is introduced so I can sort of see a reason for wanting this.
Although I just use a hard wired connection (as its faster).

[ Edited by Jim on 2011/3/31 21:55 ]

[ Edited by Jim 03.04.2011 - 04:37 ]

My slots are also all full, if I decide to keep dual booting and keep the Avid Meridian audio/video editing hardware. Since Neil Cafferkey is willing to do the work for the receipt of bounty money, I don't understand any resistance to this idea. If you don't support the idea, don't donate anything to the bounty. If you do want support for original Airport cards installed in the original Airport card slot, then donate to the bounty when it is set up. Simple!

> I don't understand any resistance to this idea.

I don't see any resistance.

>I don't see any resistance.

No I don't really either.
But from what was said, it doesn't sound like something they need to assign a bounty to.
It sounds like something they just haven't had time to implement.

I"t doesn't matter to me as I'm not adverse to running Cat5 lines.

My opinion would probably be different if Powerbook support was available and I wanted to use one of those at home.

> from what was said, it doesn't sound like something they need to assign a
> bounty to. It sounds like something they just haven't had time to implement.

The MorphOS Team not having time to implement it is a very valid reason for setting up a bounty to motivate an external developer to accomplish the task, don't you think?

>The MorphOS Team not having time to implement it is a very valid reason for setting up a bounty to motivate an external developer to accomplish the task, don't you think?

Whenever I've mentioned a driver development issues before they've shot me down.
I don't know if its because they don't want to disclose information about some parts of MorphOS or if its merely a matter of coordination, cooperation, direction, etc.

However, as this isn't something like a video driver and there isn't likely to be as much concern over proprietary software, I don't see why an outside developer couldn't do this.

And a bounty would be one way to address the matter. As you've pointed out, if it doesn't concern you then you don't have to donate.

> As you've pointed out, if it doesn't concern you then you don't have to donate.

Now you're mistaking me for amigadave :-)

>Now you're mistaking me for amigadave

Sorry. I should have reviewed that.

You and David are hardly interchangeable (although you both have your positive points). ;)

Quote:

Not sure why this discussion was not placed in the thread started for the topic, but.....

I think resistance is probably the wrong word, as it is more like indifference, or lack of interest by any of the MorphOS Dev. Team members (publicly expressed at any rate). I disagree with jadacaps view that wireless networking without WPA2 is pointless.

I don't think the Team should be working on wireless support until after they have finished other more important features and also finishes support for the G4 PowerBook. If they will allow Neil Cafferkey to work on providing Airport support for the currently supported G4 PowerMacs and that work leads to support for the G4 PowerBook's PCMCIA slot so we can use Prism2 compatible wireless NIC cards when MorphOS2.x support is finally released, it will be a "Win-Win" for everyone.

Update:

>> I thought 2.8 wasn't going to support Powerbooks.

> Yes, as far as I'm aware that didn't change.

Or did it?

http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=32432&forum=41#616764

Not fair quoting Zylesea on this Andreas.

I'm sure somewhere in the back of his mind he remembers that 2.8 isn't intended to offer new support.

Question though - Are the improvements in 3D performance going to make it into the next release?

> I'm sure somewhere in the back of his mind he remembers
> that 2.8 isn't intended to offer new support.

Do you think it's impossible that this intention might have changed and that Zylesea has become aware of this change somehow?

> Are the improvements in 3D performance going to make it into the next release?

I'm not aware of any changes regarding the MorphOS Team's intention to introduce improved R100/R200 3D drivers in MorphOS 2.8. But then I'm probably not the right one to answer this question anyway ;-)

>Do you think it's impossible that this intention might have changed and that Zylesea has become aware of this change somehow?

"Impossible"? No, not all all, but with the qualifier "probably" in Zylesea's statement, unlikely.

> with the qualifier "probably" in Zylesea's statement, unlikely.

It may be that this is the qualifier that was in an authority's (i.e. MorphOS Team member's) original statement and Zylesea just adopted it for his own statement. But yes, it's all just speculation (hence the wording of my comment as a question, not as a statement of fact) until Zylesea or a MorphOS Team member chooses to clarify.

I'm curious to see what makes it into 2.8.

I've had good luck with 2.7 (even though I've heard some reports of issues when compared to 2.6).

I would not be at all adverse to Powerbook support.
I just haven't been able too secure one with the specs I want (15" screen, 128MB VRAM).

You have already got one. Don't you? ;)

> I've had good luck with 2.7 (even though I've heard some
> reports of issues when compared to 2.6).

You mean things that are worse in 2.7 compared to 2.6? Any examples?

> You have already got one. Don't you? ;)

I've been aware that you think I've got a PowerBook. But no, I don't. And I don't know where you got this idea :-)