> 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 :-)

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

Nothing I've been able to confirm. Everything works as well or better for me.

>> 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

I can't remember who originally suggested this myself.

I'm approaching the whole idea cautiously as I have a fairly high spec, and don't want a piece of crap (unfortunately a lot of G4 Powerbooks are looking pretty rugged these days).

> Nothing I've been able to confirm.

I meant examples of such reports, not necessarily something you experienced yourself. Got any? I ask because 2.7 was supposed to be mainly a bug fix release.

> I can't remember who originally suggested this myself.

Someone other than you suggested I had a PowerBook? Really strange.

I have not seen anything but speculation about the possibility of MorphOS2.8 supporting G4 PowerBook's, for and against.

I won't rule it out until I see an announcement from one of the Team members that clarifies what 2.8 will, and will not have in it.

> I have not seen anything but speculation about the possibility
> of MorphOS2.8 supporting G4 PowerBook's, for

Yes, so far we only have Zylesea's recent statement on aw.net for possible PowerBook G4 support in 2.8.

> and against.

In Bad Bramstedt in November 2010 it was said by MorphOS Team members that

1. faster R100/R200 3D drivers were supposed to come in 2.8,
2. R300 3D drivers were supposed to come after the faster R100/R200 3D drivers,
3. PowerBook G4 support would definitely not come without R300 3D drivers.

Now do the math.

>faster R100/R200 3D drivers were supposed to come in 2.8

At least that will be impressive. MorphOS 3D drivers for these cards already work fairly well (although I couldn't see moving back to an R100).

That kind of math is still just rumor, just like the first time you tried to support your theory that 2.8 would not include support for G4 PowerBook's. Until confirmed by one or more members of the Dev. Team, I won't rule out the possibility of 2.8 supporting the G4 PowerBook's. Basing your prediction on statements which are "supposed" to come in 2.8, or "supposed" to come after faster drivers, does not mean much to me. Also, plans change and those statements are old and indefinite.

You might be right and the Team members who made those statements stuck to those plans of what was "supposed" to happen first, and second, and third. But there could be just as likely a chance that development has been faster, or slower on one or more parts and plans have changed. We shall see, when some real announcements are made on the official MorphOS Development Team website.

[ Edited by amigadave 31.05.2011 - 21:56 ]

> That kind of math is still just rumor

I'd call it logical deduction.

> I won't rule out the possibility of 2.8 supporting the G4 PowerBook's.

Me neither. Zylesea's recent statement could be a hint that the MorphOS Team's plans have changed in that regard. That's what I said.

> Basing your prediction on statements which are "supposed" to come in 2.8, or
> "supposed" to come after faster drivers, does not mean much to me.

I didn't mention any "statements which are "supposed" to come in 2.8, or "supposed" to come after faster drivers". Why should MorphOS 2.8 contain statements? Why should statements "come after faster drivers"? This doesn't even make any sense to me.
As for "predicting", I'm not predicting anything. I'm merely reporting what was said by MorphOS Team members in November 2010 in Bad Bramstedt and drawing logical conclusions from this. What's wrong with that as long as we don't have any better information from the MorphOS Team?

> plans change

Yes, plans may change. That's what I said.

> and those statements are old and indefinite.

Yes, but we don't have anything more recent or precise, do we? (Apart from Zylesea's statement who's not a MorphOS Team member that is.)

> You might be right and the Team members who made those statements
> stuck to those plans of what was "supposed" to happen

Huh? Please don't put words into my mouth. I never said I thought they stucked to those plans. Quite to the contrary. When I stumbled upon Zylesea's comment on aw.net I was the first to suspect that the old plan that was valid in November 2010 may have changed by now.

> there could be just as likely a chance that development has been faster,
> or slower on one or more parts and plans have changed.

Yes, that's what *I* right in this very thread suspected may have happened. So don't pretend I didn't do that.

> We shall see, when some real announcements are made on
> the official MorphOS Development Team website.

Yes, and until that happens the best we have is still what was publically said by MorphOS Team members in November 2010.

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

Apparently, it did:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7960&forum=3&start=12