> Why should I list all supported hardware

Nobody asked you to list anything. Don't make up things, please.

> when I have asked for certain cards?

You asked for a list of MorphOS-supported SCSI chipsets and you got a link to the official list. I really don't know what you're complaining about.

> Its similar to giving overall info / pointing to e.g. root of website

No, you were given the direct link to the relevant page, not to the root of the website.

> In time, PCI will be dead as ISA

This is probably true, but doesn't change the fact that PCI SCSI cards can be had way cheaper than PCIe x1 SCSI cards, which renders your justification of the high PCIe x1 card prices by saying that "good" SCSI cards were never cheap questionable at best.

Quote:

I was provided with overall supported hardware list, not just SCSI controllers.

Quote:

Habit of providing links, instead of answers. In time people will prefer
my stylee, even you are defenetely way more knowledgable person.

Quote:

Uh oh, yes ... yes ...

Quote:

Good SCSI cards were NEVER cheap.

And why would you need a "good SCSI card" ?

Still got some data on last century SCSI-HDs (Sequests,Zips or even tape) ? Do yourself a favour and copy it to a more current&reliable medium -> any working SCSI-card listed on MorphOS.de will work and can be removed after finishing the task.

Still got some SCSI-scanner ? Sure most of todays USB-scanners are crap, but getting one that will supercede anything SCSI won't be a biggie.
(and even if, even the cheapest/slowest supported SCSI-card would be enough to keep the old scanner working)

-> SCSI is dead, obsolete, has runs it's course .....

Quote:

Except, of course, that U320 is still faster than SATA.
Reliability...well what do you want from drives that spin at 10-15k rpm?

It is all moot though.

I have a Raptor I installed in one of my G5s (I have two now) and it gives me the benefit of higher rotation speed and an SATA interface.

Right now, all I need is an external drive housing (as Apple, perpetual geniuses that they are, only put two drive bays in the G5).

Quote:

320MB/s vs. 6Gb/s(SATA_3) ? Ermm....

Well even if we only have SATA_1 atm, those 1.5Gb/s are still close enough to U320 for the gap to be more than closed in real life by useing newer HDs or even SSDs.

-> SCSI is still dead



[ Edited by Kronos 19.01.2014 - 17:38 ]

Quote:

Yes, first because we don't have SATA3, just 1 and 2.
Second because SATA rarely saturates that bandwidth.

And SCSI is hardly dead, it just moved to SAS.

Although...now that you mention it, I wouldn't mind an SATA3 controller.
Maybe something based on PCI-E so vOX would be quiet.

Quote:

In related news:
ST506 ain't dead, it just moved IDE and then SATA ....

Quote:

In a weird way, almost true.
But then, an IDE controller isn't going to be able to handle an ancient RLL encoded drive.
Curiously enough, SAS isn't backward compatible with SCSI, but with SATA2.

> I was provided with overall supported hardware list, not just SCSI controllers.

That's because there is no official page dedicated to just the supported SCSI chipsets. Seriously, how long did it take you to scroll down and find the SCSI list after you clicked the link?

> Habit of providing links, instead of answers.

Not just random links but links to the actual answers on the official website.

>> PCI SCSI cards can be had way cheaper than PCIe x1 SCSI cards, which renders
>> your justification of the high PCIe x1 card prices by saying that "good" SCSI cards
>> were never cheap questionable at best.

> Good SCSI cards were NEVER cheap.

Again: Compared to PCIe x1 SCSI cards, PCI SCSI cards are very cheap.

> I wouldn't mind an SATA3 controller. Maybe something based on PCI-E so
> vOX would be quiet.

SATA3 controllers are always PCIe-based. At least I couldn't find anything else.

Quote:

Yes, I know Andreas.
We have discussed this before.
ATA133 pretty much consumed the entire capacity of a PCI bus.
PCI simply can not handle the transfer rates of later drives.
So when we start talking about U320 or SATA, what is really needed is a wider or faster bus.
64 bit PCI, PCI-X, PCI-E - anything more capable than PCI.
Simply stating the max transfer rate of a drive, when it is being bottleneck by an archaic interface doesn't give you a fair measure of how the drive will perform.
Rotational speed, buffer size and access time also play a major role in the ultimate performance of a drive.

While I applaud the adoption of the Promise SATAII interface cards, I am fully aware that as they use a PCI interface, their main advantage will be in allowing us to use larger drives with bigger caches.

Until we have a more advanced interface/bus our drives will face this restriction.

>>> I wouldn't mind an SATA3 controller. Maybe something based on PCI-E so
>>> vOX would be quiet.

>> SATA3 controllers are always PCIe-based. At least I couldn't find anything else.

> Yes, I know Andreas.

I see. Your wording implied to me that you don't.

> what is really needed is a wider or faster bus. 64 bit PCI, PCI-X, PCI-E - anything more
> capable than PCI. [...] Until we have a more advanced interface/bus our drives will face
> this restriction.

I think we do have 64-bit PCI and PCI-X in some MorphOS-supported PowerMacs.

>I think we do have 64-bit PCI and PCI-X in some MorphOS-supported PowerMacs.

Yes, at one time I kept a PCI-X G5 SATAII controller around, but as it used a Marvell chipset it was never a likely candidate for support so I sold it recently.

For now, I will uses Raptor drives and put up with the bottleneck.

There are Promise PCI-X controllers that are closely related to the newly supported controllers, but I don't expect them to be supported anytime soon either.

Just imagine what an SATAIII RAID array interfaced to an X4 PCI-E controller card could do in the dual and quad core G5s.

THAT would be a nice upgrade.