I know that the original inquiry is dead, but why didn't anyone suggest that he install a larger hard drive and dual boot it?

Using firewire probably only has utility to people that have hardware that interfaces with this old standard (I don't).
Personally, I'd rather see USB3.0/3.1 support.

[ Edited by Jim 07.08.2020 - 04:12 ]

> why didn't anyone suggest that he install
> a larger hard drive and dual boot it?

I think that was because this obvious solution wasn't what he asked about, and his comments #80 and #84 didn't sound like he would go out of his way and buy a larger hard drive to install an OS he has "very little interest in" anyway.

Quote:
Aha, there's also his tool called "FWCamController" aka "FWGrab" about the same length. However it requires VideoPreview.mcc

[ Editiert durch polluks 07.08.2020 - 13:50 ]

Quote:

Where do you have this info about FWCamController/FWGrab and VideoPreview.mcc?

Doesn't anybody has these tools??

I asked Yomgui on facebook, lets see what he answers...

Quote:

No, but its the easy solution to the issue of multi-booting. And if he didn't already own the firewire interface, not much more expensive.

PATA hard drives aren't as readily available in high capacities as SATA (or as cost effective per MB), but a 500 GB drive would be adequate for dual booting, and extra storage could be added by a non-bootable USB drive.

BTW - Anyone still using a system with a PATA interface, there is a nice buy on 1GB PATA interfaced flash modules here:

https://www.cdw.com/product/Transcend-PATA-Flash-Module-Vertical-solid-state-drive-1-GB-IDE-ATA/4013515?cm_cat=google&cm_ite=4013515&cm_pla=NA-NA-TRANSCEND_FL&cm_ven=acquirgy&ef_id=EAIaIQobChMI9fbfz5uJ6wIViZWzCh0mJgM4EAQYASABEgKGs_D_BwE:G:s&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI9fbfz5uJ6wIViZWzCh0mJgM4EAQYASABEgKGs_D_BwE&s_kwcid=AL!4223!3!359094630459!!!g!299765014534!

I really like the form factor, basically you just plug it in in place of the drive cable.

The only thing I don't like about solid state drives is they give you no warning before they fail.



[ Edited by Jim 07.08.2020 - 09:54 ]

>>> why didn't anyone suggest that he install
>>> a larger hard drive and dual boot it?

>> I think that was because this obvious solution wasn't what he
>> asked about, and his comments #80 and #84 didn't sound like he
>> would go out of his way and buy a larger hard drive to install
>> an OS he has "very little interest in" anyway.

> No, but its the easy solution to the issue of multi-booting.

In general yes, but not for someone who, at that point in time, just wants to try out installing MorphOS on his existing hardware as is. Btw, he posted a follow-up thread a year later:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=12568&forum=11

Quote:
It's not a secret...

@ Andreas_Wolf

>Btw, he posted a follow-up thread a year later:

>https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=12568&forum=11

Thanks, that was encouraging. At least he was still trying.

I'm glad I've been willing to throw a little money at my MorphOS systems, as I think I would have been frustrated by certain limitations in the past (particularly the wireless issues I've dealt with).
Now my primary frustration is that I didn't retain Redrumloa's G4 MDD (i'd like to play with that cheap PATA flash drive.

BTW - My G5 has firewire ports, doesn't it? Two firewire 400s and one firewire 800, if I'm not mistaken. So how well are they supported?

Quote:

I still have my MDD G4 PowerMac, that I haven't used in years (not since it was displayed for the Amiga 30 event in Mountain View, CA), if you are interested in owning one again. It has a single 1.25GHz G4 CPU module in it over-clocked to 1.5GHz+/-, which allows it to run cooler

(cooler than the original dual 1.42GHz G4 module)

I just ordered one of those 1gb IDE SSD drives, to test out in one of my Classic Amiga computers, which I have been getting more interested in playing around with lately.

[ Edited by amigadave 07.08.2020 - 17:41 ]

As the Helios source code did appear on Aminet recently, is there any work in the pipeline regarding updates or fixes, maybe by the uploaders themselves?

> the Helios source code did appear on Aminet recently

Really? At least this package doesn't appear to contain the actual Helios source code.

> is there any work in the pipeline regarding updates or fixes […]?

As Helios got integrated into MorphOS (see comment #93), I think that updates/fixes will come from the MorphOS team, if at all.

Quote:
Well, at least there is some code.
Quote:
That looks to me like somebody has touched it for some reason?
Quote:
I don't see why this would exclude the uploaders.

> at least there is some code.

It's the same package with the same header files and example code to write Helios drivers and applications that's been there for years:
http://morphos-files.ppa.pl/find.php?find=helios
https://www.morphos-storage.net/?id=1532597

> That looks to me like somebody has touched it […]?

Not to me. On the bottom of the Aminet page, you can see that all files are from 2010/2011.

>> I think that updates/fixes will come from the MorphOS team, if at all.

> I don't see why this would exclude the uploaders.

The Aminet uploader is "polluks+aminet sdf lonestar org (Stefan Haubenthal)" who doesn't appear to be a MorphOS team member so is unlikely to have access to the actual Helios source code.

They may have got a version from the original author?

> They may have got a version from the original author?

Sorry, I cannot follow. Who is "they" ("Uploaders"? MorphOS team members? Anyone else?) and what would be the implications of them having "got a version" (Of Helios binaries? Of Helios SDK? Of Helios source code?) from Yomgui?

Quote:

That + indicates at least two people i guess?

Quote:

I didn't expect to need to quote a post directly above mine...
Quote:
Not the actual one, but maybe an older package?

Quote:

The + is part of his email address.

> That + indicates at least two people i guess?

You guessed wrong.

>>>> The Aminet uploader is "polluks+aminet sdf lonestar org
>>>> (Stefan Haubenthal)" who doesn't appear to be a MorphOS team
>>>> member so is unlikely to have access to the actual Helios source code.

>>> They may have got a version from the original author?

>> Who is "they" ("Uploaders"? MorphOS team members? Anyone else?)
>> and what would be the implications of them having "got a version"
>> (Of Helios binaries? Of Helios SDK? Of Helios source code?) from Yomgui?

> I didn't expect to need to quote a post directly above mine...

The post directly above yours mentions "uploader" and "team member". How should I know what the intended reference for "they" is when I don't even know what "a version" refers to?

>> The Aminet uploader […] is unlikely to have access to the actual Helios source code.

> Not the actual one, but maybe an older package?

I mean actual as in real, true, proper (because the contained header files and example sources are not the Helios source code), not actual as in current, recent, latest.
I don't see why someone who downloads a binary distribution including SDK for a software stack from MorphOS Storage (as indicated by the version date in Aminet which happens to be the MorphOS Storage upload date) and uploads it to Aminet, which is something anybody can do, should somehow have access to the source code (latest or older) of that software stack. Note that I do not claim that polluks categorally cannot have access to any version of the Helios source code. It's just that I see no reason he would.

Following your arguments it looks like your goal is to cement the impression that Helios should be dead and gone.
I have wondered why anyone would have uploaded this package to Aminet and your response is a discussion about semantics?
Wouldn't it be easier to just write
"No, Helios is obsolete, polluks has no code and the upload helps nobody!"
?

> Following your arguments it looks like your goal is to cement
> the impression that Helios should be dead and gone.

No, you are obviously not capable of following my arguments. I argued nothing of what you think I did. You are just making things up now.

> I have wondered why anyone would have uploaded this package to Aminet

You said this package was the Helios source code. I clarified your misconception. You then said that the contents was recently touched. I clarified that the most recent file of the package was last touched a decade ago, and that the package has been available for just as long and was just not available on Aminet. You then guessed that the package was uploaded by several uploaders, which Intuition clarified was not the case. You then misunderstood me as saying that polluks doesn't have the latest Helios source code but may have an older version of it. I clarified that misunderstanding.
The package was obviously uploaded to Aminet by polluks because it wasn't on Aminet of all places (but on MorphOS Files, MorphOS Storage and probably others).

> and your response is a discussion about semantics?

Semantics, really? It is semantics whether or not the archive contains the Helios source code, or whether it contains updated files or is just an unaltered upload of a decade-old archive already freely available elsewhere, or whether polluks has has an older version of the Helios source code or none at all?

> Wouldn't it be easier to just write "No, Helios is obsolete,
> polluks has no code and the upload helps nobody!"?

No, such answer wouldn't have made any sense whatsoever as a reply to your comments. The easiest (i.e. least effortful) would have been to ignore comment #110 and just not unsettle your belief that the Helios source code was uploaded to Aminet. In comment #112 you could just have written "Too bad, thanks for clarification".
Btw, what gave you the idea that I find Helios obsolete?

Quote:

The latest version of Helios is bundled in MorphOS itself and updated by the MorphOS team, so this Aminet release isn't useful for users, because it contains older versions of binaries and you shouldn't try to install it on your system. It's only for preservation and maybe for 3rd party developers who would want to write applications using helios.library (it contains SDK, but not the source code for the whole stack, and I don't remember are these in the MorphOS SDK).

And the plus sign in the email address is just to separate incoming mails from each others, here's some more information about it: https://www.cs.rutgers.edu/~watrous/plus-signs-in-email-addresses.html

Indeed, it was just for preservation.
I wrote "Version: 0.5 (16.04.17)" to prevent an update of the official distribution.

I have an old iSight FireWire camera laying around. Can I test this with MorphOS on the Mac mini G4? Will it work in any compactly?

Quote:

I guess it would work if only someone wrote a driver for it (which is unlikely).

The pink classes are missing.