SCSI Boot

[Hyperspeed]

Hang on a second, doesn't v4.5 mean it's newer than v4.15? I've seen some coders using for example v4.15 as sub-revision fifteen as opposed to one-five...

I would have thought v4.5 is better?

I know Phase 5 updated the v8.1 to v8.5 ROM on the SCSI-IV kit because of issues with CD burning etc. BlizKick can do this in software if you have the v8.5 image I believe.

Maybe the same could apply for your controller?

[Lockon_15]

Hyperspeed wrote:
Hang on a second, doesn't v4.5 mean it's newer than v4.15? I've seen some coders using for example v4.15 as sub-revision fifteen as opposed to one-five...

I would have thought v4.5 is better?

I know Phase 5 updated the v8.1 to v8.5 ROM on the SCSI-IV kit because of issues with CD burning etc. BlizKick can do this in software if you have the v8.5 image I believe.

Maybe the same could apply for your controller?

 


It got me for a second, too.
But then it would be logical to expect 4.50 notation...no, I don't think so. This is quote just right off Ralph Babel's Amiga pages...

"Note: Yes, 4.15 really is the latest one. Hint: Which section would you expect to come first in a book: 4.5 or 4.15?"

4.15 is gonna burn in hell, but meanwhile I am thinking if it is possible to remap newer ROM into FASTRAM and updating system with Binddrivers...just to see if there is transfer speed increase (it should be above 2.5Mbytes per second AFAIK)  

[Hyperspeed]

What the hell!?

So sub-revisions of programs don't follow decimal rules?

So for example 30.34 would be newer than 30.33 but 1.5 is older/crapper than 1.49?

That can't be right...

[motrucker]

It all depends on who put the software out. GVP followed one set of upgrade numbers, but no one else is forced to follow suite. Actually due to copyright laws, they may not be able to. Then you also have the phase of the moon and sun spots to consider.........

[patrik]

Amiga version numbers are composed of two integers which are written out in the form number1.number2, so 4.15 comes after 4.5, just like chapters in a book.

But seriously, there is no need to argue about this as Ralph Babel who wrote the driver writes on his page that 4.15 is more recent than 4.5.


/Patrik

[Hyperspeed]

Revisions like chapters of a book? What is this, the Bible?

If they wanted to do that shouldn't it be v4:5 Mark Chapter 13...

:-D

When I use the Commodore Installer and it says "Installed Version" and "Version to be installed" I'd pick v4.5 over v4.15.

Even the Europeans would get confused because they just swap the stop with a comma (./,).

And when I check the datestamp the v4.5 usually is more recent than the v4.15 if you get my meaning.

[Hyperspeed]

by patrik:
But seriously, there is no need to argue about this as Ralph Babel who wrote the driver writes on his page that 4.15 is more recent than 4.5.

Yeah, but look at what motrucker said:

by motrucker:
It all depends on who put the software out. GVP followed one set of upgrade numbers, but no one else is forced to follow suite.

And, patrik... that link talks about nothing but GVP drivers (which for some reason give me that 'low quality' vibe).

:-D

[Boot_WB]

Uhh, based on the behaviour of the 'version' command I would assume that all coders would follow the same standard Ralph is following.

If you write (and run) a script file thus:

version >NIL: gvpscsi.device 4.10
  if NOT warn
     print "Ralph is Right, v4.15 is later than v4.5"
  elseif warn
     print "Ralph is wrong, v4.5 is later than v4.15"
  endif

You will find that Ralph is right (assuming I have remembered my syntax correctly).

I use this routine, with different parameters, in my startup-sequence to selectively call bppcfix only when I have the BPPC in the machine (the 68040 library in flashrom is a later version than the one in my LIBS: drawer).  Haven't yet thought of a way to selectively install/remove the warpup libraries though, having them in a seperate drawer with a 'LIBS: ADD' assign doesn't seem to work.

[Piru]

So sub-revisions of programs don't follow decimal rules?

No.

It's quite simple really: version revision [ subrevision]

It just happens that the separator is a '.'

[Hyperspeed]

Piru: If you are one of the coders that subscribes to this madness consider me on your 'Persons likely to strangle me' list!

EDIT: And what happens when things get like V4.5.15?

Is that the fifteenth sub-sub-revision of the fifth sub-revision of version 4?

You've got to be kidding me! That's more arse backwards than manufacturers calling a Megabyte "1,000,000 bytes' (when it should be 1,048,576 bytes).

[odin]

Looks perfectly logical to me. And anyway, software cos seem to like naming their programs after the years they were released in lately  :-P.

[Piru]

@Hyperspeed

Well, this is what C= coding guidelines say. It's all documented.

EDIT: And what happens when things get like V4.5.15?

Is that the fifteenth sub-sub-revision of the fifth sub-revision of version 4?

Sure. Perfectly logical. Except that's it: the fifteenth sub-revision of the fifth revision of version 4.

There can be V4.5.1243 and V4.5.2 and there never is any question about which is more recent, as there is with some weird decimal number notation.

You don't need to like it personally, but this is what most of the civiliced world uses for version numbers.