Well there goes my plans for it... :lol:While my primary focus is Macs, there's no reason MacSD cannot work on other SCSI platforms. It is being tested on Amiga, SGI, Sun, RS/6000, etc by others. I will describe it as unsuitable for applications supporting human life (as are its individual components and the SD card). Nobody should be using this in a traffic light. Everything else is fair game.
Does the CD emulation support 512 byte sector reads? It's an issue with real CD drives on Unix machines and not dealing with real CDs on those would be great.
The Apple made cards (Rev. C and the High Speed SCSI) should be "fine" provided that a device on the bus provides termination power as Apple's cards don't provide it without modification.
Basically any Toshiba or Plextor can. XM-5401B, PX-40TSe, etc, etc. I know Sanyo can not for sure (used in some LaCie drives). The CR504/CD600i iirc is jumperable too, using the 2nd from the far right jumper to enable 512 byte sector support. The 300i might also support that, but I don't remember off the top of my head.CD reads are currently limited to 2048 byte sectors. If 512 byte reads are added, it will most likely be as a third device type rather than a 300i option. Which (fairly common) drives use 512 byte sectors?
This is good to hear!! I had gone ahead and ordered one, so I am looking forward to trying it out.I figured I should chime in. I actually know the guy who makes these great boards. He even sent me an early prototype for testing purposes. I, for one, am thrilled that an alternative to SCSI2SD exists that is more Mac friendly. I've had tons of issues with them so finding one exclusively for the Mac is wonderful. That said I did get the SCSI2SD to work in *some* of my systems but they hated the Mac SE & SE/30 for whatever reason. So, if anyone is on the fence, you really should consider MacSD.
Thanks! That is indeed how it works.You just drop in drive images and update a text file right on the SD card, right? It reminds me of Basilisk (emulator) where you edit the prefs file to tell it what disks to load and CD-ROM etc.
Edit: Now I see @ymk has joined, welcome!
I'm curious about this, because it sounds like this would sort of negate the main reason to go for the MacSD, which is the operational simplicity. Not needing to format cards in a particular way in particular. Is there ultimately any plan to switch over to or allow exfat as an alternative?Direct partition mapping for HDD devices, breaking the 4GB barrier.
I have been working through some stability issues with transferring files from my modern machine
How does an additional feature negate anything? You may have your own "main reason", but buyers have had varied priorities and uses.I'm curious about this, because it sounds like this would sort of negate the main reason to go for the MacSD, which is the operational simplicity.
I feel like it would be fair to describe it as explicitly to the exclusion of other platforms and applications where scsi2sd is also used
One thing that is a bummer for 040s is that disks on this device have a maximum filesize of 4GB due to the underlying FAT32 system, so, SCSI2SD is a better choice for any scenario on an 040 where you want a lot of disk space.
As I understand it, A/UX supports "big" volumes poorly anyway, so the thing that makes me not want to put it in, like, my own 840 (I'd use bigger volumes) aren't that big of a deal for A/UX.
I was using a Win10 VirtualBox install to format a 16gb SD card and transferring files either within the VM or from the OS X host machine. I was mainly editing the macsd.ini file while the card was mounted in OS X. The SD card in the MacSD would either not load disk images properly or freeze up. I am still observing some freezing which happens to be occurring with HyperCard across 3 different CD images, but I am not sure if its an image file issue or the hardware (MacSD or otherwise). There was an instance where the fragmented status light went on and the machine froze. Due to these issues, I switched to using a SBC with Linux to do the formatting and file transfers. That seems to be better but I need to run it a little more and want to test it with my emulator disk images.I have been working through some stability issues with transferring files from my modern machine
Hmm, what kinds of stuff was happening?
What type of images does this support? Full drive, e.g. multiple partitions in one file, or one partition per file? I looked in the manual and wasn't sure. I'm Steve from http://www.savagetaylor.com/2018/01/05/setting-up-your-vintage-classic-68k-macintosh-using-a-scsi2sd-adapter/, and I was wondering if my existing SCSI2SD or floppyEMU images would work
The first thing, in my opinion, that would help would be if they had multiple examples of hard drive configurations, including partitioning, using >4GB volumes, etc. Some of us need to see example code before we "get" it. To me, it doesn't seem terribly complicated to configure the MacSD. But, for someone with no experience with anything like that, I can see where it may be an issue. More examples would help in that regard. But, the other possibility I am wondering about is if they were able to do an online configuration tool. The .ini file is basically just a text file, so I wouldn't think it would be too difficult to put together a web form or process whereby you check boxes and fill in text fields with the options you want, then that's processed with PHP or something similar and it spits out an .ini file you can download and copy to the SD card. I wonder if that would be beneficial for people that want easy configuration. They wouldn't have to do the .ini file themselves; they'd only need to follow a step-by-step process to indicate how they want it configured.However, doing so does, in fact, kind of negate the (at least implicit, but I believe this has been stated) benefit of the MacSD relative to the other extant options, which is that configuration and operation are simple. An explicitly stated reason for excitement for the MacSD is the configuration simplicity, which using it this way changes, to a certain extent. From what I've seen here (and, keep in mind, I'm on this web site, I'm not in your inbox, so I know what people on 68kmla.org wrote in a place where I could see, not what people told you directly) the main interest is in that ease of configuration.
It has crossed my mind. The problem of incorrectly entering filenames, etc remains. I'll add more to the documentation about partitions. For now, here's an example:But, the other possibility I am wondering about is if they were able to do an online configuration tool.
[2:hdd] ; Map SCSI ID 2 to MBR partition 4
partition=4
You have that problem manually doing the .ini file too. But, in the case of an online configuration tool, you can put up a big bold red (or whatever) warning to double-check the filenames before submitting.The problem of incorrectly entering filenames, etc remains.
Cool. Thanks! Though, in my case, I'd most likely have a pretty basic setup. I'm just throwing ideas out there to hopefully make it easier for people who want to use those other options but still want relative simplicity.I'll add more to the documentation about partitions.
This is not "SCSI2SD for dummies". If features I add to this product conflict with what you think it is or should be, you are mistaken. Most of my customers already had a SCSI to SD solution.However, doing so does, in fact, kind of negate the (at least implicit, but I believe this has been stated) benefit of the MacSD relative to the other extant options, which is that configuration and operation are simple
I've sold to non-Mac users and will continue to. Don't concern yourself with it.But in terms of pigeonholing the MacSD as a "Mac" product, well:
That discussion is best led by people who have actually used the device, or at least bothered to read the documentation before speculating.I don't intend to steer potential customers away from your product, but in a meta-discussion about extant SCSI hard disk replacement options, it's worth considering the properties of each solution and how those properties become pros and cons.
With regard to >4GB images, I'm curious what the demand for that is like. Only '040 Macs will officially run volumes over 4GB,
Any color LED can be used, however current is only around 1mA so I recommend using a modern, high intensity type. Brightness will be adjustable through the config file.