Drobe :: The archives
About Drobe | Contact | RSS | Twitter | Tech docs | Downloads | BBC Micro

ROL faces rebellion over Select delays

By Chris Williams. Published: 2nd Oct 2005, 18:48:33 | Permalink | Printable

Top tip of the day: Don't ask for more money when you're 12 months late

RISCOS Ltd. logoRISCOS Ltd. have responded at length to heavy criticism from Select users. Paying subscribers are furious that they are being asked to fork out cash for another year's worth of updates, despite the fact that no software has been released under the scheme since June 2004. There is also confusion over how many Iyonix owners have registered an interest in a Select port for the Castle machine, and what features are likely to be included in future versions of Select.

MD Paul Middleton replied, "We are giving a three month's grace on Select subscriptions. i.e memberships that aren't renewed will have a three month's grace period before they lapse.

"I hope everyone will realise that if no-one renews their Select subscriptions then development will ultimately cease from lack of cashflow. We don't have the profit from hardware sales to use to subsidise the OS development."

However, it is unclear as to whether or not subscribers will see any Select updates within this extended period.

Paul went on to blast Castle for their actions last summer, which ROL claim led to the delay in the release of Select 4. He also pointed out 33 features of Select that are not present in RISC OS 5, but were included in Castle's mothballed Merlin wishlist project.

The ROL boss added that since our previous article on Select for the Iyonix, the number of Iyonix users who have registered an interest in the port has doubled to 36. ROL has not taken money yet from these particular subscribers, as they are waiting for at least 100 people to confirm that want Select for the Iyonix. Paul hinted that the hardware independence work for the A9 range of computers could be used to aid an Iyonix port.

Subscribers have also demanded that there be improved communication from ROL, especially in the form of regular development progress reports, and consultation on features they want to see implemented.


RISCOS Ltd. website

Previous: Euro mag to list active RISC OS developers
Next: Fonts website folds under legal threat


Viewing threaded comments | View comments unthreaded, listed by date | Skip to the end

Its the only thing to generate traffic on the Select mailing list recently which is a great shame :-(

 is a RISC OS Usermarkee174 on 2/10/05 7:52PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Well I think it was a bit strong to say in the article that Paul blasted Castle in his reply on the Select list. What he did say was that anyone who has been involved in commercial software development would appreciate the problems of undertaking this task even allowing for last years issues and that things had moved on since then. He did say that it would help if Castle were more active though even then he could not give a timescale. All of which I think is a far cry from a good blasting as the article tried to put it.

As one of those waiting for Select on Iyonix I appreciated Paul response and it did go a samll way to help repair the damage of no new Select version for over 12months let alone an Iyonix one.

I think the article could have been more positive and used the word "explained" rather than blasted as I do not think this is how it read.

Hopefully a way forward can be found to keep people on board or those in to conspiracies could make a good thread on ROL dying due to lack of funds and being snapped up by Castle or AD6.

 is a RISC OS Userbluenose on 2/10/05 8:30PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

"We don't have the profit from hardware sales to use to subsidise the OS development."

Surely ROL will be seeing extra cashflow generated by the sale of A9Homes that should cover the lost Select subscriptions? If not, it would seem to me to be a rather odd business decision to concentrate solely on the A9 and not release anything for Select subscribers. It's not hard to predict that people aren't going to be happy resubscribing to something that doesn't actually provide them with any product.

I have a lot of respect for ROL in their development of the OS, but the strange thing is that ROL probably don't even need to produce any new features for a Select release. If they just released a new Select version with the new 32-bit components of the A9Home, subscribers would probably be much happier than they are now.

Unfortunately I couldn't read Paul's posting, or the replies to it, since I'm an ex-Select subscriber.

 is a RISC OS Userflypig on 2/10/05 9:06PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

@flypig: Youdon't have to be a select subscriberto read Paul's posting, it is linked to from the article and is readable by everyone on the internet.

Paul explained in his posting, that they are not concentrating solely on the A9, but that they are developing a unified version of RISC OS, wich should ultimately run on all RISC OS machines, including the Iyonix. So they have made some big changes to the core components of RISC OS, to get more hardware independance, as well as adding new features wich will be very useful to all users.

Please could everyone read Pauls original posting before writing ill-conceived comments here? TIA

 is a RISC OS UserJGZimmerle on 2/10/05 10:25PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]


Thanks for pointing the link out; I missed it originally, but it's certainly worth reading.

Whilst Paul makes lots of very valid points in his message, especially highlighting the clear benefits that Select has brought to RISC OS (which I really do applaud), I don't think it affects the issues I raised above.

Ultimately though, if ROL and RO users get through the current drought and we end up with a unified version, then I'm sure a lot of users (including me) will be made very happy.

 is a RISC OS Userflypig on 2/10/05 11:45PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

While I agree with a lot of Paul's points in his post, and it certainly seems that Select offers a lot more than RO5 (apart from Iyonix support) I'm sorry but if you can't afford to run a business without having cash in advance from users (and not giving them anything for it in over a year) then you shouldn't be running that business, and obviously the market isn't profitable enough to bother anyway.

Now if you're doing it out of a love of RISC OS and not for meagre profits, then bloody opensource it and cut the crap! Hey that would really stick it to Castle - you'd have a huge development team of volunteers then, we'd have Select 4 for Iyonix in 3 months! ;-) The alternative would be to sell ROL to Castle....

I just don't agree with whining about not having a hardware business to offset the costs of developing the OS, bloody form a hardware business then, and if you can't then stop whinging, or make yourself a charity and sell 2ukp RiscPC's - assuming you can compete with Peter & Paul (sounds biblical dunnit?!)

 is a RISC OS Usersimo on 3/10/05 9:13AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

All I'm asking for at this stage is for ROL to honour the Select terms of providing a minimum of one release (26bit or 32bit) during a subscription period. If this isn't possible for whatever reason, then to extend the subscription period until a release is made - which is quite different from allowing renewals for another 3 months.

Once we have something in return for money spent, we can look at if there is anything to be gained from continuing with Select given their continued reluctance to produce a version the 32bit machine that I actually use now.

 is a RISC OS Userdruck on 3/10/05 9:32AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

I think the crux of the problem here is that ROL are trying to run a business in a market with incredibly narrow margins, so yes a lot of it is enthusiasm. I don't see a problem.

Many RISCOS users fall into the category of enthusiast, yet their understanding of the business world forces them to expects mega-corporation results from companies (not just ROL) that can't always deliver them.

Yes, select subscribers are forking out for a service that they have not received within the 12month subscription term, and this may breach the terms of the subscription (I don't know I haven't seen it), but if I am interpreting Paul's comments correctly (as an enthusiats) he doesn't want to release an untested and incomplete product, and draw even more flak (like Microsoft do every few years).

RISCOS (from my point of view) is a stable, reliable and fairly flexible OS as far as it goes, that's a hell of a lot more than can be said for Windows, which is developed by a megacorp and has more bugs, security holes and undocumented features then virtually any other OS. And yet they have the gall to sell it as a completed product.

My point (I do get to one eventually). is that with the market as it is, a lot of work is done for love of the platform, even for those operating companies. So if the market suddenly takes off, then we can start making the sort of demands about service.

 is a RISC OS UserJDC on 3/10/05 2:37PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

JDC: Leave it off with the Windows knocking, since it's largely out of date. These days I don't find RISC OS more stable than it, and RISC OS is hardly secure, just too unknown to be exploited. Pick on the genuine bad points of Windows (such as the most of what can be said about the UI).

Getting back on topic, RISC OS is a business, and they should be treated like one. I think that most RISC OS users are willing to give them a little slack, but they are not a charity. Where do you draw the line? How long do they go with not delivering the next Select and with trotting out endless excuses for ignoring the Iyonix before you'll criticise their behaviour?

"If the market suddenly takes off" - that won't happen with RISC OS behaving like this, or, if it does, it will be inspite of and not because of them. They need to take some risks if RISC OS is to have a future, and do whatever they can think of to increase the size of the userbase, yet they don't appear to be willing to make too much effort to halt the decline.

 is a RISC OS UserSimonC on 3/10/05 2:52PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

druck: You've said before you'd like something for your money. Assuming that's fair [1], I wonder if you'd accept a heavily discounted set of Adjust ROMs? I'm sure the physical cost of a set of ROMs is very small and, in a sense, subscribers have already paid for the actual software...


[1] I'm on the fence on this one as I know nothing about the technical/contractual/admin etc detail of the Select "scheme".

 is a RISC OS Useradamr on 3/10/05 3:02PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

SimonC wrote: "Leave it off with the Windows knocking, since it's largely out of date. These days I don't find RISC OS more stable than it, and RISC OS is hardly secure, just too unknown to be exploited. Pick on the genuine bad points of Windows (such as the most of what can be said about the UI). "

The key element to my paragraph was that it was my point of view, perception etc, so please take it in that context. I wasn't 'Knocking Windows' especially, the comparison was meant to provide a releative view of the size of the company, its service, the quality of its product and its user base to ROL its service, the quality of its product and its user base. While not entirly comparable in other areas, I think its interesting that such a small company makes a relativly superior product drawing funds from a much smaller user base/market.

SimonC wrote: Getting back on topic, RISC OS is a business, and they should be treated like one. I think that most RISC OS users are willing to give them a little slack, but they are not a charity. Where do you draw the line? How long do they go with not delivering the next Select and with trotting out endless excuses for ignoring the Iyonix before you'll criticise their behaviour?

Thats my point, you've made it quite well, as a business, there is little or no excuse for that kind of behaviour. However its a business run by enthusiasts, so there is some obligation to deliver a proper product beyond the financial. This is where things come unstuck as you can't operate a business that way.

I am not defending the way the operate, but I understand it.

SimonC wrote: "If the market suddenly takes off" - that won't happen with RISC OS behaving like this, or, if it does, it will be inspite of and not because of them. They need to take some risks if RISC OS is to have a future, and do whatever they can think of to increase the size of the userbase, yet they don't appear to be willing to make too much effort to halt the decline.

Not exactly the point of the comment, but a good point none-the-less.

 is a RISC OS UserJDC on 3/10/05 3:16PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Druck: "All I'm asking for at this stage is for ROL to honour the Select terms of providing a minimum of one release (26bit or 32bit) during a subscription period."

Did they change the terms after the original announcement, then? I remember quite clearly (and have checked back) that they announced in their posting to csa.announce titled "News from RISCOS Ltd 18/05/01" that "All Subscribers to RISC OS Select will receive up to 3 CD's per year i.e one CD approximately every 4 months." and that there were complaints at the time that that could mean *no* CD in a year.

 is a RISC OS UserStoppers on 4/10/05 9:09AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to Stoppers: Well it could be interpreted as no releases, but quite clearly to receive nothing is a violation of statutory rights. Thats just my oppinion however, but in a couple of months time it looks like I will be seeking legal advice to confirm that, so I'll let you know.

 is a RISC OS Userdruck on 4/10/05 9:37AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

I would imagine if nothing is supplied the 'subscription' becomes a donation. I agree with Druck, I think if something is described as a subscription it implies you receive something in return.

 is a RISC OS Userdemondb on 4/10/05 9:56AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to adam: "You've said before you'd like something for your money. Assuming that's fair [1], I wonder if you'd accept a heavily discounted set of Adjust ROMs?" No I wouldn't, I've quite galdly paid a much larger sum to fund on going operating system over the last 4 years, rather than just waiting for a point release which is what Adjust is. It would be no benefit to me as the machine is used so infrequently as few extra seconds on boot up from softloading is not an issue, but relpacing the ROMs would loose the ability to test software with vanila RO4 as well as Select, which is one of the reasons the machine isn't now in a skip.

 is a RISC OS Userdruck on 4/10/05 11:11AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Good grief, when wil you guys give it a break! Go ahead Druck you waste your money on hiring a lawyer to tell you you are legally correct. That will make you feel better. Good for you! Personally I think SHOCK HORROR that ROL are entitled to some slack here, they are a bunch of well intentioned guys, trying to keep alive our favourite OS, perhaps if Druck was to put the not inconsequential fees to his lawyer in the pot, and other like minded procarstinators, there might be increased funding for ROL. All I can say is keep up the good work.

 is a RISC OS Userjcmcculloch on 5/10/05 6:39AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to jcmcculoch: ROL are not a charity, they are a comercial enterprise. They make money by selling products that people want to buy. Simply giving them money because they are developers of RO is not the solution. I still can't believe that in 6 years they have not diversified and started selling other apps/utilities to suppliment their income from the OS. Perhaps they might have more money to play with then.

Druck and everyone else in the Select scheme who have not received anything, not even regular updates as to what is happenning, all have a good and valid point of contension with ROL.

 is a RISC OS Usersa110 on 5/10/05 7:51AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Why hasn't Paul Middleton mailed everyone with an Iyonix? Castle have the records. Simple - isn't it? Then ROL would know who would like an Iyonix Select.

 is a RISC OS UserDaveW on 5/10/05 8:10AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

sa110: That is exactly the point that RISC OS Ltd.'s supporters seem to be missing. I've not wasted any money on Select in the hope I'd have it for my Iyonix, but I fully understand the frustration of those who have. OTOH, I gave money to the UPP in the hope of the Firefox port, and even if that had not materialised I wouldn't have felt that aggreived, since that was being worked on by a private individual in his own time. If RISC OS Ltd stopped being a company and became a bunch of enthusiasts then they would be getting far less hassle. If they claim to be professionals then they should act like them. Their current behaviour isn't going to make RISC OS look good to the rest of the world (if they even notice), yet it desperately needs new users.

DaveW: Not entirely true, since not everyone bought their Iyonix direct from Castle, and they may not all have bothered registering.

 is a RISC OS UserSimonC on 5/10/05 8:58AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

It's a good and decent step of Paul Middleton to offer an explanation as to what has been going on and to make an apology. I do appreciate that and I really hope ROL will improve on their communication with not just their subscribers, but the whole platform community, because I do think that has likely caused a lot of confusion. They really should try to 'package' their product for the public better in future. Let themselves be heard more clearly and their business intentions be better understood. For example, they should really update and improve their website! In fact, I think they should totally revise it! Even though somewhere, sometimes, an update seems to occur, it simply doesn't show.

So, now subscribers have a 3 months "bonus". I'm unclear as to what that actually means for the current situation, or how that may try to compensate the lack of a Select development which subscribers have expected and paid for. I'm sure many people have already been fairly forgiving and understanding of the particular situation of RISCOS Ltd, so Paul needs to address what is going to happen now. As far as I can see, A9home users seem to be enjoying the fruits of labour paid for by Select subscribers.

I just wonder how this will continue. Will people pardon them and re-subscribe? Like Paul says - It's up to us. Although I can not endorse the lack of an available product, I do value their work and believe they are really working to modernise and enhance RISC OS for us all.

Something which, unfortunately, can hardly be said of Castle. Speaking of which, what does Paul exactly mean when he said:

"Youmightalsoliketoconsiderthatthe availabilityofSelectfor Iyonixwouldbe muchmorelikelyifwehadsupportforthe projectfrom Castle."

Which seems to imply that 100 specific requests is not the only decisive factor in bringing Select to Iyonix.

 is a RISC OS UserhEgelia on 5/10/05 9:13AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

I wouldn't be so angry if I hadn't already been through all this once with ROL. My previous subscription ran out in July 2004, and because of no commitment to Select for Iyonix I let it lapse. However at the South East Show in October 2004 ROL at last seemed be offering to support the Iyonix with a new 32bit option, so I signed back up to a combined 26bit and 32bit subscription.

In July this year I received a subscription renewal form from ROL despite the fact that my current subscription had only run for 9 months, and there had already been no release for 13 months since June 2004. I contacted Paul Middleton in priviate to complain about the situation, and he assured me that there would be a release in the near future and extended my subscription to October, a full 12 months after it began.

Now it is October, there still has not been any releases for 16 months, and we have been asked to pay again. The 3 month renewal grace period has been offered again but with no commitment to providing anything for the year we have already paid for. Plus I suspect anyone signing up within the 3 months will find like I did, the subscritpion only then runs until 12 momths from the end of the last one.

In reply to jcmcculloch: thankyou for your concern about my potential legal costs, but I can assure you I have an advantagous relationship with members of the legal profession.

 is a RISC OS Userdruck on 5/10/05 9:34AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

hEgelia: What sort of support are ROL requesting from Castle? Datasheets? Technical assistance? Money? It's all too easy to lay the blame somewhere else if you don't have to explain yourself any further.

ROL seems to me to be better at passing the blame than they are to actually do what the company was founded for. According to them Select for Iyonix can't happen because:

1) Not enough Iyonix users have declared interest Did they ever bother contacting Iyonix users that weren't already Select subscribers and tell them where and how they could declare their interest?

2) Castle isn't doing enough. What on earth has ROL been doing for the past 5 years? And why should Castle be the ones doing the work or coming up with the money? ROL is a company selling a product - Castle shouldn't have to be funding it or developing it for them!

3) Castle's actions last year hindered the development of Select. Well, according to Castle ROL's licence to develop RISC OS was cancelled because ROL refused to recognise Castle as the owners of RISC OS and refused to pay the licence fee. That of course is entirely Castle's fault and has nothing to do with ROL's failure to pay their bills? I have not seen ROL comment on this, only whining about Castle being unfair and unwilling to support them.

4) There hasn't been hardware available to do a 32 bit OS. This has been the poorest excuse to date and people have jumped on it as if there was a touch of truth in it. I don't recall ROL actually using this argument themselves but far too many people have thrown it about and many even still believe this. The RiscPC was brought to the market in 1994 and is fully capable of running a 32 bit OS.

RISCOS Ltd. looks more and more like MicroDigital to me, incapable of delivering a product but all too eager to blame just about anything and anyone else for it.

Has anyone read RISCOS Ltd's Mission statement recently? How much of this do you feel ROL has lived up to? [link]

 is a RISC OS UserGulli on 5/10/05 9:42AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Rather than giving a 3 month extension to the subscription, perhaps ROL should take a leaf out of Qercus' books - no offence intended to John, but we frequently see posts on the newsgroups asking when the latest long delayed issue is going to appear, and John's replies often stress the point that the sub is for a number of issues, and not a period of time.

Perhaps ROL should extend the current Select subscriptions not for a set period, but until such a time as they actually release the next version - and from this point, the subscription should run "for 12 months, or until at least one new release has been issued, whichever is the longer".

Perhaps they should also consider releasing previous issues as stand-alone products for non-subscribers, sensibly priced (given their age - more recent = more expensive). I'd wager that they'd get a cash flow boost from doing that, given the number of RISC OS 4 users.

Yes, I've already heard all the arguments about people who subscribed from the start effectively funding development of a cheap product for those who would buy the older/cheaper standalone releases, but at the end of the day, this is normal, in just about every industry. Once development costs are met, things get cheaper for those who take them up later.

 is a RISC OS UserVinceH on 5/10/05 10:13AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Gulli: 2) Castle isn't doing enough...... It is "normal" that the hardware builder pays the OS-builder for making the OS or even helps to build it. For instance windows NT for Alpha was mostly done and paid by Digital.

And when the hardware builder doesn't pay then there must be enough demand from users to get the OS.

 is a RISC OS Useregel on 5/10/05 11:02AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

What makes people think that Castle are at all interested in helping ROL. Surely they are competitors as Castle have both hardware and RO5. ROL needs to forget developing for the Iyonix. Its only hope is to get into bed with Ad6 and force Castle to resume talks about merging the OS by ensuring there is an alternative software AND hardware platform.

Castle are just waiting for ROL to fold.

All IMO of course.

 is a RISC OS Userdemondb on 5/10/05 12:24PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

demondb: Unfortunately what you say sounds possible. It would be a very petty attitude, and one that won't really benefit either Castle or ROL in the long run.

 is a RISC OS UserSimonC on 5/10/05 1:17PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to SimonC

No, it's a very businesslike attitude. Castle are not a charity, and I would imagine they would want to protect their market.


ROL are being criticised for not being businesslike, why give Caste a hard time for being just that.

 is a RISC OS Userdemondb on 5/10/05 4:16PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

egel: My point was that why did Castle develop/buy their own version of RISC OS in the first place? According to them it was because ROL didn't have a 32 bit version ready and didn't seem capable to deliver a 32 bit version within a given timeframe. Now three years after the Iyonix was released ROL still doesn't have a 32 bit RISC OS and suddenly Castle is to blame?

Going directly for a VIDC independent OS capable of running on a 32 bit processor could have saved the market from the Omega mess and more developers would probably still be around, VOTI to name but one.

demondb: Wasn't it Castle that wanted to merge the OS in the first place but ROL refused to do so for some reason? Doesn't seem likely that ROL is going to be the one forcing the other to talk about merging given that!

 is a RISC OS UserGulli on 5/10/05 4:17PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Why not, that may have been at a time when they were looking for someone else to write the OS.

Now they have put in all the money to develop RO5, why bother with ROL.

 is a RISC OS Userdemondb on 5/10/05 5:40PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

demondb: It's a bad attitude to have in such a small market because it can damage everyone. I don't see that the OS split is beneficial to Castle or RISC OS Ltd., and neither do I see why Select on the Iyonix would be a problem for Castle. Frankly, I don't see why Castle and ROL are acting like rivals, since there isn't a great deal of overlap. ROL don't make hardware, and the only reason Castle have their own OS is to have something to run on their hardware.

 is a RISC OS UserSimonC on 5/10/05 6:00PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

It's not my attitude. Personally I want RISC OS to continue as long as it can, I think it is superb, and I have used it since it was developed. I started out with Arthur !

What I am saying is that there is obviously some reason we are not aware of as to why these two companies do not get along. One part or the other is causing problems. Surely it is not rocket science to get together and sort it out; therefore the reason they aren't is that one or both of them do not want to.

 is a RISC OS Userdemondb on 05/10/05 9:20PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Sorry if my comments meant I thought it was your attitude, I didn't mean to imply that.

 is a RISC OS UserSimonC on 05/10/05 10:54PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Simon C Re business overlap. Funnily enough there seems to be a great deal of overlap. Castle and ROL both have interest in the desktop market, and have versions of OS for 'modern' ARM based machines.

ROL developed 'Embedded Adjust-32' IIRC which apparently lead to the work they are doing on the A9. Embedded OS work (if Castles Press Releases are to be believed) is their bread and butter. So complete overlap in those areas.

The only thing that ROL doesn't do that Castle does is develop hardware.


 is a RISC OS Userblahsnr on 06/10/05 5:03PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

I disagree. Castle only develop an OS because there wasn't anything suitable for their hardware at the time of the Iyonix's creation. If Castle stopped developing RISC OS 5 and RISC OS Ltd. supplied the OS for the Iyonix, I can't see how either of them would lose. ROL have more OSs sold, and Castle get to put more of their resources into the hardware.

 is a RISC OS UserSimonC on 06/10/05 5:09PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

@SimonC: I agree, especially because Castle don't seem to be doing much OS development, apart from hardware-related stuff.

 is a RISC OS UserJGZimmerle on 06/10/05 7:19PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Simon and Julian:

It may have been the case that Castle only developed ROS 5 because nothing else suitable was available, but since then Castle have acquired Tematic. I may have misunderstood exactly what Tematic do, but I'd have thought this acquisition will have changed Castle's business direction quite substantially, with the result that there is now more overlap between Castle and ROL.

If Castle stopped developing RISC OS for embedded or other markets, wouldn't that leave Tematic with much less to do?

 is a RISC OS Userflypig on 06/10/05 7:56PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

@flypig: That is exactly the point! Tematic are developing for the embedded markets, wich means mostly adding support for specific hardware features and developing client-specific specialised applications. Now Ad6 are doing that as well, but ROL mostly develop non-hardware-specific OS components (except where more hardware abstraction is needed).I think Castle could benefit greatly from the developments that ROL have done over the years and are continuing to do. Yes, they both develop RISC OS, but they mostly work on different areas of the OS. For the desktop community, this has led to the unfourtunate situation, that we can't get the best version of RISC OS for the fastest RISC OS machine.

 is a RISC OS UserJGZimmerle on 06/10/05 9:32PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

That's endemic of a number of platforms not just RISCOS, and will likely always be the case in future. For small markets this doesn't have to be a bad thing, as it reduces the competition, as opposed to driving out developers and making the market even smaller.

The problem is now that the trust betweem ROL and Castle has suffered a severe battering after last years events, and while ROL and still paying for the license there is likely to be even less cooporation between the two. In a perfect world, ROL and Castle would be exchanging data and specs for the benefit of all. Unfortunatly, it doesn't work that way.

 is a RISC OS UserJDC on 07/10/05 01:32AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

As for ROL, would you not have expected them to have developed something other than the OS by now. Perhaps an application or two, where this is a gap in the marketplace?

 is a RISC OS Usersa110 on 07/10/05 1:22PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

sa110 Yes indeed! Even before the Castle ROL dispute I realised that both OS versions were equally fine but there was no point me buying another Iyonix or other RISC OS machine as those 'gaps in the marketplace' were the things I wanted to do with my computer.

IF a Real Player had arrived (say under the Helix community system) then I'd have happily paid good money for it.

Or a video editing suite to run on the Iyonix and/or a with a way to convert Quicktime movies to Replay ones. (After all didn't PM's previous company sell a video editor in the good old days for the Archimedes?)

Any one of hese would have made buying a mac (even a mini) a lot harder to justify.

 is a RISC OS Userblahsnr on 07/10/05 6:58PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

The Mac has some nice features and certainly a very pretty User Interface, but RISCOS still delivers a great (and IMHO superior) user experience. Its a shame we do not have most RISCOS software....

 is a RISC OS Usermarkee174 on 08/10/05 9:48PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Please login before posting a comment. Use the form on the right to do so or create a free account.

Search the archives

Today's featured article

  • Internationalising RISC OS
    Unicode, i18n and more explained
     30 comments, latest by caliston2 on 16/7/03 8:57PM. Published: 10 Jul 2003

  • Random article

  • USB in latest RISC OS 5 source release
    Third batch of code available from ROOL and CTL
     3 comments, latest by hzn on 29/2/08 11:17AM. Published: 22 Feb 2008

  • Useful links

    News and media:

    Top developers:
    RISCOS LtdRISC OS OpenMW SoftwareR-CompAdvantage SixVirtualAcorn

    CJE MicrosAPDLCastlea4X-AmpleLiquid SiliconWebmonster


    RISCOS.org.ukRISCOS.orgRISCOS.infoFilebaseChris Why's Acorn/RISC OS collectionNetSurf

    Non-RISC OS:
    The RegisterThe InquirerApple InsiderBBC NewsSky NewsGoogle Newsxkcddiodesign

    © 1999-2009 The Drobe Team. Some rights reserved, click here for more information
    Powered by MiniDrobeCMS, based on J4U | Statistics
    "The original entry in the guide described VA_RPC as ARMless, now it's been updated to Mostly Harmless"
    Page generated in 0.3856 seconds.