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

Should ROL concentrate on a new ARM port of the OS?

Published: 1st Mar 2009, 22:17:54 | Permalink | Printable

Should RISCOS Ltd focus on porting its OS to new ARM-powered devices, such as the recently unveiled prototyped netbooks, following work on bringing the RISC OS Open flavour of the OS to the ARM Cortex-A8 platform?

Should ROL concentrate on a new ARM port of the OS?
Yes YesYes 70%
No NoNo 15%
Dave Holden Dave HoldenDave Holden 16%
Discuss this | Archives

Previous: VNC remote desktop app updated
Next: ROL RISC OS versions round-up

Discussion

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

What is this fixation with Dave Holden? That's two polls in quick succession that have had this option.

Give it a rest. Please.

 is a RISC OS UserDS1 on 2/3/09 1:11PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

It is only because he gets all angsty as soon as anyone *actually* wants to move RISC OS onto more modern ARM based platforms...

 is a RISC OS Userepistaxsis on 2/3/09 4:10PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

No, they should concentrate on merging their RISC OS source into ROOL's website.

 is a RISC OS Userhzn on 3/3/09 6:10PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Or, see how ROOL do the translations and applying the same tricks to their own commercial version. I see no harm in having a premium version of the OS also on a newer ARM platform, as long as there's a free alternative and they remain broadly compatable---a task which only be made easier by RO5 being open source.

 is a RISC OS UserMonty on 3/3/09 8:50PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

(A reply to hzn, not the question posed in the title)

 is a RISC OS UserMonty on 3/3/09 8:52PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Can't seem to vote via Netsurf ?

 is a RISC OS UserHairy on 3/3/09 10:20PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

I concur with hzn.

RISCOS Ltd should either work towards merging their code with that of RISC OS Open or end up wherever Risc PC's tend to end up. I still can't believe the platform can survive running in an emulator on vastly superior platforms, which outclass it in every department. RISC OS needs and deserves its own niche and the Netbook movement seems an ideal fit.

It's about time ROL stops dragging the past into the future and adopts a contemporary model which has already proven itself worthwhile - open source their code to have at least a chance of surviving. They can of course create a Premium version of the OS to sell and keep certain (non-essenial) aspects closed source for subscribers.

 is a RISC OS UserhEgelia on 4/3/09 3:22PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Perhaps it would help if there was a poll to ask how many of us would buy a new Riscos computer---netbook or not---on modern ARM chips.

For example;

1 Yes

2 Yes, but only for under £250

3 No

Give ROL an idea of the market. It must be very difficult for them to gauge the level of interest before taking the jump. Have some empathy for their reluctance over open source; RO4 and 6 are after all, as far as I'm aware, their only assets and means of income.

 is a RISC OS UserMonty on 4/3/09 4:29PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Well, since the odd ARM-based computer is there my guess is that getting them to run RISC OS would be best ... based on RISC OS Open (see Pandora project e.g.) has the best chances (considering progress for A9home).

And if the poll should be more like this. 1a Yes with Select RISC OS 1b Yes with ROOL RISC OS 1c Yes no matter with RISC OS 2a-2c same as 1a-1c, but unter £250 3 No

 is a RISC OS Userhzn on 7/3/09 3:28PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Hmm

Good idea but this been tried before with regards to select for Iyonix to no avail...

 is a RISC OS Userepistaxsis on 6/3/09 12:51AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Epistaxsis: I don't agree that the Select on Iyonix fiasco proves that such polls are pointless, since it is debatable IMHO whether ROL ever had a serious intention of porting their version to the Iyo, regardless of demand. Turning to Monty's poll, I think this would be an excellent idea, and something which Drobe could effectively stage. (I would vote for 1. myself).

 is a RISC OS Userbucksboy on 6/3/09 4:15PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Quote "...ROL ever had a serious intention of porting their version to the Iyo...".

Bluntly put I do not think! They asked for a certain amount of users guaranteeing to pay for IyoSelect, got them but that's it.

And then look at their progress as for A9home...

 is a RISC OS Userhzn on 7/3/09 3:17PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Oops ... I forgot to type one word..

"Bluntly put I do not think!" is a bit short. I meant "Bluntly put I do not think SO!"

 is a RISC OS Userhzn on 7/3/09 3:18PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

hzn, one needs to be reminded that ROL did not create the necessary drivers for the 32bit version of Adjust, that was AD6. That was at a time when AD6 had the resources to put into the project, since then RISC OS 6 has been developed and AD6 like many RISC OS related enterprises do not have the resources they once had, nor did they expect to have to do much of the work they did for RISC OS Adjust, again for RISC OS 6. That can issue can be firmly deposited on ROL's doorstep.

 is a RISC OS Usersa110 on 11/3/09 7:47PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

I didn't say it was pointless.

It is just that we must be realistic...

Anyway I'll be ordering a beagleboard next month and will be getting an ARMUMPC when they are available <-- had to call it that to differenciate between the current generation and the Psion machine... ;-)

 is a RISC OS Userepistaxsis on 6/3/09 7:56PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

How about Virtual Memory!!!! Although, some desktop energy saving gadgets would be useful!

:-P

 is a RISC OS UserMac9 on 6/3/09 9:29PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

It would be nice to have an official response from Riscos Lmt. to the idea of porting to modern hardware.

 is a RISC OS UserMonty on 11/3/09 12:51PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

I think ROL's roadmap these days, is firmly down the one way road to emulation. Perhaps they'll do uturn, then again who needs a roadmap when it's all one way!

 is a RISC OS Usersa110 on 11/3/09 7:50PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Of course, Dave Holden is listed because he has the only correct answer, but won't tell anybody what it is; only that he has it.

 is a RISC OS Userrjek on 20/3/09 10:48AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

I asked Paul M this at the start of 2004, specifically if there are any plans to license RO4 to heldheld manufacturers.

He wrote then:

"At present we don't have the resources to attempt to license and then support versions of RISC OS 4 for handheld manufacturers. Nowadays most companies expect a great deal of support, and to see a Reference Design, which we don't have.

We would love to expand the market, but all attempts to do this previously have ended up being blocked..."

Which begs the question, what is a "Reference Design"?

I have the impression it is some kind of minimal hardware specification that a HAL would in part overcome, but I can't find it anywhere online.

Meanwhile, ROOL have (finally) noticed ARM's "we'll scratch your back if you scratch ours" cooperative marketing project, the ARM Connected Community.

This implies they either have a reference design, or haven't realised they need one.

- * -

PS If you think this business with Dave Holden is odd, it's mild compared to the Daily Mail's "friendly feud" with Johnathon Ross. So if a National can get away with poking fun at "Wossy", why grumble about a specialist magazine?

 is a RISC OS UserAnon on 28/3/09 4:15PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Anon: A reference design is just as it suggests. It's a hardware design that other manufacturers can use as a reference. It shows something that is known-working that approaches in similarity what it is the manufacturer wants to do. Why would anybody waste time and not inconsiderable amounts of money developing a RISC OS hand-held with no evidence at all that it'd even work nicely, or at all? Reference designs, like real products, are expensive to develop, and without any real guarantee of hardware manufacturers buying into RISC OS, it's a massive and huge gamble for an organisation with next to no money. Which is almost certainly why they've not done it.

 is a RISC OS Userrjek on 28/3/09 8:23PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Anon: Oh, and also: getting your product mentioned on ARM's community website is completely different from actually getting customers to use your product for anything. It's easy to get on that site; you could most likely do so now if you wanted. Being on it is as much a measure of success as you would imagine; not at all.

 is a RISC OS Userrjek on 28/3/09 8:25PM
[ 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

  • Software hosted by Drobe: Your guide
    A round-up of users' mini-websites on drobe.co.uk
     12 comments, latest by neilwhite on 17/11/07 9:57AM. Published: 5 Nov 2007

  • Random article

  • RISC OS filename translation
    Being understood in the outside world
     31 comments, latest by mrchocky on 09/01/04 11:06PM. Published: 2 Jan 2004

  • Useful links

    News and media:
    IconbarMyRISCOSArcSiteRISCOScodeANSC.S.A.AnnounceArchiveQercusRiscWorldDrag'n'DropGAG-News

    Top developers:
    RISCOS LtdRISC OS OpenMW SoftwareR-CompAdvantage SixVirtualAcorn

    Dealers:
    CJE MicrosAPDLCastlea4X-AmpleLiquid SiliconWebmonster

    Usergroups:
    WROCCRONENKACCIRUGSASAUGROUGOLRONWUGMUGWAUGGAGRISCOS.be

    Useful:
    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
    "Is it too late to nominate Drobe in the best own goal category?"
    Page generated in 0.1675 seconds.