hzn (+1.0)
19/6/04 8:45PM |
It was a good show and I'm glad I attended (despite it meaning 10 hours fast driving to get there and back home). My thanks to the Big Ben Club for this event!
As for "RISC OS 5 for all": If this works out and thus we're back with one RISC OS I think we're better off than with the two diverging threads we have now where both have their merits and developers have to either have different versions of their apps or rely on the common denominator of both. I do remember all the posting about lots of people not being happy about the two different RISC OS threads and wanting a single one.
As for "it was Castle who had chosen to make the recent licensing crisis public": I think that Castle kind of had to come out with it after announcements from STD (http://www.drobe.co.uk/riscos/artifact1090.html) and VirtualAcorn (http://www.drobe.co.uk/riscos/artifact1092.html) where they mention a legal dispute between two other parties. Had Castle or RISCOS Ltd not published anything on this isse we'd have more wild guesswork (as the threads of the two Drobe articles showed), rumours, and so on - that might have been worse... |
hutchies  (+1.0)
19/6/04 9:44PM |
Given that ROL are still selling RISC OS, did STD/VA actually _have to_ stop distributing for now? Could Castle prosecute them (assuming they won a case) for doing so? I'm not an expert on law but it seems a bit funny to forbid a company from doing something while the case is still undecided (particularly if it could take years, as has been suggested)... |
ninja (+1.0)
20/6/04 1:38AM |
"He also reportedly added that the legaldispute could go on for years"
Only, I would have thought, if one or the other parties is forced to take the other to court. I would really hope that neither party is stubborn enough for this to happen. |
Sawadee (+1.0)
20/6/04 4:08AM |
"the legal dispute going on for years" A RISC OS sales person only told me just 2 months ago that a dispute that carries on (deliberately) for years until the software is outdated and hence the dispute becomes Null and Void for outdated software, is exactly what Dill Gates company MacroSoft (M$) does. (Whew! lucky Drobe's spell checker is disabled!!). :blush:
I never thought of that until he mentioned it.
Cheers, Steve. |
markee174 (+1.0)
20/6/04 9:59AM |
If RISC OS 5 is ideally to be used by MD and STD, does this presume they will go 32 bit or will RISC OS 5 be made available as a 26 bit compatible solution? |
hzn (+1.0)
20/6/04 10:35AM |
Well MD has as StrongARM in Omega and an XScale on the list - both can run 32 bit. With RISC OS 5 Castle might even save them the trouble with ARMTwister...
I don't know about the A7500 in the A75 for sure if that one does 32 bit too. |
arenaman (+1.0)
20/6/04 11:32AM |
That would be rather ironic. MD finally get the Omega up-to-spec and working properly, thanks to Castle. |
AMS (+1.0)
20/6/04 11:55AM |
Castle did say 12-18 months, so what happens in the meantime ?
In reply to markee174:
I'd imagine they'd only make a 32bit version available (otherwise you'd once again have a (sort of) split in the OS), additionally as hzn has pointed out you *don't* need 26bit OS'es (except for all but the oldest ARM processors).
If Castle are opting to provide a license for emulation I'd be very dissapointed, it is (IMHO) not a longterm good move. The logic that made it a bad thing for ROL to do applies to Castle too.
Regards
Annraoi |
arenaman (+1.0)
20/6/04 12:10PM |
Very true. Emulation is a terrible idea, unless provided as a time-limited demonstration of the OS. I am sure Mr Lillingston, with all his knowledge and experience, will know what he is doing with this one. |
markee174 (+1.0)
20/6/04 12:13PM |
In reply to AMS:
Emulation has a place, especially in laptops. I don't see Emulation as a real threat as RISC OS on ARM offers significant advantages (IMHO). If people want to buy Windows boxes, I'd rather they had the option of RISC OS as well.... The issue is whether people will NOT buy an Iyonix in preference to Emulation and in what numbers. |
nunfetishist (+1.0)
20/6/04 12:19PM |
Where of course people who can't afford an Iyonix, or won't pay it's outrageous price, have no choice but to use emulation, and stopping emulation will cause a large drop in number of users. |
AndrewDuffell (+1.0)
20/6/04 12:33PM |
It would be intresting to know how many copies of VRPC have been sold to see what the emulation userbase is. |
AMS (+1.0)
20/6/04 12:33PM |
nunfetishist>
Question if you could get an Iyonix for (say) the same price as an STD A6 (one of those emulation boxes) would you opt for the Iyonix ?
As to people leaving the platform - haven't they already ? They may not know it because the great and the good obfuscate things by calling Windows PC's that emulate RISC OS Machines "hybrid" machines (in some cases initial announcements haven't even mentioned the PC processor at all only mentioning StrongARM (which of course isn't really there at all !)).
Anyway looks like the PC fans here have won - emulation will continue and more people will leave the RISC OS platform behind - running a simulation of it on the PC instead in much the same way some people run other dead platforms like the Spectrum or Commodore 64.
Kind Regards
Annraoi |
arenaman (+1.0)
20/6/04 12:48PM |
In reply to AMS:
Harsh but true. Once RISC OS is being used on an emulator, that's a lost user. Will an emulator user buy Oregano or switch to Windows to use IE or Mozilla? Will he make do with a RISC OS chat client or just use Windows for the real thing? It's a slippery slope.
At the moment, I use Windoze because there is stuff I want to use just not available on RISC OS (plus my RiscPC was too unstable). However, I am still looking to setup a RISC OS machine to use with the PC.
The point is, RISC OS companies shouldn't be selling PC's as RISC OS machines because it is helpding people leave the platform. Some people leave of their own accord (like me, for now), but to encourage people to do so is inane. |
nunfetishist (+1.0)
20/6/04 12:51PM |
In reply to AMS:
"Question if you could get an Iyonix for (say) the same price as an STD A6 (one of those emulation boxes) would you opt for the Iyonix ?"
Prolly not. It's still not as good value. Especially considering RSN PCs will be faster at running RISC OS than the Iyonix. The VA guys have done a very fine job with VARPC, in that it runs RISC OS better (in most ways that a normal user would care about) than a real ARM or ARM clone box. The hardware manufacturers will simply have to adapt, or simply remove the option from consumers.
The arguement that people who go the VARPC route moving slowly over to Windows as they experience it: Why are they moving over to Windows, other than that they find it quicker, more stable, more convienant, has a good web browser, better range of sofware?
Are people worried of people defecting to Windows if they experience it, because, shock, these days they might discover that all the crap they hear on usenet, and the blinked nonsense you read in the press is balls, and that Windows is actually quite good? Sounds like another thing the hardware makers need to think about and adapt to. |
AMS (+1.0)
20/6/04 1:08PM |
In reply to arenaman:
I wasn't having a go at you !!! I know you wish to return to RISC OS which is fair enough, being railroaded by circumstance into using Windows is not pleasant (you have my symphaties - I've been there)
nufetishist > Hello again.
Ok so you're a PC fan and probably have one of those hat with ".NET" written on it (fine if that's what you like !)
VA is a competent piece of software, I am not knocking it other than for the effect I am concerned it will have.
As to Windows, well, it's better than it was (yes). That having been said why is IE better than say Oregano ? One of the reasons would be that MS insist on "embrace and extend" taking a public standard (HTML) and morphing it into something that only works properly with MS proprietary products (such as Internet explorer) - they control the server market with IIS and then only their browser is guaranteed to work properly with it. Then when anyone tries to encourage them to "open" up their spec they throw a canary 
When you buy into Windows you buy into Microsoft controlling your machine (in effect) with DRM, closed proprietary standards and (as has been shown in the past) devious means that often are not to the consumers benefit.
I don't think Windows feels quicker than ROS (as a GUI) when compared to Iyonix, however compared with an emulated RISC OS On a PC it might be (another subtle bit of damage done to RISC OS by emulation eh ?)
Some PC software is arguably better, some however is buggier (and certainly more expensive), that adds to the TCO of Windows, and somewhat mitigates against your argument.
I don't worry about people defecting to Windows because of any of the reasons you give, on the contrary I feel if they do defect it may because they're not fully aware of it (the famous "hybrid computer" syndrome) or that they feel that they have no choice - I have no problem with people WILLINGLY adopting windows and knowing they are and that they're fully aware of the consequences of that (then whatever good or ill falls from it its on their own heads).
Regards
Annraoi
|
arenaman (+1.0)
20/6/04 1:20PM |
In reply to AMS:
my comments were not defence. I didn't think you were having a go at me, I was agreeing with you, lol!
WindowsXP has a lot of good things about it and of course the Internet is a much better experience than on RISC OS. However, the text is terrible to read and a strain on my eyes. I miss the superior GUI of RISC OS and it's general speed. And of course almost all the RISC OS software is nicer to use. |
AMS (+1.0)
20/6/04 1:23PM |
In reply to arenaman:
Sorry for misreading your original comment.
XP is considerably better than Win2K say, but the thing is the experience you have of windows often is determined by one of a myriad of subtle differences between hardware, configurations and patches.
I expect XP Service Pack 2 will set the cats truly among the pidgeons, it has new security features that have potential to cause quite a lot of software to break.....
Regards
Annraoi |
nunfetishist (+1.0)
20/6/04 1:58PM |
In reply to AMS:
"Ok so you're a PC fan and probably have one of those hat with ".NET" written on it (fine if that's what you like !)"
I use PC hardware, because it's cheaper, faster, and generally better. I don't run Windows on my desktop, however. What exactly is the effect you're concerned VA having, other than generating more sales than would exist otherwise?
Microsoft certianly do not control the web server market. Apache does. By a very long way. Get your facts right. Also, in reality, MSIE doesn't actually support very many of the W3C standards these days that a good web browser should, because they've ceased development on it. Mozilla (Firefox or full fat) is a very fine browser these days, although it's not quite as quick.
"When you buy into Windows you buy into Microsoft controlling your machine (in effect) with DRM, closed proprietary standards and (as has been shown in the past) devious means that often are not to the consumers benefit."
Stop scaremongering. All of this sentence is either untrue, or hyperbole.
"Some PC software is arguably better, some however is buggier (and certainly more expensive)"
Some RISC OS software is arguably better, some however is buggier (and certainly more expensive)
"that adds to the TCO of Windows"
In the same way it does to RISC OS.
"and somewhat mitigates against your argument. "
And your arguement fails to notice that exactly the same is true of the other wise.
"I have no problem with people WILLINGLY adopting windows"
What, you think people who buy an STD A6 somehow get hypnotised into using Windows instead for no other reason? What are you on about? |
blahsnr (-1.0)
20/6/04 2:49PM |
It does strike as ironic that companies who do not want to see Castle 'monopolise' the RISC OS market are the companies that seem to be happy to throw their lot in with Microsoft.
Very ironic. |
epistaxsis@work (-1.0)
20/6/04 2:54PM |
hmm politics + homo sapiens sapiens
time to get all McDonalds... |
markee174
20/6/04 4:38PM |
In reply to Nun:
If you are using a machine as a serious workhorse over a period of several years, its initial cost is less relevent than its productivity. If people want to use PCs, then they should use them - I personally think my Iyonix works very well so represents a good investment for my tasks. It would make a 'poor' server - buy a PC and put Linux on it.
What I do worry about it people turning VRPC into a 'wrapper' for Windows functions which is definitely embrace and extend....
In reply to AMS:
A key question with the A6 and so on is whether their purchasers would otherwise just go to Dell /PC World and buy a PC. |
mybg
20/6/04 6:46PM |
I run a heterogenous network at home, both for my own work and for the children (8 of them). The children have one RiscPC (running Adjust) and a PC. They need the PC as there is much more software available for it, and they do stuff at school which they want to work on at home. We live in Israel and require full Hebrew and right-to-left support. The only s/w that does that on the RISC OS platform is EasiWriter, and it does not have full support for sophisticated Hebrew work.
For myself, I also have a PC, simply because I have to access certain websites in connection with my work which only run properly on a PC. I may not like it, but that's life. I also have a RiscPC with Adjust, and an Iyonix. I guess that when the last s/w which doesn't work on the Iyonix is either converted or made to work with Aemulor, I will get rid of the old RiscPC. The whole network is held together with a linux file/printer/internet gateway server.
In addition, I have a PC laptop. This machine runs VA-RPC. I travel quite a lot and must access those websites mentioned above, so I must have a PC, like it or not. However, I also want to run my RISC OS s/w, some of it being utilities I have written in connection with my work. The ONLY way I can do that sensibly is with VRPC. I cannot carry 2 laptops wherever I go even if a true RISC OS laptop were available. Using VRPC I have a setup similar to my office at home (where I use a KVM to switch between the 4 machines).
Is there any other solution for someone like myself? I don't think so. Without VRPC I would not be able to use my RISC OS s/w when away from my office. With it I can. I must have a laptop. What else can I do? |
nunfetishist
20/6/04 6:56PM |
In reply to mybg:
I think AMS would slap you for helping to "destroy the market" and suggest taking an Iyonix with a car battery and LCD on the train with you.  |
markee174
20/6/04 7:21PM |
In reply to mybg:
IMHO, it would be interesting to know what you use the RISC OS side for and what you see as its unique selling points. |
mybg
20/6/04 9:31PM |
In reply to nunfetishist:
Train, maybe but as hand-luggage on a plane???
In reply to markee174:
Ovation Pro - nothing quite as flexible on Windows. I use it for notices for our local Synagogue, by their request, as nobody can do so well as I can on OPro. That is despite my having to type everything n backwards because OPro has no right-to-left language support!
FireworkzPro - I use this very heavily, because whereas Excel is a top-class spreadheet (and I use it a lot for other things) nothing can even touch Fireworkz' flexibility of page layout. I have some very complex sheets which use vast collections of library functions but are laid out as documents and not as spreadsheets. What I see is REALLY what I get!
I also use other stuff- old documents with Impression Publisher, EasiWriter for a good number of documents (most of my correspondence) - both faster to use than Word. Paint for editing simple graphics, Photodesk for fancy stuff, and a good number of home-brew utilities.
I use Windows because I have to. XP is without doubt considerably better than 98, but it also gets clogged up with time and requires far more maintenance than RISC OS. The childrens' XP machine, which has been very carefully set up with a good deal of protection in place to prevent nasty accidents, gets itself in a mess every now and then and needs some work to get it fixed.
If I have the possibility to use RISC OS (preferably the Iyonix) that is my first choice, as it is simply far more productive. Second choice is linux, and Windows XP comes next. |
hutchies
20/6/04 9:34PM |
As for me, I will need a PC next year as I must have Sibelius 3 for my music course at uni (the RISC OS versions are just too old now really, and wouldn't transfer back and forth from newer versions). I am a strong RISC OS user and feel bad about this. The only comfort I could take from it is the possibility of running VA and thus still being able to develop software for RISC OS, and enjoy its GUI for everything I can (I currently hope to only use the Windows side for Sib, DVDs and the Internet). I would feel pretty narked to be labelled as a platform-deserting, RISC OS killing traitor for doing so; likewise I would feel extremely narked if anyone decided the best option for RISC OS was to cut me off utterly and give no option of running RISC OS (as I am sure you can imagine, with an expected end debt in the tens of thousands I am not eager to buy anything I don't need, much less a second computer, however second hand). I'm sorry, but I can't sit and listen to this ideological talk about 'best interests of the platform' and 'users being tricked into deserting for Windows' without asking what makes the native RISC OS users so very much better people than those who use 'hybrid' computers. |
AMS
20/6/04 11:44PM |
nunfetishist> "I think AMS would slap you for helping to "destroy the market" and suggest taking an Iyonix with a car battery and LCD on the train with you."
Hey man I don't slap anyone (I am not as disgruntled as I sound - Honest Guv
As to the car battery that's absurd - 16 PP3's in parallel would do the trick......
Regards
Annraoi
|
mavhc
20/6/04 11:50PM |
VRPC can be good for users and for the platform at the same time as killing the platform. Just at different time scales. Obviously ROS can't compete on raw price, and if you're running VRPC why spend x ukps on software that's free on windows? The barrier levels have changed compared to someone who doesn't have a Windows PC.
Have Castle decided that they want control over ROS, and used something ROL were doing to try to get that? Or are they just annoyed that ROL weren't paying them money or something?
Why did VA and A6 stop selling ROS4? Why didn't ROL? |
AMS
21/6/04 12:28AM |
In reply to hutchies:
You seem to have misinterpreted me, I labelled no-one as (as you colourfully put it) a "RISC OS killing traitor".
My gripe was in the misrepresentation of VA as being somehow "good" for the RISC OS platform (it simply isn't). The term "hybrid computer" gets my goat (metaphorically that is, I don't really have a goat). Hybrid computer as it's applied to VA is meaningless and is (I feel) intended to confuse.
If the practicalities are that you can't justify an Iyonix or a second hand RiscPC that's fine - you never had to explain yourself to me anyway - who am I to say....
Practicalities aside however - if everyone takes the VA route what happens to RISC OS in the future (I don't recall Spectrum emulators or CBM64 emulators saving them do you ?).
Regards
Annraoi |
| Use the forum for more comments on this article |
Today was the 
