martin
24/2/04 7:34AM |
I notice from the website link that RISC OS intend to have this available ond on sale this coming weekend at the South West Show.
I'm curious about Flash v OTP ROM - Which is better ? I'd have thought Flash was but the 'if sufficient demand' makes it sound like OTP is.
Oh, and I hope it is compatable with ViewFinder as I imagine that this is ROM is especially of interest to users looking to extract the most from their StrongARM machines. I'll be surprised if it isn't but it's a topic not covered by the FAQs. |
rmacf
24/2/04 7:42AM |
Why don't they give a price for orders from outside Europe? ie no VAT but with shipping. |
md0u80c9
24/2/04 9:20AM |
In reply to Martin:
yes, it's compatible with ViewFinder. |
sa110
24/2/04 10:51AM |
So, if much of RISC OS 4 is 32 bit compatible, all we need is another hardware manufacturer to produce a 32bit machine by either a Xscale or another ARM processor.
As for a tailor made version, why don't they just put a HAL into RISC OS 4 anyway. It's only going to make it easier for them to support other hardware in the future. |
monkeyson
24/2/04 11:12AM |
"So, if much of RISC OS 4 is 32 bit compatible, all we need is another hardware manufacturer to produce a 32bit machine by either a Xscale or another ARM processor."
The Omega? It's VIDC/IOMD compatible. And you wouldn't have to wait for ARMtwister. |
JGZimmerle
24/2/04 12:26PM |
@sa110:
They are working on a HAL. They are increasing the level of abstraction from the hardware all the time. Next thing on the list seems to be a standard API for graphics cards. |
The Doctor (+0.1)
24/2/04 2:01PM |
That would be good news.
Unfortunately I think it is unlikely that any other manufacturer will produce another 32bit machine.
Most people who wanted a faster machine will have already bought the Iyonix.
Those few that didn't aren't going to make it worthwhile enough to make such a machine.
Cheers! |
JGZimmerle
24/2/04 2:56PM |
Maybe not in the consumer market, but ROL is slowly but steadily transforming RISC OS into a modern OS wich might appeal to the embedded markets again, once that process is finished. |
hubersn
24/2/04 3:37PM |
ROL have IIRC no licence for any other than the desktop market, and since Castle are also interested in the embedded market (and have a lot more experience in that market, as well as being able to sell combined software/hardware solutions and having a lot more man-power), ROL are wasting time and money if they are doing what you tell us they do.
ROL have, until now, clearly focussed on the desktop user (which is their job!). For the embedded market, I am quite sure that things like a USB stack, a working HAL, a Unicode-capable font manager and WIMP, large application space (read: RO 5) as well as vast experience in writing USB, ethernet and SCSI drivers is a lot more valuable than a Joliet-capable CDFS, a better !Paint and pseudo multi user support. |
Eddie
24/2/04 7:33PM |
From what I gathered from Jack Lillington some time ago, the embedded market is where the core business is for CTL. Select has some nice features but CTL may feel they don't need the 'bloat' (if that is the right word).
Maybe Drobe could get a statement from CTL about incorporating Select features. |
illudium
24/2/04 7:50PM |
The trouble is Select doesn't necessarily mean 'bloat'. One of the things RISCOS Ltd say they've worked on in Select is making the kernel itself smaller and more modular, which you could argue is more suitable for an embedded OS. Just because Select includes some extra graphical features doesn't mean they need to be built in to a ROM image.
In reply to hubersn:
I'm curious as to how you know what RISCOS Ltd's licences say? I'd assume since they announced they were working on embedded RISC OS over 2 years ago now they probably thought they would have some way of selling it. I do agree this is yet another area where it can't be in the best interests of Castle or RISCOS Ltd to have unnecessary competition though. |
diomus
24/2/04 8:34PM |
A ROL spokesperson just told the Select list that, at present, there isn't an ROS4.39 upgrade path for RiscStation, Mico and Omega users. The spokesperson added, "The manufacturers concerned may chose to offer it as an upgrade for their machines, but we have not been asked to make the necessary code available to them as yet."
Chris. |
JGZimmerle
24/2/04 11:06PM |
@hubersn:
IIRC ROL's licence sais, that they have the desktop market exclusively and that they may sell into other markets, provided that they do not create direct competition for pace that way.
BTW, the CTL/Pace deal looks very different to me under the light of the recent SCO/Novell lawsuite. Maybe CTL have not bought as much as we thougt? Does someone have more details on the CTL/Pace deal? |
hubersn
25/2/04 1:51PM |
The CTL/Pace deal was very simple: CTL bought everything RISC OS, including e.g. the support commitments wrt Pace's RISC OS customers. I fail to see any similarities to the SCO/Novell issue. |
fylfot
25/2/04 2:03PM |
In reply to JGZimmerle:
Is that more of your wishful thinking? |
epistaxsis@work
25/2/04 2:32PM |
The problem with the CTL / ROL issue is that neither can afford to sue the nuts off the other.
Pity, cos otherwise we wouldn't have this silly OS fork. |
martin
25/2/04 6:41PM |
I know that many find the RISC OS fork irritating, perhaps as much from an ideological point of view as what it currently amounts to, in practice.
In a sense it's a part of life for anyone into computing though: Everyday I work with a collection of Acorn machines running RISC OS 3.1, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 and 4.03 with a wide range of RAM from 4 to 134MB. I'm forever bumping into things that one machine can do and another can't. My point is that, over time, all OSes fork and that if we have to live with it, we can.
I agree that it's not ideal but at least both prongs of RISC OS are moving forward and being developed.
I'm quite excited about the new 4.39 ROM release - While RISC OS 5 has had to focus on its innards RISC OS 4 is thinking more about what the icing on top should look like. |
illudium
25/2/04 8:17PM |
epistaxsis@work:
Do you actually have any facts to base that on at all? What on earth makes you think that Mr Middleton is to blame for the OS fork? I don't think either company (or Pace for that matter) is entirely blameless in this, but to put all the blame on RISCOS Ltd is silly.
What do you mean by "some sort of select patch" as well? AFAIAA there hasn't been any sort of "select patch" released for a while. |
JGZimmerle
25/2/04 9:18PM |
The similarity is, that SCO sais the same thing about Unix (that they bought it all). However Novell sais that they kept the copyright and only sold the technology to SCO. IIRC the press release for the Pace/CTL deal said, that Pace had sold the RISC OS technology to Castle, but that Pace kept the intellectual property rights for it?
In reply to fylfot:
What do you mean? That I would wish for RISC OS to still be locked inside Pace? Bulls***.
Just because I think that an OS split is a bad thing and that it would have been a better idea if Castle had contracted ROL to do the development on the OS, to concentrated on the hardware instead, does not mean that I wish for Castle to be fooled in the way that SCO seems to have been fooled. After all they still are a RISC OS company. |
TonyStill
25/2/04 9:38PM |
Hum. My Iyonix now claims that RISC OS 5.05 is (c) Castle Technology Ltd.
That accords with my understanding of what Castle bought from PACE. At the time, the announcement also said that existing licences continued; I think that includes RO Ltd. |
mikeg
25/2/04 10:38PM |
Rather than wittering on about some nebulous law suit, it would be nice to concentrate on the actual matter in hand. ROL will give a ten quid discount off the price of 4.39 for a px on my 4.02 ROMs. Very nice.
Except... how long will this actually take? 'Cos for that time I'd be the proud owner of a plastic box with some bits in, not a computer... |
illudium
25/2/04 10:40PM |
In reply to mikeg:
RISCOS Ltd have said that they will send out the 4.39 ROMs, and then you send back the 4.02 ROMs. If they're not back within a certain time (28 days according to the press release linked above) they'll charge the extra £10. |
JGZimmerle
26/2/04 2:26AM |
I agree that for us, these licencing/ownership issues are only of academic interest. However, as such I do find them interesting. |
Gulli
26/2/04 12:59PM |
Hmm - maybe soon will be the time for me to buy a used RO 4.02 ROM set for my RiscPC? £20 plus pnp would surely get me one? |
| 1 comment(s) are below your moderation threshold. Login to view them. |
| |
As a follow-up to our 
