VA halts VirtualRiscPC deliveries - RISC OS News, Software and Information

VA halts VirtualRiscPC deliveries

Published: 15th Jun 2004, 15:55:17GMT Source: drobe.co.uk
By Chris Williams

Page 1 of 1

Market falling apart like a cheap motorcycle

Yesterday, STD withdrew from sale its RISC OS 4 ARM7 powered A75 and VirtualRiscPC employing A6 Windows PC, citing third party legal wranglings. And now, today, VirtualAcorn, have halted VirtualRiscPC deliveries, explaining, "although we can still accept orders for both VirtualRPC-SE and VirtualRPC Adjust, we will be unable to supply a delivery date and that all orders will only be accepted on that basis."

VirtualRiscPC is the popular RiscPC emulation software that allows users to run RISC OS 4, Select and Adjust (as developed by RISCOS Ltd.) on PCs running Windows. VirtualRiscPC is currently the only way to run a modern RISC OS on a portable computer.

Aaron Timbrell, of VirtualAcorn, commented: "As various RISC OS users may know there is a third party dispute which has caused supply problems in the RISC OS market. We are in the process of taking legal advice on the matter with regard to how we proceed."

STD also refered to two particular third parties who were locked in a "legal dispute", but at the time of writing hadn't commented on who they are. The knock on effects of VirtualAcorn's decision, in terms of what happens to the RISC OS dealers and developers who build PCs and bundle them with VirtualRiscPC, is unclear at the moment but we're inquiring.

Described by some as a "crisis", how far this undisclosed legal dispute will burrow into the RISC OS platform is totally unknown at the moment. Who will be next to withdraw is also open to wild speculation, as is the names of the companies involved. With the Expo 2004 show arriving this Saturday, hopefully we'll find some answers. For your information, Aaron's announcement is included below:

Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 10:49:59 EDT
From: ATimbrell@aol.com
To: News organisations
Subject: 15/6/2004 - Press release from VirtualAcorn

As various RISC OS users may know there is a third party dispute which has caused supply problems in the RISC OS market. We are in the process of taking legal advice on the matter with regard to how we proceed.

In the meantime we have been advised that although we can still accept orders for both VirtualRPC-SE and VirtualRPC-Adjust we will be unable to supply a delivery date and that all orders will only be accepted on that basis.

This also means that regretfully we are highly unlikely to have any representation at the RISC OS Expo 2004 this weekend.

We wish to assure customers that our tech support service remains open and that we will do our best to maintain our dedication in the RISC OS market.

Aaron (VirtualAcorn)

Links
VirtualAcorn

This article has been linked to, or is available in the following formats:

[Printable] [Digg this] [Blog search]

fylfot (+1.0) 15/6/04 3:58PM	Oh dear, more bad news. I really hope this can be resolved soon before it causes too much negative impact.
piemmm (+1.0) 15/6/04 4:01PM	The dispute seems nicely timed.
jonix (+1.0) 15/6/04 4:12PM	Nicely timed for the show?
AndrewDuffell 15/6/04 4:13PM	At least it is after Wakefield.
rmac (+1.0) 15/6/04 4:19PM	Surely not being able to specify a delivery date wouldn't prevent them from appearing at the show. Display their wares and take orders on the clear understanding of possible delay.
mrchocky (+1.0) 15/6/04 4:25PM	Very easy to misread. No, VA were never exhibiting at the show, the "representation" is of their products. e.g. RComp's machines bundled with it.
imj (-1.2) 15/6/04 4:45PM	Oh s***.
Q (+0.1) 15/6/04 5:00PM	I really do not know the reason for their not attending... ...but I'd imagine trying to say "I can't comment for legal reasons" might be a tough difficult across the language barrier!
martin 15/6/04 5:05PM	Thanks for keeping us updated as you can, Chris; Drobe is in it's element as a crisis breaks. I think we all knew there were some deep seated problems festering within our small marketplace but hoped they would be soothed over, resolved through private negotiations, and not come to this. Perhaps, RISCOS Ltd have taken one liberty too many and CTL have had enough ? If so, (& I am guessing) I think RISCOS Ltd need to acknowledge that CTL have become top dog and seek to appease and make ammends. I hope CTL aren't out to crush them completely although I can't help thinking back to when Apple, having licensed some companies to make clone machines, withdrew the licenses leaving the clone manufacturers high and dry. Whatever the true cause of this breaking news, it is a great shame that companies like STD are one by one being grounded; they deserve better than this for all their effort and hard work in reviving and adding excitement to the RISC OS world over the last couple of years.
piemmm 15/6/04 5:05PM	In my opinion, the only people that can stop distribution of RISC OS at this level would be the people that actually own it. Begs the question, what the hell is their gripe??!?
SparkY (+0.1) 15/6/04 5:18PM	Let's all try and keep calm until we know more details. The legalities of the whole emulation scene and the two strains of RISC OS have been rumoured and debated before - maybe this will clean things up. I believe CTL know what they're doing.
jess (-0.1) 15/6/04 5:24PM	I hope that the situation is not how it looks. If it is, ROX on ARM Linux, perhaps?
piemmm (+0.1) 15/6/04 5:31PM	"ROX on ARM Linux, perhaps?" Oh please. How are all the beardys meant to use that?
drjones69 15/6/04 5:32PM	Any and all comments below are based purely on observations/interpretations (ie. I probably don't know what I'm talking about ) Whilst I am (like many) worried by this turn of events, I can't help be excited by it (to some degree), any offers on the mini-series rights? Considering that both VA and STD have frozen product deliveries, could one guess (in a murder mystery sense) that the crux of problem lies in the OS/OS licensing - in agreeement with martin, have CTL decided to make a stand? Surely ROL's license agreement is the only thing the 2 have in common. Be nice if the source of the problem was outside the RO marketplace, I think we have too much scwabbling (just how the hell does one spell it?? ), in this case perhaps we could be positive and consider that some 3rd party considers the RO marketplace important enough to notice - hardly a bad thing! If the 'gripe' is between CTL and ROL, then perhaps it is time for ROL bow out gracefully - whilst I accept that sterling work has come out of them, it's taken time - a lot of time! Was it over 5 years ago that ROL aquired a development license? Whilst many of the amendments have been useful (and a few vital) - does RO 4.39 really look like 5 years worth of development from 4.0? And not to start a slanging match about ROL's office policies, but I recall at the start of Select the intention to use Select for people to get the newest version straight away, with upgrades filtering down to the standard OS 4 version - aside from last's month release of Adjust, this is one more thing that hasn't happen, CTL are showing signs of being much more able in the business area of things, and with CTL opening new offices in Cambridge, repositioning themselves as sole RISC OS desktop developers (assuming the theory of the legal ramblings given to be true), building real RISC OS machines - almost harkers back to olden days, something which I (and maybe not all, but certainly some other users) would not see as a bad thing - 5 years in Acorn's calendar took us from (roughly) the A5000 to the SA RPC - now that was progress! Anyway, I'll stop rambling myself now - needless to say I sincerely hopes the situation is resolved soon, and in the interests of the users/marketplace - and will continue to watch developments and Drobe News 24 - it's certainly more exciting than Big Brother! Reagrds, Ryan
hutchies 15/6/04 6:07PM	*In reply to drjones69:* It's true that Castle have done a lot more active promotion and development than RISCOS Ltd. Unfortunately, for someone like me, this will all end up useless if there is no emulator solution (like VA) because I have to have a PC for my course at Uni next year and I definitely can't afford any native RISC OS computer. This is worrying me a lot.
hutchies 15/6/04 6:11PM	Oh yes, and it's 'squabbling'
adamr 15/6/04 7:08PM	"5 years in Acorn's calendar took us from (roughly) the A5000 to the SA RPC - now that was progress!" I take it that was ironic? I, for one, do not hark back for the old days. If you remember, it ended in disaster. Let's not tread that path again. Adam
Spriteman 15/6/04 7:22PM	I agree with adamr. It's best to stick to tried and tested technologies rather than try and venture into new territory. The Iyonix itself was nearly a step too far in itself. Now they are trying to market it in other areas. It can only end in disaster. -- nametirpS
sa110 15/6/04 7:45PM	err, why can it only end in disaster? Castle are obviously confident in their product. It's been about now or a short while and as far as I know is quite stable. Why shouldn't they now try to push their product into other markets. Let's face it, someone has to, otherwise the RO market is will continue on it's hardy, rocky and dwindling(that how you spell it?) road to nowhere, with only a few die hards left using it in a matter of years. Yes, it's never going to be on the same footing as windows, but, you know, Apple are still around and Linux is pushing it's way into business. I think Castle are right to be trying to create a new market for RISC OS. Creating a new market is the only hope for the continued survival of RISC OS as an altertnative OS and as a community. In reply to drjones69: Harking back to the good old days of Acorn is all very well, but let's not forget they made their fair share of mistakes,as as already been admitted. Acorn is not around any more. We have to look to the future without Acorn and not have our beliefs rooted to Acorn's hey days. Whatever the legal wranglings are, the main thing is that they are sorted out quickly an amicably before we lose any more dealers and developers. Sort it out guys!!!
AMS 15/6/04 7:50PM	So RISC OS won't be run on Windows anymore, point is though it will continue on real ARM hardware and without paying a penny to Microsoft - while I can symphatise with Aaron and Grahame (VARPC is probably one of the best emulators around) - thing is it would ultimately have killed off the RISC OS platform. So assuming that the above is "bad news" is probably uncalled for. It will shake things up yes, it will cause acrimony and so forth - but if at the end of the day RISC OS survives I believe it will be strengthened. It's a cause of upset and distress for many but that (I hope) will ultimately put things right and secure RISC OS's future as an independant OS on it's own native hardware platform and that is something that I hope everyone can get behind. Regards Annraoi
hutchies 15/6/04 8:00PM	*In reply to AMS:* I'm sorry but I can't agree. It's true that VARPC might take some users away from 'real' Acorn hardware but tbh I think most who would be prepared to spend £1399 on an Iyonix would do so with or without VARPC - it's really aimed at a) those who must use Windows as well (eg. me) and simply can't pay for two computers, and b) people who used to use RISC OS but had to switch and are interested in playing with the other platform (who would very* rarely be prepared to splash out on an Iyonix*). I'll be honest, I don't think RISC OS can really survive 'as an independent OS on its own native platform' anymore, unless there is something like VARPC to keep people interested who simply can't afford an Iyonix.
drjones69 15/6/04 8:06PM	Just to throw my oar in once more... (Continuing with the assumption that legal ramblings are between CTL/ROL)...Why must such a squabble (thanks for the spelling - mental block before signal the end for VA? Perhaps CTL are simple tired of seeing ROL making so much money off it (via licensing), and simply wish to get the slice of pie for themselves - the market for VA only overlaps the Iyonix in a few areas - even better for them, take it all over and ship VA with Iyonixes - so people can use it on their laptops and desktops. Frankly I have no issues with paying dues to M$ if I can run VA on the same laptop, as much as I dislike it for most purposes, Windows is usable for some tasks, and pretty darn ideal for playing games. On the subject of looking back on the Acorn days, granted they made mistakes (including closing the workstation divsion - damn you boland!) , but companies do - look how many mistakes MS has made, and how much it's cost them in the courts. Current RISC OS marketplace heads can't hope to reach the dizzy heights of Acorn without taking the chance - and no, that wasn't sarcasm - Acorn did hit the highs, the name is still recognised today (and certainly not always connected with failure) - even Microsoft still can't claim to totally dominate the Education market the way Acorn did in it's heyday. At the current state of market growth, can we expect the RO marketplace to any better this time? Acorn's market may have fallen towards the end - but at least it rose in the beginning, currently I can't help but feel the market is continually falling in numbers (same people, just getting new machines) One matter of technical interest which some folks might be able to answer for me... With regard to running RISC OS on PCs (not necessarily Windows), aside from the work involved, are there any insumountable technical problems to prevent the porting of RISC OS to x86 processors? If not, why not do so? Take a standardised pc setup (to avoid driver/device problems) and sell as a RISC OS machine - just another thought. I await future developments in this interesting saga with baited breathe Ryan
AMS 15/6/04 8:10PM	*In reply to Hutchies:* Castle have (apparently) got a big (embedded) sale somewhere so that should secure the hardware end of things. Point is could they continue to offer a desktop solution while an emulator was being sold ??? As to your comment that "I don't think RISC OS can really survive 'as an independent OS on its own native platform' anymore, unless there is something like VARPC to keep people interested who simply can't afford an Iyonix", so is VARPC the only way to run RISC OS other than Iyonix ? Of course not there is plenty of second hand kit that can be had cheaply and some of it of relatively high spec (close to the performance of VARPC). If you start from the assumption that the only solution is VARPC then the RISC OS platform would die which was my original point. Regards Annraoi
ninja 15/6/04 8:19PM	""With regard to running RISC OS on PCs (not necessarily Windows), aside from the work involved, are there any insumountable technical problems to prevent the porting of RISC OS to x86 processors?"" The large chunk of RISC OS written in hand made ARM code is probably the biggest problem. There are others though, such as its dependence (in its current design) on SWIs, and I dare say the way x86 chips handle interrupts might be quite different. Of course, a ported RISC OS would be largely useless even if someone did it, as none of the existing software would work.
chrisj 15/6/04 9:03PM	*In reply to Ninja:* " Of course, a ported RISC OS would be largely useless even if someone did it, as none of the existing software would work." Well, unless you provided a decent emulation of the ARM as part of your RISC-OS-for-x86 software. Oh, hang on.... In a related thought, am I right in thinking that ROL once threatened to sue VA, claiming infringement of their licence? (This was about 1992, I think - but I might have imagined the whole thing!)
hutchies 15/6/04 9:07PM	*In reply to AMS:* You're quite right, and I was in a somehwat pessimistic mood when I made the rather sweeping 'RISC OS is doomed without VARPC' statement, but I do still think VARPC holds several advantages in comparison with other equipment (which then has its own counter-advantages in other situations, etc.). I just think it shouldn't be taken out. I like drjones69's idea that Castle may want to get 'a slice of the pie', which sounds fair enough to me - if so I just hope they can all sort it out amicably, _soon_.
4 comment(s) are below your moderation threshold. Login to view them.
Use the forum for more comments on this article