jess (+2.5)
17/2/05 6:53PM |
Does it still need RO 4 as a starting point?
I would imagine anyone with an old RiscPC would be likely to be dubious about buying new ROMs for it, but buying a softload OS would be a different matter, because the OS could easily be moved to another cheap machine from ebay.
I note the other article saying that more users probably have RO 3.x than 4.x |
sa110 (+2.5)
17/2/05 8:21PM |
Personally, I'd just prefer for them to get on and release Select 4. The current release of Select 4.39, is coming upto a year old! |
diomus 
17/2/05 8:30PM |
Well, don't forget all the hassle after Castle sent them cease and desist letters, and put out announcements saying they'd terminated ROL's licence, and the subsequent negotiations to get back on track. That's got to put a brake on things.
Chris. Just me. |
dgs (+1.0)
17/2/05 8:40PM |
In reply to diomus:
Were the programmers involved in the negotiations?
dgs |
diomus
17/2/05 8:56PM |
In reply to dgs:
You know full well that ROL were negotiating for a new licence to develop and sell RISC OS 4. If Castle were serious with their accusations, terminating their existing licence would put a brake on things, hm?
Then there's also the source code issue too. As I understand it, Castle asked for the source code to ROL's ROS 4 as per their interpretation of the Head licence. ROL said this interpretation was wrong. If a competitor is demanding your source code, do you carry on working and hope for the best?
It's annoying this has to be dredged up again.
Chris. Just me. |
sa110 (+1.0)
17/2/05 9:18PM |
It certainly does't look like the programmers were sat around doing nothing for all that time, or the Embedded Ajust 32 would never have materialised.
Wasn't Select 4 due to be released back end of last year any how? |
dgs (-0.5)
17/2/05 9:25PM |
In reply to diomus:
"You know full well that ROL were negotiating for a new licence to develop and sell RISC OS 4"
When? And why? Why should I "know full well" about it? Which particular whisper campaign would I need to be following in order to know that?
"If a competitor is demanding your source code, do you carry on working and hope for the best?"
Are you suggesting that your sources involved with RISCOS Ltd have told you that they stopped doing programming work when it was suggested that ownership of the head license included access to the source code?
"It's annoying this has to be dredged up again".
Sorry, but it was you that just dredged it up in your comment just above!
dgs |
diomus
17/2/05 9:40PM |
In reply to dgs:
"Why should I "know full well" about it?"
Um, because the re-negotiations were reported on Drobe and elsewhere. See http://www.drobe.co.uk/riscos/artifact1177.html and articles it links to.
"it was you that just dredged it up in your comment just above"
I know. I was just saying.
Chris. Just me |
sa110 (+2.0)
17/2/05 10:01PM |
In reply to datawave:
Isn't it about time pre RO4 machines were annexed? It's no wonder the platform is in the it's current financial state with people still hanging on to old OS's |
Mart
17/2/05 10:21PM |
Where the *#-*##!! does it say on the Select/Adjust feature list that they read DVDs? I changed my supplied DVD/CD drive last year for a bog standard CD drive as the original was playing up and now I am told the OS will read DVDs! Anyone done it yet? |
dgs (-0.5)
17/2/05 10:21PM |
In reply to diomus:
That URL refers me to "past on-going disputes". When I move on to locate and read Drobe articles referenced there, I get "Castle conference transcript online", which offers nothing useful.
I then re-trace my steps, and try "Castle spills beans on ROL dispute".
I assume that is the Drobe article to which you refer. It mentions ROL failure to pass code back to Castle as only the third of three concerns. (My understanding is that failure to pay license fees was the primary, if not sole concern - I'm sure anyone can work out why failure to pay license fees might be a concern of the head license owner).
The article concerned is http://www.drobe.co.uk/riscos/artifact1102.html
If so, it would've saved me both time and typing if you'd given that URL to begin with.
As far as I can see, that Drobe article doesn't suggest that RISCOS Ltd were asking for a "new license", but rather that Castle were keen for them to follow the terms of any agreed license.
One almost begins to wonder what it was that delayed RISCOS Ltd's programmers from doing their work.
dgs |
sa110
17/2/05 10:24PM |
In reply to dgs:
Perhaps their programmers had other contractual obligations and ROL simply had to wait for their time. |
AndrewDuffell
17/2/05 10:32PM |
In reply to datawave:
I think RISC OS <4 can be considered obselete. The market has moved on since the mid-90s.
Newer versions of RISC OS are not that expensive, especially if you keep an eye out on eBay. I certainly wouldn't consider using less than RO4, and upgraded my RiscPC to RO4 from RO3.7 as a priority when I got it. |
diomus (+1.0)
17/2/05 10:35PM |
In reply to dgs:
I've already explained why. See my first comment in this article. I note I don't read you wondering where RISC OS 5.09 is.
Chris. Just me. |
AMS
17/2/05 10:42PM |
Funny thing Chris is that RISC OS 5 has been upgraded several times, added UDMA, support for various USB-1 devices and a variety of other enhancements. We're currently at 5.08 and in what way does it differ from Select..... well it costs nothing for one.
So if 5.09 takes a year fine.... anyway the arrival (or not) of 5.09 has nothing to do with ROD's ability to supply Select on schedule. They either succeed or fail on their own merits. If they can't meet their own deadlines maybe the deadlines need to be lengthened. |
RichardHallas (+2.5)
17/2/05 10:50PM |
This story has pre-empted my official announcement about the Foundation RISC User(*) DVD, which is really pretty irritating from my point of view. I was intending to announce it as soon as I was /ready/ to announce it.
The official announcement has been written but not sent out, and I have not yet provided Drobe (or anyone else) with any information about the DVD (Drobe will get a copy of the announcement at the same time as it's sent to everyone else). One or two details remain to be agreed. Once that's happened, the proper announcement will be made, giving all the appropriate details about the DVD, including which systems it'll run on.
But yes, it does exist, it should be announced soon, and it's the very first DVD-ROM for the RISC OS platform.
(*Pedants please note the capitalisation... the "RISC" in "Foundation RISC User" should be all-caps, just as in RISC OS itself.) |
JGZimmerle
17/2/05 10:57PM |
@AMS: Well, I would certainly expect to get ROS5 updates for free, since AFAWK the developer did not pay the holder of the exclusive rights for the RISC OS desktop market any licence fees, either. |
AndrewDuffell
17/2/05 11:18PM |
In reply to RichardHallas:
That explains why we have had no information about this at The Icon Bar.
It appears ROL have put a headline on their site though. http://www.riscos.com/news/index.htm |
Revin Kevin (+1.5)
18/2/05 1:17AM |
So Adjust can read DVD roms?
Why the F*** did they not STATE THAT WHEN IT WAS RELEACED. |
Sawadee
18/2/05 1:21AM |
Maybe RISC OS marketing secrets are not to be stated? |
hzn (+2.6)
18/2/05 7:10AM |
To Revin Kevin:
When die ROL ever sensibly state what the odd Select issue will offer or does offer. Up to now I never ever saw any information about what they offer as for RISC OS from the end user point of view. Yes, I know about that website with the technical things like "all references to Acorn removed" or "amended for new assembler" and such which increases the number of changes but has no benefit for the end user. So the question "what does RISC OS Adjust really offer for the end user opposed to RISC OS 3.7 or 4.0" is still a well-kept secret... |
AndrewDuffell
18/2/05 9:14AM |
In reply to datawave:
In that case you don't really have much of a basis to complain. If you use old versions of the OS then you don't get the latest features.
In reply to Re:
the link. Yes, I know that, but the headline is there. |
adamr
18/2/05 9:20AM |
In reply to hzn:
Yep, it's ludicrous - ROL have a page describing/promoting RISC OS 4 - why don't they have one for Adjust? In fact, a casual look at their website wouldn't even reveal that it existed! |
egel
18/2/05 9:40AM |
In reply to Datawave:
A dealer who doesn't want to use a recent version of his product sounds a little bit weird.
When even dealers doesn't believe in new RISC OS development why should users?
|
Spriteman
18/2/05 10:05AM |
Following on from what hzn and adamr have said, I posted a similar concern to the Drobe forums:
[Link: www.drobe.co.uk]
Of course, the best advert for Select/Adjust would be to sit down and use it for a few hours and have a helpful user point out the new stuff. However, how many of us have a Select owner nearby? In fact, of those who have done this, how many have then gone on to subscribe?
--
Spriteman |
jonix
18/2/05 10:14AM |
In reply to Datawave:
it would be interesting to hear the reasons you have for not wanting to upgrade. |
| 4 comment(s) are below your moderation threshold. Login to view them. |
| Use the forum for more comments on this article |
