| Comments on the Microdigital Alpha |
|
Published: 15th Jul 2003, 20:47:42GMT Source: drobe.co.uk
By Chris Williams
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Readers comment on their mobile virtual RISC OS machines |
|
 To put it mildly, MicroDigital are being very conservative over the news of Alpha portable units shipping to end users. As you know, the Alpha laptop is powered by an Intel Celeron processor and runs VirtualRiscPC over WindowsXP so users can use RISC OS 4 and RISC OS apps on the mobile Wintel platform.
Bizarre as it may seem, publicity of any kind is not on MicroDigital's agenda, so in the absence of a glittering press release from Shipley, we've got something a little more useful - responses from readers who've emailed us about their new Alpha laptops. Three users stepped up to the mic and spoke of their new computers and we hope you'll find their impressions and opinions useful.
There have been reservations about the use of emulated hardware to run RISC OS on non-ARM platforms from some users. However, for some, emulation is the way forward as their place of work or home environment 'demands' the need for a mainstream OS like Microsoft's Windows.
Martin Devon, ICT Consultant for Stonar School in Wiltshire, writes,
"My Alpha (production model) was delivered here on Friday 3rd July, just in time for Open Day. It had been ordered though Liquid Silicon but as David Atkins knew it was wanted for the Saturday it was sent direct.
Since then I've probably encouraged 3 or 4 pupils to buy one.
It will probably be the saving of RISC OS at this school. Now I need Virtual Acorn for standard desktops."
Martin later added this,
"I think you should also know that after a few days use it seems very satisfactory - about the same speed as a SA RiscPC in most cases and perfectly stable.
There's no direct networking yet, but can be done by making a HostFS mount of the type hostfs::\<mount><share> so it can connect direct to another RiscPC provided the latter is running !Samba."
John McCulloch, who recently published benchmark results from his Alpha, writes,
"I purchased my MD Alpha, myself, it was ordered via Liquid Silicon, just after Wakefield. I had been on LS's waiting list for an Omega, but decided this was a better buy, for me at the time.
I have so far been very impressed with the MD Alpha, both as a nice piece of kit, well made and well put together. As you will no doubt have realised I am typing this via MS Outlook Express on the MD Alpha. I am still on the learning curve about using Windows, having formerly only used it sparingly at work. My computing history is very much more Acorn based.
The MD Alpha I have was speified with Windows XP Pro and a Combo DVD/CD R/W, otherwise it is a bog standard 2.0Ghz Celeron processored machine. The machine is very easy to use, the keyboard is a little rubbery, but is very useable to type on as you can see from the lack of typo's.
As a Windows machine it comes equipped with all the usual software, allowing one to write cd roms, play dvd movies, log on to the internet, etc etc. Turning to Virtual RiscPC SE. Wow, someone has been very busy, it runs with great aplomb. It is quite a fair bit more responsive than my Acorn RiscPC (SA 202 MHz), with ViewFinder graphics card.
I guess the actual speed increase is of the order of 1.5 to 2 times the speed of the RiscPC. This is an arbitary guestimate, but takes into consideration the very much superior disc access speed. Programs such as Studio24Pro, which grind when loading big images, load in a second or so.
The desktop is very much more useable as a result. The advantages of the machine are that one can share files between both operating systems, transparently, at least Windows to RISC OS. I have not yet figured out how to go the other way, but I am sure it will be possible.
Downsides... Cannot see anyway of addressing the modem card from RISC OS, hence using Outlook Express. Likewise not too sure if any of the high speed interfaces are available to the RISC OS side. But these are minor disadvantages, as far as I am concerned."
A Dutch reader also sent in this,
"You have asked for comments on the rumours that ordinary people such as myself could have come into possession of a MicroDigital machine at the Expo 2003. Well, I can hereby confirm it! And no, I am just a regular customer, not a beta tester or something like that.
Two and a half years ago I ordered the Omega, right off the drawing board. Of course I was disappointed that I had to wait for so long, but remember it is still far better than what happened with Acorn: the promised Phoebe...
And in the meantime I stil have my trusted Risc PC, running RISC OS 4 and a StrongARM processor.
Since I am not adverse to playing a computer game or two RISC OS 4 holds some disappointment for me: many trusted game would not run, not even with Game On or Strong Guard. Trying Virtual A5000 on a regular notebook brought no joy.
And then, all of a sudden Micro Digital announces the Alpha Notebook. Now that was a surprise. Not a new company stepping in at the last moment to rescue the Riscstation Portable but a brand new solution!
I could not get Acorn to understand that it is very difficult for ordinary people to understand why they should go for Acorn and RISC OS; compatibility is a very important issue. At the company I work for practically nobody understands why RISC OS would be so much better. I have tried to convince them many times and brought my Acorn computers with me to show them off, but they still cannot make the switch.
And now came a chance for me from a company after Acorn to understand that it is wise having the same equipment as is standard in the PC world but working on a superior operating system. I ordered one of those as well, thinking it would be great to make presentations on my Risc PC, copy them to my notebook and have far better results in the office.
And yes, it works like a dream. Of course it feels strange seeing WindowsXP on start up, but after the initial shock you just double click and get your favorite operating system. Known applications work just as easy on the Alpha.
One of the few applications I run "native" under Windows XP is a flight simulator for model aircraft; so far I have never found one for Risc computers so that is a real bonus.
Because I already own VirtualA5000 I thought "Why not give it a try?" and installed that as well on the Alpha Notebook; it performs well and I am now able to play the game "Birds of War" again. Imagine that! Sound does not work yet but I will try to wrestle some modules from my old and broken down A5000 to fix that.
So you see, MicroDigital have come through for ordinary customers and now at the office people can see the difference: the hardware stays the same but the results are far better. I think this machine will help to get more and more people accustomed to RISC OS and that will be a turn for the good, not just for the manufacturer but for all of us.
And yes, I still think that in a few weeks I will get the invitation to visit my dealer "Desk" in Rotterdam and receive my Omega as well."
Of course, we're waiting for the big one - news from end users of Omegas arriving at doorstops. No need to be shy, we won't judge you.
Links
MicroDigitalRelated articles
The best of the Microdigital Mico manual
This article has been linked to, or is available in the following formats:
|
| |
|
SparkY
15/7/03 10:19PM |
Still can't help feeling horrified. It's just a Windows machine running an emulator. It's no more a RISC OS machine than it is an Amiga or a Spectrum. This is not the way forward. I will be interested to know how many people actually stop using RISC OS altogether, and start using Windows because of this - emulation is not pretty or convenient and the problems and limitations will show up over time. Flame me if you like, but I feel strongly that this is bad for the long term.
--
Gavin Smith |
mavhc  (+1.5)
15/7/03 10:38PM |
Better than people not using RISC OS because there's no portable. |
fylfot
15/7/03 10:41PM |
In reply to SparkY:
Rather than simply making general statements, could you explain why you are against emulation and why you think that people will stop using RISC OS because of it?
I've not heard a single argument that makes any sense to me. |
SparkY (+1.5)
15/7/03 10:56PM |
Sorry, I'll try to be more specific. Emulation never pushes a platform forward, it only does its best to match what is already there.
Next, you're running Windows XP, then RISC OS- how long will it be before the buyers of these laptops just stop booting into RISC OS to (for example) write simple text files? They're already using Windows for email. Perhaps they'll start using Word instead of any of the superior RISC OS offerings? Then what? All this, just because it's more convenient than firing up RISC OS on top of Windows. It's a messy way to do things IMHO.
Finally, it's a huge amount of money that isn't going into the RISC OS market - of course, Microdigital are going to make a profit, but the bulk of the money is going on the Windows license and the PC hardware.
If a similar desktop package had been sold in a bundled way a year or so ago, I wonder if we might not have an Iyonix today.
--
Gavin Smith |
Snig
15/7/03 11:32PM |
Great stuff! Any news on when we can buy VirtualRPC standalone? |
mavhc
15/7/03 11:54PM |
Why would they use Windows to read emails when it's better on RISC OS?
a) They're stupid
b) They don't have RISC OS, maybe they're on a portable
c) They're crazy
Why use Windows apps which may cause Windows to be rebooted/reinstalled when you can just reload VRPC?
The bulk of the money for the Iyonix is going to Intel, memory/hd/cd/monitor sellers, etc.
Of course giving MS money is against my religion so I can't buy it. |
EPDM
16/7/03 12:05AM |
To answer all your questions with one simple answer:
They'd use windows BECAUSE THE BLOODY NETWORKING DOESN"T WORK YET!
capiche?
Regards,
Manu T |
MartinD
16/7/03 8:09AM |
A few notes: laptops are fashionable in school so better to have one which does RiscOS than one which doesn't.
They will use the RiscOS part for all their work because that's what we teach at school.
Alpha connects direct to the Linux servers.
We are sometimes forced to use a Windows browser for external sites (I try to force Mozilla on them) because RiscOS doesn't have an adequate browser. Internal webmail uses Oregano but I've now having to use legacy templates on our Navaho server.
I have 120 OS4 RiscPCs which have to be near the end of their life; a couple of years perhaps. I cannot justify 150k pounds for Iyonixes when they still can't drive interactive whiteboards and so on. OTOH just 50k for white boxes plus emulation would keep RiscOS alive. Speaking heretically I've not convinced that the underlying processor can be detected in use 
Alpha is not emulation in the strict sense as taught - it uses a real copy of RiscOS. |
mckinlay
16/7/03 8:17AM |
It is emulation the real sense, it's just not emulating the OS -- in the same way that Bochs can run a real copy of Windows or Linux or the HURD by emulating a PC. |
mripley (+1.5)
16/7/03 8:19AM |
Whether this will encourage or discourage the use of RISCOS as the preferred platform is all open to debate and no-one really knows. The only way to determine this is to survey the current VRPC userbase and determine :
1 number of non riscos users who now use VRPC
2 number of non riscos users who tried VRPC and then purchased RISCOS hardware.
3 number of original RISCOS users who now use VRPC
4 number of original RISCOS users who no longer use RISCOS hardware after having used VRPC
The survey would have to have at least 30 respondants.
regards,
Malcolm |
timephoenix
16/7/03 9:44AM |
For those who've used Virtual Acorn emulation software or have an Alpha can vote in the opinion poll here:
[Link: www.dream-tool.net]
In reply to Mripley:
I tried to incorporate some of your survey questions. |
guestx
16/7/03 9:45AM |
MartinD is spot on! No-one purchasing large orders under any scrutiny is going to spend large sums of cash on "native" RISC OS hardware when desirable contemporary applications just aren't there.
As for the argument that running an emulator on Windows XP is going to tempt people to switch to Windows XP, I'd suggest that people who actually are interested in switching to other platforms will do so whether one makes emulation software available for those platforms or not. The only difference emulators make in such cases is that the transition between platforms may be eased somewhat.
Should RISC OS emulators be made available to the masses? Does it really "cheapen" the platform? I'd argue that emulators are just tools which can make people's lives easier, and even if some people use them to migrate to another platform, it's not as if emulator developers are helping bad people make nuclear weapons or anything. |
nijinsky
16/7/03 10:28AM |
Hi All.
RISC OS? What is it?
RISC=name
OS = operating system
Note OS does not = hardware etc etc etc.
The O = "operating" IE a method of using the system.
My only option is a windowsPC. I dont want a seperate computer for RISC OS and I want it on a laptop.
I also have a XP laptop and I dont care whether it runs on JAM but I do need the windows OS for work. Therefore, unless I have an emmulated OS running on windows I wont use RISC OS. IE one up for emmulation. I like the OS, but it is ONLY a computer, only a tool for doing work, and I don't want a couple of desktops or two laptops in the house, ohhh!!! thats!!! right!!!, there is no RISC OS laptop, therefore It is EM or zero.
Now what is better, a user or a former user?
I also know that many people are anti microsoft. Hell I even own the domain micronsoft BUT lets be frank here.
Word can somertimes be anoying but it is really quite good in many respects. EG linking automatically with reference manager, endnote etc; and it does all that I need it for.
excel does all I need it for.
Powerpoint plays movies in the presentation and I "definately" need this.
I use eudora pro for mail and normally mozilla, however, I use IE for banking. It is not my fault that IE is perhaps not the most secure, my bank insist and It works. I have this only for convenience and I do have the alternative of walking up and standing in the cue.
I do use RISC OS for stats, that is about it. I do have some top mac programmes and could always use statview emmulated, but I do like !1st.
At the end of the day it is only a tool.
cheers
bob |
epistaxsis@work
16/7/03 11:13AM |
So it is a bit faster than a boggo RiscPC...
Of course certain things like memory access & Hard discs will be a lot quicker.
But has anyone bothered to see the required spec of PC to achieve this?
1 for the evangelical advocates:
In order to emulate a 200MHz StrongARM machine running RISC OS - you need to add another 0...
|
Jeremy
16/7/03 12:06PM |
Tempers obviously run high concerning 'emulation'. In my case, my son is about to turn his back on RiscOS because he uses Windross at school. But he's dead keen to get an Alpha, as he can then have both (and hopefully easily transfer files between them.) In this case, the so-called 'emulation' will save at least one defection.
Also, no-one seems to have commented on the fact that, according to MD's web site, there is also a higher spec Alpha portable available which uses a Pentium instead of the Celeron chip. That'd be the one I'd go for, but would welcome comments as I've no idea at all about Wintel machines!
Incidentally, I can't see any way that VA on Windows can possibly lead to the destruction of RISC OS. People will only move to Windows if it's better, not because it's there! Why are some people so affraid of someone comparing the two? Do you not have faith that, side by side, RiscOS will be the chosen favourite?
--
Jeremy Brayshaw |
SparkY
16/7/03 1:01PM |
Jeremy, there is faith, but you wouldn't be comparing like for like. I'm not 100% against RISC OS emulators but I am against selling this machine as a RISC OS solution. Do you think there is such a profit margin on this machine that it will fund future RISC OS developments? I don't. Think of the long term. As I said before, if there had been a similar desktop bundle (PC with an emulator bundled) a year ago, would there be an Iyonix today?
--
Gavin Smith |
quatermass (+1.5)
16/7/03 1:10PM |
Surely VirtualAcorn doesn't need to be written to run in Windows?
Why can't they sell a Linux version? Then we can buy a portable without Windows and save some cash.
Personally, I'd like a Tablet device running RISC OS and Lycoris.
http://www.lycoris.com/products/tablet/
for example.
|
Martyn Fox
16/7/03 1:32PM |
"At the end of the day it is only a tool."
To some, maybe.
Martyn |
guestx
16/7/03 1:44PM |
It's amusing that before the end of last year, there hadn't really been a competitive hardware business in the RISC OS world for a good five years, and yet despite this, the RISC OS high <censored>still ridiculously claim that emulation is the end of the platform and that only RISC OS on specially designed hardware is "right".
Perhaps, if people had been running RISC OS on emulators five years ago, there wouldn't have been an Iyonix. Then again, there could have been a twofold growth in users in the five subsequent years (as opposed to a steep decline), improvements in the virtualisation of the RISC OS environment, and RISC OS applications running well enough on commodity hardware, for all we know.
I suppose it's a question of what the high <censored>find most sacred. |
Jeremy
16/7/03 2:01PM |
In reply to SparkY:
You may be right about hardware development being hit by this, but I don't think so. I don't see us getting any new RISC OS hardware for years, now Iyonix is here, with or without Alpha.
But as for software - where there is a real need for investment, surely any sales of RISC OS - be it on an emulated or original hardware base - must be good for that market. If that area begins to grow, then new hardware will follow anyway. IMHO.
Not that criticising the theory behind a product is going to change anything anyway, so why speculate (apart from the fact it can be fun!). Let's accept that we're getting some good hardware (both native and 'emulated'), so let's all promote it and be glad these developers are still interested in RISC OS.
Given a choice of Alpha or Native RISC OS laptop, I'm sure many of us would choose the latter. But we haven't got that choice. It's Alpha, WITH RISC OS, or Windows without RISC OS. I know which of those I would prefer to see sell well!
--
Jeremy Brayshaw, Braintree, Essex |
tank
16/7/03 2:03PM |
Don't forget that RISC OS 4 is used, so that RISCOS Ltd gets some licence money, to keep them afloat, as the true hardware sale licence money seems now to be in decline (read stopped!) and Select is the only thing keeping them going.
Microdigital get their profit from the sale and so hopfully funds some hardware development (a different argument I know).
Castle will now get a licence fee from RISCOS Ltd, so funding their growth.
None of these companies will care where the money comes from, just that it comes.Most people who read here would like the hardware to sell as well, but in the short term only Castle are probably selling, so spreading the cashflow around a bit can't harm the market.
--
Tank |
Walks
16/7/03 2:08PM |
Sparky, as has been said above there is RISC OS and there is the hardware that it is running on. I get the impression from your posts that you are combining the two.
I think, at the end of the day, people are more interested in RISC OS than the actual hardware it runs on. And to be honest, they probably wouldn't care what it is running on as long as it works.
The reality of the situation is that a lot of people are not going to be willing to fork out over £1000 for a RISC OS/ARM based computer, when you could buy a PC which can do a lot more for half the price.
So, if anything, the emulation route might actually keep more people using RISC OS than loosing them.
I guess RISCOS Ltd gets a bit of money each time an Alpha is sold, so I can't see how it is not going to support future RISC OS developments. It certainly seems to be money they wouldn't get otherwise. |
Spriteman
16/7/03 2:55PM |
Okay, I agree that emulation will allow people who want to continue to use RISC OS applications to continue to do so. It'll probably produce some more sales of RISC OS in the short term at least. In the long term - I don't know.
What does worry me is effects on the hardware side of the RISC OS market. Noone in their right mind is going to produce a RISC OS laptop now. It was always going to be a pretty risky venture (as shown by the abortive attempts by Acorn, etc). However, it seems that the Alpha has closed the door pretty firmly on the laptop market.
People are now asking for the VirtualRPC emulator to be made available as a stand alone package so that they can run it on computers of their choosing. Sure, this is a real money saver. Any 2GHz PC + VRPC is enough to replace a tired RiscPC. Make it a 3GHz machine and that'll beat a Kinetic RPC and may be knocking on the door of Omega performance. A crude estimate would suggest a 5GHz PC would be required to match an Iyonix. Of course, this is all at half the price of the equivelant RISC OS hardware.
The other bonus is that you don't have to wait for drivers for the particular peripheral you want to be available for RISC OS. You can use the Windows drivers straight away and swap over to the RISC OS ones if/when they are available (assuming you are willing to pay for them).
The third advantage is that you have a wealth of bonus software available to you. Why not run a Kazaa, eDonkey or Gnutella client in the background while you run VRPC? They are free and arguably more developed than any RISC OS file-sharing software. There is also a selection of web browsers that are free and run rings round Oregano.
So, it's becoming increasingly difficult to recommend a real RISC OS machine over a PC with the emulator. But the OS itself is safe, right? I'd think so as long as people using VRPC don't tire of having to effectively boot two machines in order to use RISC OS programs. As long as they don't become to used to Windows and Windows programs. As long as they find their RISC OS programs more familiar and productive and this out-weighs the speed and convinience of so called 'industry standard' apps.
--
Spriteman. |
mavhc
16/7/03 3:20PM |
Most people don't think RISC OS is better though, even if they've used it for years, because they're stupid. |
Martyn Fox
16/7/03 5:17PM |
"Most people don't think RISC OS is better though, even if they've used it for years, because they're stupid."
I don't think this website would exist if there was a grain of truth in the above and I will treat it with the contempt it deserves.
As I was about to say ...
I bought a 486 card and Windows 3.1 for my RiscPC and never really found a use for them.
Apart from that, I've never owned a Windows/DOS machine or any Microsoft product and have managed without such things up to now.
Perhaps some people are afraid that, if I added a Windows system to my setup, I might succumb to using it and do things on it instead of on RISC OS.
Being used to RISC OS, I'd be surprised if that happened. I use Windows NT at work and know which I prefer!
I can think of two ways in which I might acquire Windows hardware:
1. as an Alpha (or even Alpha Pro) laptop
2. as an add-on so that I can run software such as UniPrint
In the latter case, I assume that a bog-standard PC will do, preferably one of these new small-size ones. On the other hand, I rather hanker after being able to do video editing ...
I've heard that the best laptops are Macs. Now, if only VRPC could be written to run on one ...
I suspect emulation will turn out to be:
1. Bad for RISC OS hardware producers
2. Good for RISC OS software producers
Martyn |
mikeg
16/7/03 6:25PM |
In reply to MartinD:
Running VA might be the answer, but thinking a whitebox clone will give you any level of value even remotely close to that you've had from your RiscPCs is plain stone dead wrong. |
SimonC
16/7/03 6:38PM |
Let's jump into the fray:
Everything else being equal, I find myself using Windows and RISC OS, given two machines - RISC OS when it can do something, and Windows when it can't, be this playing a game I want to play, or accessing a website I want to access. I'm certainly not going to stop using RO if I've got a Windows machine too, since plenty of stuff I do doesn't need the extra power.
The hardware issue:
If the end result of an emulated RISC OS computer is something with the same performance as a native ARM based one, but costs half the price, then there is no logic in not buying the emulated version. However, if there is a native RISC OS machine that is more powerful than an emulator it will, I think, always sell some, even if it costs quite a bit more.
If more money comes into the general RO scene (not just hardware) with an emulator available, then it's not going to hurt. Could it not be the cheap way to get low end RO systems out, at a cheaper price than currently (this is not really looking at the Alpha) with the non emulated machines powering the high end? |
AMS
16/7/03 6:58PM |
I would tend to find myself in agreement with Sparky on this one.
In addition I'd point out that the reality is that when you run an emulator you're running an "approximation" of a real machine - not the actual real machine (this can mean some things don't always work as expected).
To be fair I have found VA sound enough, but to say that it would in all circumstances behave like a real RiscPC is another thing (that means for a programmer it would not be good enough to test/develop their software on it and assume it would work on all RISC OS hardware).
Then we have WindowsXP, if it is installed correctly and patched up to the gills it might behave correctly - but on the other hand it may not (in which case you have an RO copy (with whatever bugs it has) running on an Emulator (an approximation also with bugs) running on Windows XP (which has bugs) on PC hardware (which hopefully is not too bugged). This suggests it will, overall, be less stable than genuine RO running on genuine RO hardware. And if in the middle of running TechWriter under RO under VA on WindowsXP who do you think will get the blame (I can hear it now RISC OS is rubbish it keeps getting GPF's....)
Then there's the amount of money "leaving" the market with Alpha. I'd much rather see people use their existing PC laptops (ie., no new purchase) and then plonk VARPC on top - if that is their chosen route. At least that way the person may have some money left over to buy RO software (or save for an Iyonix or whatever).
Alpha is an inefficient way of supporting our platform. The argument that by buying Alpha you're supporting the platform is errant - the bulk of the purchase pays the hardware manufacturer (some PC portable manufacturer), then Microsoft, then a little left over for MD (firstly), and then VA and RISCOS Ltd.
Then there's the other imponderable, Microsoft, let's face it they change their OS'es with alarming regularity... what if when they go all over to ".NET" and some 67000 Windows API's get whittled down to a few thousands what odds that VA will even work. And before you say it couldn't happen just ask yourself what happened with Windows and DR-DOS (do a search see what you come up with  , or any of those "problems" that arose with non-MS web browsers....
--
Annraoi McShane, |
quatermain
16/7/03 7:49PM |
I'm interested how one can attract new (and essentially non-techie) users to RISC OS through selling them a laptop with an emulator. Most people who use Windows have no idea how it works, and saying "emulator" to them would mean about as much as saying "syuzhet"*. If it says "Windows" when it starts up and they can use it to word process, scan some photos and browse the web they'll never investigate the alternative operating system on the computer, trusting Windows to perform these for them perfectly adequately, and probably never even suspecting there is another way of interacting with a computer.
I am not a programmer, I'm not even that techie, but I've stuck with RISC OS because the first computers I came across were Acorns. It was a happy accident that they were also very easy to use and at the time pretty powerful machines.
What I'm getting at is that when it comes to selling your product you need to get your message in first. If the first thing you see when you turn on a computer is the Windows logo, that's not good for the alternative OS's you can run on the same machine.
I know that the non-techie market is not who the Alpha is aimed at, but the companies who make the hardware that RISC OS runs on should at some point hope to be attracting those who aren't within the enlightened circle.
I know that most people on this list would love to see a RISC OS native computer, and maybe it's disappointment that they're not that is fuelling some of the negative comments, but that's not the end of the matter. Either way, it's all academic because I can't afford to buy an Alpha laptop and if I could I'd still buy a brand new Mac.
But if there were a RISC OS native laptop the Mac could wait indefinitely. (This may be illogical, but *we're* not computers and logical choices aren't always the ones society endorses.)
Of course, there is a counter argument when it comes to getting your message in first. When I had my first encounter with an Acorn machine it was in primary school. If the Alpha keeps RISC OS in schools, that's good, because as every ad man knows, you've got to snag 'em young. But if the Alpha undermines the quality of the product then RISC OS developers can't afford the PR to sell it quite the way Micro$oft can.
* "syuzhet" (pronounced "seeyoo-jay", at least by the other film grads I know) is a Russian word, used by formalist critics, particularly in reference to films. It is roughly analogous to the English word "plot" and is used in discussions about the difference between a film's story (what it tells) and the order of its narrative (how it is told). Yes, I'm kind of OT, but at least you can't complain that you've not learnt something today.
--
Liam Creighton |
jlavallin
16/7/03 8:28PM |
In the absence of a RISC OS laptop I would buy my son the Alpha though the desktop computer would remain ARM/Xscale hardware.
Windows+Risc os emulation would the best solution for school use.
I prefer RISC OS only for a desktop.
For my family the above represents the best solution.
|
| Use the forum for more comments on this article |
|
|
|
