Pompone
18/7/03 3:18PM |
First post!!
Let's hope some news soon about the last point in the FAQ page!
Cheers. |
mckinlay
18/7/03 3:21PM |
Personally, I'd quite like to get RISC OS 5 running on my A7000+. I know there's not a great deal of benefit (as the CPU is capable of executing 26-bit code), but I'd rather upgrade to 5.x than 4.x (it currently runs 3.71). Though Castle don't seem to be ruling this out, it'd be nice to know one way or the other whether there are any plans for it. |
diomus 
18/7/03 3:23PM |
The A4 RISC OS powered tablet or the ARM9 and ARM11 stuff? It's not often, if ever, that Castle tease..
Chris, drobe.co.uk |
mckinlay
18/7/03 3:24PM |
Duh. Re-reading it, it looks like they're saying "it's possible, but we're not going to do it". Shame  |
mckinlay
18/7/03 3:27PM |
The RISC OS portable answer does look particularly interesting. Perhaps they're just trying to stir up some extra interest given how recently the Alpha portable started hitting the streets... |
smink
18/7/03 4:18PM |
RON  |
tank
18/7/03 4:20PM |
If !Browse development is over, how about releasing the source (No hope I know)
--
Tank |
AndrewDuffell
18/7/03 5:43PM |
!Browse would be a great browser if it was updated to HTML4/CSS standards |
AMS
18/7/03 7:01PM |
The FAQ sounds quite positive, it also distinctly sounds that Castle want to see RISC OS succeed and they don't mind if that even means licensing to compeditors.
I think there's a pretty good case for "someone" developing a genuine RISC OS portable (it's implicit from the FAQ that Castle would favour any serious licensing deal). If anything the one good thing Alpha shows is that RISC OS users are despirate for a laptop computer (even if it means having to use Windows and an emulator to get at it). That having been said if the "real thing" appeared many would prefer it to going the Windows/Alpha/VARPC route
--
Annraoi McShane, |
jb
18/7/03 7:03PM |
Indeed !Browse would.. anyone wish to cough up the readies?..
John |
Snig
18/7/03 7:29PM |
Would it be more work to develop Browse up to standard as or making Oregano 2 more RISC OSy? |
takkaria
18/7/03 7:31PM |
In reply to mckinlay:
Why do you want to upgrade to RO 5 instead of 4? |
Snig
18/7/03 7:38PM |
Upgrading to RO5 instead of RO4 is silly. You'd loose all the benefits of Select. Also ROLtds development would falter if people didn't use them as a stepping stone to RO5. Hmm, that sounds rather harsh. Ah well. |
imj
18/7/03 10:30PM |
What possible benefit is RO5 on a RPC over RO4/Select? Just because they jumped version number, and added support for their new hardware, doesn't mean it's more suitable for a RPC, and you've lost YEARS of developments that are in Select. |
jess
18/7/03 11:47PM |
I guess if he has 3.7 he wouldn't miss select. And when select comes out for 5 he could get it. I think the advantage would be not being left behind (in the longer term) - after RO5 reaches parity with 4 select how long will they maintain two versions? If it's not viable to bring the developement HAL to release standard, will it still be viable to keep working on the RO4 kernel to keep parity?
--
Jess |
mckinlay
19/7/03 12:33AM |
jess answered that rather eloquently... No, I wouldn't miss Select, as I've not had the pleasure of experiencing it - and even if I did, Castle are encouraging a version of Select for RO5. I can't honestly see that RO4 and RO5 are both going to be developed in tandem in the medium-to-long term - it just doesn't make sense. A version of RISC OS for older hardware can't just "go away" - as the majority of hardware out there is older, however much MD, Castle, et al, would like to encourage us otherwise.
Given the sheer resources that Castle have compared to RISCOS Ltd in terms of development (the point simply being that Castle have some, and RISCOS Ltd don't appear to really have any), I can't see RO4 going anywhere, while RO5 will continue to evolve. The effort required to continue backporting everything that isn't new-hardware-specific will surely be a lot more than stablising the HAL for existing platforms.
A question, though: What would I REALLY gain, besides some aesthetic niceties, by having RO4/Select instead of RO5, and would it justify the subscription? All Select seems to be is a few bug fixes, some prettying (if that's a real word, which I doubt), and a few things conveniently packaged up/now in ROM which are otherwise available (and perhaps the odd one or two which aren't). Apologies if that doesn't fill me with enthusiasm, but what happened to the world where bugfixes don't come with a hefty price tag? |
diomus
19/7/03 12:58AM |
If Select is just pretty stuff and bug fixes, then what are you really expecting? The hardware Select runs on hasn't fundamentally changed in years, so the primary focus of development is logically the desktop and enhancing the user environment and experience.
Chris, drobe.co.uk |
mavhc
19/7/03 1:11AM |
ROS 5 has basically the same features as ROS 4, right? But Select can be run from RISC OS 4 to give you all the supercool stuff like IFR, thumbnails, 407 more bug fixes, etc etc.
Plus when you buy Select you get the next year's new versions free, which is nice.
Not to mention the small fact that you'll never be able to get ROS 5 for a RiscPC/A7000. |
jess
19/7/03 9:34AM |
In reply to Mckinlay:
Select is a very good package (from my perspective). Improved networking, (Omniclient, DHCP etc). Improved Paint and Draw (Dynamic areas and jpeg support improved interface) Internet suit. Improved filer (thumbnail option).
The problem from your perspective is that (for licensing reasons) your system cannot be used to load it without buying RO4 first. Castle are in the position to relax this restriction, if they and ROL so desired. (providing select will work on an old filesystem).
I wonder how many extra customers there would be for select if it worked on systems without RO 4?
--
Jess |
jess
19/7/03 9:52AM |
PS. bugfixes without hefty price tag - a certain world dominating software corporation put paid to that quite a while ago.
--
Jess |
mavhc
19/7/03 11:00AM |
I'd probably get Select if I didn't need ROS4 too, problem for ROL is the support problems of multiple partitions needed to boot with. |
jess
19/7/03 11:26AM |
There are several possibilities I can think of.
If it works with 77 file limits, then use the old filing system.
put the select !Boot on a different FS - (leaving the old one as is apart from an old / new system selection) eg a different partition on a drive on a suitable interface or a virtual fs.
Make the required modules to support the new drive format available to put on a flash ROM such as in the Simtec USB card.
--
Jess |
chas
19/7/03 11:48AM |
I've had ROS4 for my SA RiscPC since it came out. I got it primarily for the new filesystem which supported long filenames & large discs, and because I could reduce my boot sequence as a lot of the updated modules where now in ROM. In short its been great.
I've wanted Select since it was first advertised, great new desktop features that should have always been there. But I've been one of those people that is put off by the fact that the ROM image is soft loaded from disk. If ROL where to sell a version of ROS say sommat like ROS4.5 on ROM for a RPC which included the many select features i'd bite. Even if that meant the cost was twice the price of the current ROS4.02 ROMS.
I could potentially sell my old ROS4.02 ROMS to my Uncle or maybe ROL would be willing to accept some sort of trade in as proof that I'd already paid for the ROS4 licence.
Call me old school, but I still don't like the idea of my normal boot ROS machine loading the whole OS of disc, with the ROS4 ROM being relegated to nothing more than a PC BIOS with a nice setup tool (e.g. ROS4 without select or a disk). I know I'm already loading various ROM patches and extra modules, and that can take ages but that was one of the things that made ROS different from Windows. Now I know that the ROMS are slower, and that I would benefit from soft loading into RAM but... If the soft loading into RAM occured from the ROMS rather than the HD I'd be happy. Maybe I'd even be able to run ROS4.5 without a hard disk?
(Tusk... I'm typing this on my ADSL enabled XP machine which is on 24/7, looking over at my RiscPC as it gathers dust. Its not turned on nearly enough these days, except to collect mail from my old dialup account. What I need is an excuse to start playing with my RISC OS Box again. I really should configure my ADSL router so my RPC can use it...)
Last thing Does select include the ANT Internet Suite now. I have the orginal one, and use PLUTO for mail over dialup, but I know it uses its own IP stack or sommat. I have the 10M LAN card and am able to talk to the PC Network (SAMBA etc) but I'm not sure how I could convice the Fresco to use the LAN rather than the modem, and still be able to switch back to the modem when required. |
lepoisson
19/7/03 11:51AM |
I think the obvious thing is to merge the advances of RO5 --and there are a few, such as the Unicode font manager which I'm sure those interested in internationalization (ref recent Drobe article) would want-- with the (admittedly greater) features of Select in a new 32-bit RO (call it what you want) which can run on both 'legacy' (RiscPC/A7000/RS etc) machines and new ones with necessary HAL?...
Of course, that's merely an /ideal/. 
(Oh yeah, and am I right in saying RPC,A7k can do 32-bit?)...
--
le.poisson |
jess
19/7/03 12:09PM |
In reply to chas:
I have never had ant internet suite before select, (I had dial-up - then I moved to smoothwall and netfetch, now adsl router and netfetch) Fresco works fine (I only installed it and had to manually createplace a file or two somewhere). I'm curious as to why you need to use the modem.
The ROM issue troubled me at first, but in practice is fine. (Since select is being continiually developed regular new real ROMs wouldn't be very cheap).
In reply to lepoisson:
Agree totally
--
Jess |
AndrewDuffell
19/7/03 2:40PM |
When/If the Select scheme ends and they create ROMs with the final select on them I will buy them |
mckinlay
19/7/03 4:28PM |
To be honest, I don't have a big problem with RO4, except that it looks suspiciously like it's dying out - ROL have practically zero resources, and Castle are pushing RO5 - where does that leave RO4?
Select, on the other hand, doesn't exactly seem to scream value for money. Even for Windows, bugfixes are free downloads now.
In reply to diomus:
RISC OS running on old hardware doesn't prevent the addition of major new features. Yes, there's stuff older machines aren't capable of doing, but there's plenty they can. You can't seriously be telling me that the only thing that RISC OS needs are a few minor utilities and a bit of beautification? |
AMS
19/7/03 4:42PM |
In reply to mckinlay:
I think you're probably being a tad unfair to RISCOS Ltd, Select is not simply a set of "bugfixes".
The difference is (arguably) more akin to the difference between Windows 2000 and XP - yes they're based on common technology (to a very large degree) but with some improvements made and an extensive change to the GUI.
MS may make bugfixes available for free (but remember you paid for a working OS to start with so let's not get too enthused at MS's generosity), they do however charge when you upgrade from 2000 to XP - Just as RISCOS Ltd charge when you opt for Select.
--
Annraoi McShane, |
mckinlay
19/7/03 5:10PM |
In reply to ams:
Okay, I'll accept that Select is not just a set of bugfixes (though nobody's answered my earlier question -- what does Select get me?).
Your 2000/XP comparison is slightly flawed (there were a huge number of under-the-hood changes between the two, for example), though I get what you mean.
As far as paying for Windows is concerned -- I didn't pay for Windows any more than I paid for RISC OS -- both ship with the machines. In the case of Windows, I get free updates (and an -easy- way to install a different OS on there too, but that's a whole other issue). In the case of RISC OS, I have to pay for all but the very minor of updates, and I have to pay for applications which on every other platform ship as part of the OS or are available freely. Sorry, still doesn't sound like a great deal to me.
Am I missing something major here? -- if I am, please tell me |
tamias
19/7/03 5:50PM |
In reply to mckinlay:
IIRC Select has a lot of under-the-hood changes too - improved stability and much tidier code are two examples. Trouble is the end user doesn't really get to see them in normal use.
Whatever ROL's current position, consider that we would probably still be using 3.7 on ageing RPCs or dog-slow 7500FEs if it wasn't for ROL stepping in, acquiring the rights to RO4, and maintaining development after Acorn died. |
| Use the forum for more comments on this article |
When we 