25 Year old designs: I was referring more to the whole PC. By move to x86 do people want RISC OS to run on a standard PC motherboard?
If I need to blow up somewhere I'd have to spend years learning to fly a jet, for most uses a glider is better, especially if you're also interesting in how it works
BIOS: They don't have a seperate system for bootup, which can't be controlled from the OS.
> As has been pointed out many times, video cards and hard discs are the main culprits in modern computers - not the processor.
Those people are wrong.
> Plus you can use a Pentium Mobile processor that's not so far above the XScale in power consumption that people actually care.
Fanless P-Ms? excellent. URL?
> "They're easier to program in machine code." - Does this really make the slightest difference any more?
> Does anyone outside RISC OS program in machine code for desktop machines (other than OS of course)?
Does to people interesting in how computers work, and people optimising code, eg for 3d graphics engines, simulations etc.
> "They're not evolved from 25 year old designs and therefore not (as) full of hacks." - But still the 25 year old design (which is actually closer to 30 years) is faster, cheaper and more readily available so what is the actual benefit here?
Simplicity, elegance. Fixability.
> "They're simpler and therefore more understandable." - Who actually cares? If the system works and is cheaper I can't see people giving a hoot.
Depends which people.
Some people drive cars from A to B, some people like to get under the bonet.