There is little point in one of the major players commisioning a new logo for RISC OS, if the others chose not to use it. Any rebranding would require a degree of co-ordination and cooperation between ROL, ROOL and Castle.
"It is one thing to convince a hobbyist to shell out maybe £100 on a RiscPC so he can play around with RO5, and maybe contribute some useful code, it is another to get him to shell out £800 on an Iyonix."
Which opens up the age old question of - Why is modern entry level RISC OS equipment so expensive? At £500 even an A9Home is too expensive. The platform needs something equivalent to a £250-£300 machine with a degree of upgrade-ability that will get hobbists interested in our favourite operating system. As their interest develops, then they will move on to higher specced more expensive machines.
I hope that this was a neccessary excercise that aids in the completion of Firefox for RISC OS. Otherwise this is a bit of a distraction. Firefox 2 for RISC OS is barely functional, vital things like the hotlist and downloading do not work on my copy, there is no point in having RISC OS style menus if none of the important options work.
Even though I still use a RiscPC as a second computer, I am quite happy to keep it running ROS4. I honestly do not see the need for a version of ROS5 that runs on it. It would be better if the people who are going to take advantage of the shared source intiative devote their programming and engineering skills to moving the OS forward. Multicore processors appear to me to be the way silicon technology is moving, with the appearance of a dual-core XScale from Intel last year, wouldn't it be better if attention was focused on making RISC OS use similar and no doubt faster chips that will appear in the future.