Either stick completely with the variant with the archaic features bolted on a HAL on modern hardware, or the unarguably greatly more developed version on old dead hardware.
'greatly more developed version' (in my experience of system development) does not always mean better.
I think for many people the prospect of RO5 running on one of the up and coming generation of Cortex-A8 based netbooks is far more exciting than the possibility of bunging a Vpod in their now disused RiscPC (witness over 10000 views on the ROOL forum thread 'Let's get started with a Pandora port').
in reply to sa110
'Again this article proves that with the right kind of money backing it that RISC OS could be a big player in this market....'
Which IIRC was the vision that Castle were offering with their great leap forward a few years back.
That idea having been firmly put down by other parties, we as desktop users are still flailing around using a cottage industry OS.
As for the article I'd be interested to know how the % are combined. For instance the availability of desktop and server apps is something that is important every day, whereas the difference between 2w and 10w power is insignificant in cost terms (the same as one energy saver light bulb uses).
Whilst desktop experience has some relevence I find it is becoming less and less important. Being able to use one web browser to visit every site I want makes the MacOSX desktop irritations pale into insignificance.
Even with O2 Netsurf and Firefox on the Iyonix there is plenty of content that is inaccessible, and that is after starting up three separate applications. This translates into three startup actions on a better desktop vs one startup action using a GUI that is 'functionally less good'. And then you still have to go and fire up the Mac and do your browsing there.