Drobe :: The archives
About Drobe | Contact | RSS | Twitter | Webspace | Tech docs | Downloads | BBC Micro

Profile for chrisj

ContactAbout me
Username: chrisj
Realname: Christopher Joseph
About me:
Comments posted:64 (show all)

All comments

On Building a RISC OS laptop out of Lego:


So long as they don't wobble.

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 19/11/07 1:16PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Select nets 1,000th subscriber:

"From our point of view the lack of new features in RISC OS 5 since its launch four years ago speaks volumes."

Yes, it's shocking the way that Castle have only implemented support for new hardware like USB2 and multiple graphics cards, rather than getting down to the serious business of allowing rounded corners on action buttons. More seriously, I agree with hzn that this is a bit of cheek coming from a subscription-funded company that gave their subscribers nothing for three years - especially since Castle have a well-earned reputation for keeping quiet about new developments until they're actually ready. Yes, there are some useful changes to things in Select that RO5 doesn't have - most notably some of the improvements to the bundled apps - but none of them is exactly earth-shattering.

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 16/7/07 8:49AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On June news in brief:

Searching on Riscpedia for 'Drobe' got four results: two comments from myriscos.co.uk, a link to the Acornarcade front page, and one two-year-old Drobe article. So the site isn't empty, it just isn't very complete :)

Takkaria: I don't see anything wrong with running a website off a RISC OS box provided you're not expecting heavy traffic. Nice low power-consumption, and quite enough memory and I/O bandwidth to pass text entries to the current RISC OS market. I wouldn't want to run slashdot or NTK on one, but that's different :)

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 20/6/07 10:50AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Multi-page ArtWorks 2.7 now available:


I think MPro/Pluto is a bit like Zap/StrongEd. Personally, I've used MPro for years and think it's great (especially with recent additions, which fixed some things that had been niggling for years) - but I tried Pluto and just couldn't seem to get on with it. Some people find it the other way around.

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 16/5/07 9:44PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On The return of the 8bit-era: creating a 'neo-micro':

I think you mean "the operating system equivalent of a bonsai tree", rather than the other way around.... Mind you, I'd be very interested to see RISC OS (or indeed any other OS) running on a tree!

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 22/4/07 11:22AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Internet Explorer spotted running on a RISC OS:

In reply to Druck/jc:

That was Winrisc, I think. I remember seeing a review with the title "faster than a speeding glacier", although I don't think I ever saw the software itself in action.

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 6/3/07 3:05PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On NetSurf halts punter's search for love:

Apparently there's a place called 'real life' that people used to go to to find friends and the like. I don't know where it is, though - according to wikipedia ([link]) they're not on the internet. How out of date are these people?

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 4/2/07 3:01PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Software news in brief:

I'm distressed to see Superior Software's Thrust described as a "C64 Classic", given that it was first released for the beeb.

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 10/12/06 4:59PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On RISC OS gets transparent windows:


I think the bit in the article where David is quoted as saying "it doesn't allow you to see the windows beneath another window, for example" suggests quite strongly that you can't. So unless your desktop wallpaper has vital information plastered across it, the software is definitely fun rather than really useful. But it *is* fun, and rather cute :) More seriously, it's also a really good example of what can be achieved by taking advantage of RISC OS's sensible modular design.

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 22/11/06 9:31AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On R-Comp Dad suffers 'major' heart attack:

I'd just like to join the crowds wishing Allan (and family) all the best for a quick and complete recovery. The RISC OS community needs all the people it can get, but those who show Allan's levels of kindness, helpfulness and attention to detail are especially valued; I don't think I've ever met anyone who had a single bad word to say about him.

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 14/10/06 3:42PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On RISC OS 5 source code release revealed:


But Stephen didn't say that *he* wanted ROL to become the defacto distribution; he said it would make sense for ROL to want that. He's probably right, but since most of ROL's other decisions don't make any sense, I don't think that they're likely to get involved here.

And I don't think ROL (which is to say PM, who runs it) is interested in delivering anything to anyone. They/he only seem(s) to be interested in prolonging the OS fork and making life difficult.

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 03/10/06 3:27PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Intel wheels out 1.2GHz XScale family:


"I think there are quite a few people who don't bother upgrading because they're just not really all that serious about using RISC OS. "

Or because they can't justify spending GBP600+ for a new machine (especially if they're one of the many people who *have* to have a MS or Apple machine in addition to their RISC OS hardware). Or because they can't justify spending GBP600+ on a new RISC OS machine in preference to spending the money on software upgrades.

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 29/9/06 1:03PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Hallas to study history of Acorn PhD:


True, but then again, I don't imagine that Richard will fail to mention whatever of the successor companies are still around in five years time, and maybe some of the people who read the book will be interested enough to investigate....

Like many others here, I look forward to buying a copy of the book when you've finished it, Richard - best of luck!

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 4/9/06 1:37PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Castle considering open sourcing RISC OS:


"After all, STD could have gone to Castle rather than ROL anyway. Presumably ROL brought expertise that STD valued?"

Or else STD were (understandably) reluctant to license a vital component of their product from a direct competitor - which is, after all, why Acorn span off ARM. It's also possible that they approached both companies, and ROL said they could make RO4 fully 32bit for less money than Castle thought it would cost to make a RO5 HAL for the A9. Or something else in a similar vein....

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 16/08/06 3:23PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Iyonix banned by new EU green law:


"This may even be why Castle started selling the motherboards separately."

I must admit to having had thoughts along those lines. One potentially relevant question, however: would the new laws permit dealers to buy Iyonix motherboards and then sell completed machines, or would all Iyonix purchases have to be straight from Castle once dealers sell whatever stock they may have at present?

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 1/8/06 5:39PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Iyonix banned by new EU green law:

The obvious two solutions (assuming that Castle have been planning ahead) are:

a) Iyonix 2 is appearing soon.

b) Castle have stockpiled enough motherboards to last for at least a couple of years, since you're allowed to sell things that you already had in stock....

I'd guess that stockpiling to cover the RISC OS desktop market is fairly trivial, these days, but whether it's a viable technique for their STB/embedded markets may be another matter.

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 1/8/06 4:05PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On New ArtWorks, AWRender planned for Wakefield:

Possibly it means that there's a charge for developers who want to provide support for embedded Artworks images? Or else that sentence has been misplaced by a couple of paragraphs, and actually applies to the new version (2.6) of Artworks itself that's discussed lower down....

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 18/4/06 12:27AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Middleton battles 'misinformation':


It is to be expected that paying customers get info first, no reason to panic straight away.

I disagree; if there is misinformation about ROL in the public domain, it should be countered in the public domain. If an article appears in the Times saying that RISC OS no longer exists, there's no point writing to Archive pointing out that it's wrong. You need to get the correction out to the same group of people who saw the misinformation in the first place, or it does no good at all.

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 8/3/06 3:25PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Middleton battles 'misinformation':


I agree; I (also) have an active interest in RISC OS, in all its forms. But I'm not subscribed to Select because I don't think that (at present) it offers me enough to be worth the investment*. Of course, that impression is gained from the information that's publically available - so if ROL only email subscribers to counteract misinformation, then I'll never find out that it isn't true. Which means that I might go on thinking Select is no use to me at a point when I would otherwise consider giving money to ROL. Which doesn't help ROL at all.... It isn't as though sending a PR-ised version of the email to CSA.announce and Drobe/iconbar/etc would have taken up a huge amount of time, is it?

* specifically, I'd rather spend the money on upgrades/subscriptions to products (like MPro or Firefox) that are being actively developed in ways that are directly useful to me.

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 8/3/06 3:20PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Select subscribers offered fig leaf:


Of course, you could have an old format disk to boot the machine off, and then another disk in the new format that you kept everything except the relevant chunks of the boot sequence on....

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 7/3/06 4:02PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Archive booklets review part two:


I can't speak for other people, but I tried both. My preference for Zap basically comes down (I suspect) to the fact that it's maintained by people who seem to think in much the same way that I do. Some people have put my preference (for Zap) down to the fact that I also use Emacs (on Unix boxen) a fair bit - but various Unix people have suggested that I prefer Emacs (to Vi) because I'm so used to Zap....

I think it's probably a bit of both; some people will generally find one (out of Zap and StrongEd) much easier to use than the other, but some people will do equally well with whichever they happen to pick up first.

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 19/12/05 12:24PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Could A9 be a digital oasis in a desert of PCs and Macs?:


Why not plug a firewire PCI card into an Iyonix? That has PCI slots, after all. Answer? Because there aren't currently any drivers for them, and without drivers, the card is just a lump of plastic and metal that increases your power-consumption. Writing drivers requires information about the hardware which isn't always available, and takes time (so ultimately costs money).

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 29/11/05 1:47PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On RISC OS Christmas roadshow details finalised:


Perhaps an announcement along the lines of "people who want to meet staff face to face to discuss our products will be able to find us at the RISC OS roadshows in... on..."?

Speaking as someone on the MPro mailing list, I (obviously) already know about the roadshow. However, I probably wouldn't be offended by such an announcement sent to the list (especially if, say, programmers will be present to talk to, or you'll be showing a beta of the next version[1]), so long as it remains a special case, and not something that happens for every RISC OS-related event.

[1] or you make it specifically relevant in some other way; special offers for existing users who turn up, perhaps? (Not that I can make it anyway :)

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 19/11/05 1:56PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Archive usage survey: VRPC edges past Iyonix:


Certainly most of the flat-panel screens I've seen had enough space behind them in places that you could rearrange the parts of the A9 so that the (cuboid of) space occupied by the screen didn't increase. Then you could hang the screen on the wall and have the mouse and keyboard cables coming out of it. Which would look cool :)

I'd guess that heat from the A9 wouldn't be a problem - depending on the screen, heat from the flat-panel electronics affecting the A9 might be an issue, though. And it would certainly invalidate the guarantee....

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 16/11/05 4:17PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Archive usage survey: VRPC edges past Iyonix:


Please note that:

a) no-one makes drives specifically for the 80mm CDs; for some reason, they're all designed to accept normal full-sized ones

b) no-one sells software on 80mm CDs either

c) by putting 80mm CDs into a CD-ROM drive, you invalidate the warrantee, as they are not technically compliant with the physical part of the CD standard

d) the people who designed and manufactured the A9 don't think there's room for anything extra inside the case. Somehow, I think they're in a position to know.

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 14/11/05 11:52PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Taking OS features for granted:

Lets try that table again; I hadn't realised it would strip all the spacing out!

Yr ! Programmer 1 ! ! ! Programmer 2 1 ! creates 3D library ! starts writing game 1 2 ! optimises library ! ! completes game 1 3 ! writes game 1* ! ! starts writing game 2 4 ! writes game 2* ! ! completes game 2 5 ! writes game 3* ! ! starts writing game 3 6 ! writes game 4* ! ! completes game 3

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 06/11/05 1:20PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Taking OS features for granted:


Basically, yes. In particular, the shrinking of the platform is a problem - ten years ago, it was worth David Pilling spending a couple of years developing a new DTP package (Ovation Pro) from scratch, because the return at the end of that time would repay him for two years not doing anything else. Charles Moir could afford to pay a team of people to work non-stop on Impression and Artworks... Now? Martin W. does superb work, but I don't think he makes enough money from Artworks 2.x to pay half-a-dozen other people to work on it with him.

Actually, a good example has just occurred to me; consider games. Twenty years ago, BBC games were often state-of-the-art (despite being written by one person in their spare time at college:). Move on to 1998; RISC OS gets HOMM2 (a good conversion of a then 3-year old DOS game), Wizard Apprentice (a cute platformer) and Destiny (an imperfect but under-rated 1st-person shooter). What about PC releases of 1998? They include Starcraft, Quake 2, Diablo, Riven (the sequel to Myst), Unreal and Age of Empires.

TEK is a nice little strategy game, but doesn't have the polish of AoE or Starcraft. Rob Templeman spent several years pulling off a near-miracle in making Destiny run playably fast on a RPC (and never got the credit I felt he deserved for his dedication and coding), but the game could have been much improved if there'd been a team of a dozen or so suitable people to work full-time on level design, music and graphics.

Flip forwards to today. One man working in a cupboard after work is never going to produce Doom 3, or Return to Wolfenstein, or GTA: San Andreas. But someone who writes a really fast 3D plotting engine with a good simple API (or ports and optimises an open-source one) is, in the long run, doing RISC OS gaming more good than someone who spends the same amount of time producing a half-baked, slow and clunky 3D game. A timeline would probably be helpful here:

Year Programmer 1 Programmer 2 1 creates 3D library starts writing game 1 2 optimises library completes game 1 3 writes game 1* starts writing game 2 4 writes game 2* completes game 2 5 writes game 3* starts writing game 3 6 writes game 4* completes game 3

* Of course, if the library is publically available, other people can write games using it as well; in which case by the end of year six you might have eight (or more) 3D games by this method, instead of three from programmer 2....

Because P1 has started by creating a set of useful tools, he takes longer to do anything that the non-programming public notices. But in the end, he gets more done. And he makes it much easier for other people to do things - imagine a "Programmer A", who is working separately but never finishes anything: he starts work in year three, writing his own game. With P1 around, he takes the existing 3D engine, and writes half a game to go with it, which he then abandons into the public domain. With P2 instead of P1, "A" writes... half a 3D graphics engine, which he then abandons into the public domain. Programmers B,C and D are much the same. So in the P1 scenario, we now have several half-finished games; in the P2 case, there are several half-finished 3D graphics libraries. The former are obviously much more likely to reach a state where the non-programming public get to play something....

[Phew, that was long - maybe I should have offered it as an article, rather than a comment ;-) ]

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 06/11/05 1:17PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Taking OS features for granted:


"I'm only writing simple windows, mac and linux software, like a cross platform database RAD. "

Now ask your development team to do it using only ten-year-old tools. You'll find that they go off and work for someone else after a few weeks. End user apps (like Firefox) are appearing - but they're only appearing because someone has spent a lot of time dealing with all the technical stuff that's needed first. It's like viewfinder for the RPC - just writing software that listed modes the VIDC can't handle wouldn't be any use; first, John Kortink had to design (and build) the physical interface, write a driver for it, capture and reroute the VIDC SWIs....

Peter: I should have said that the third part of the problem is that people don't always read the explanations; also of course that something that's crystal-clear to one person can make no sense at all to someone else because they think differently. (I once had a long argument with Tony Houghton where it eventually turned out that we agreed with each other entirely - we were just using the same words to mean different things.)

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 05/11/05 11:48AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Taking OS features for granted:

Part of the problem, I think, is that different people draw the line in different places. To some people, GCCSDK is a vital set of basic applications; to others, it's a "programmer techie thing" that they'll never have any use for. The trick is to explain to the latter that good compilers are a necessary prerequisite for up-to-date web-browsers.

The other thing that isn't always explained clearly enough is the benefit of some "invisible" changes to the end user; people can usually understand bug-fixes and speed increases, but "RISC OS is bug-free and super-fast anyway, isn't it?" :) I've certainly met people to whom DHCP was a pointless "programmer techie thing" because no-one had explained to them that it's now basically essential for any machine that's going to be connected to a workplace network, or a broadband internet connection. Yes, you can do both without DHCP - but it requires much more knowledge, and most people expect to have a machine that "just works". RISC OS "just works" amazingly well for a lot of things, but fixing the gaps is important, and usually requires "programmer techie things" to be done before relevant applications can be written

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 04/11/05 1:59PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Taking OS features for granted:

jms: "amused that RAM Discs are seen as revolutionary by the Amiga team. "

Which rather reinforces the point Chris is making in the article - easy to use RAM filing systems have been a feature of RISC OS since RO2, way back in the 1980s. But if you mention that to a typical MS or Mac user, they'll just say "what's a RAMdisc?". A site that lists (and explains) all the basic features of RISC OS that we take for granted would be no bad thing.

Perhaps the drobe team, who own riscos.org.uk, might transform it from a rather bland redirection page into something suitable?

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 1/11/05 3:53PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Tematic staff leave Castle:

myself: Of course, some of those require a lot of memory bandwidth, too:) But increased processor power will help a lot with most of them, and plenty of other things besides.

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 13/10/05 2:24PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Tematic staff leave Castle:

Jaco: Well, yes, the OS does *have* "underlying functionality". Unfortunately, some of it is rather old, and there are a number of things that could usefully be done to it that would make a serious difference (in the mid- to long-term) to RISC OS as a system. Things like support for multiple ARM cores, for example, and the use of non-blocking transfers in CDFS. Supporting multi-core processors (for example) would require some serious development effort, and most existing programs would be unlikely to show any immediate speed increase - but new software written to use the features could be made to run much faster for processor intensive tasks. Tasks like video editing, DVD playback, image manipulation, 3D games, speech recognition, audio compression....

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 13/10/05 2:18PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Independent Select for Iyonix interest list opened:


I think that ideally (from their point of view) Castle probably would have *wanted* an exclusive licence. ROL (ideally, again) would like unlimited development funds with no strings attached; the trick is meeting somewhere in the middle that's acceptable to both parties. Clearly, in a business situation, the person providing the money is going to want some strings (and preferably a budget and timescale for providing the finished product).

Part of the problem is that "non-exclusive" doesn't really tell you that much; other parts of a contract can often be much more problematic than exclusivity or otherwise.

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 11/10/05 7:31PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Independent Select for Iyonix interest list opened:


"Do you mean that ROL wanted Castle to fund the entire conversion,"


" but ROL also wanted to be allowed to sell the work (funded by Castle) on to other companies as well, with no return to Castle?"

Not just no return, but no guarantee on pricing; as I understood it at the time, Castle had two (perfectly reasonable) objections. Firstly, that they would be paying for something that then didn't belong to them - which ROL could even, in theory, refuse to let them use. Secondly, that (Castle having paid all the development costs) ROL would have been within the terms of the contract to charge Castle more per licence than everyone else. No sane businessman could sign a contract like that.

Aaron: What druck actually said was that ROL wanted Castle to pay the entire development costs, after which ROL would have the right to sell the product to anybody, with no return to Castle (or even any guarantee that Castle wouldn't wind up paying more than the others). Which isn't at all the same as Castle wanting their own private version. His use of "the AMS" was a little confusing, I agree, but otherwise his post seemed perfectly clear to me. "ROL wanted development fully funded by Castle in exchange for a non-exclusive license", which is clearly the opposite of what you're suggesting.

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 11/10/05 5:15PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Personalised special offers for non-Select and Adjust users:


"I would say that I would like to see software developers actually use the new features, as this should encourage Castle to utilise them."

The problem is that ROL won't tell a developer how to make use of the new features unless they're a select subscriber. So non-subscribing developers can't use them. Add in the fact that Paul M proudly describes the Select API as "a moving target", and it's no wonder that people don't use the features it provides - the implication is that code you write to the specifications of the current version of select might cause the next version to crash horribly. Things that were right will suddenly become wrong, and you might have to re-write the program for every version of select. At which point you just write code that works on every machine (from 3.7 to 4.xx to Iyonix), without using the "select features", because that way you (a) get your program to the greatest number of users and (b) spend less time dealing with untraceable bug reports.

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 7/10/05 7:00PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Iyonix Select demand barely double digits, says ROL:

The answer is simple; PM's "data" is based on the principles of numerology:

75 people describe themselves as "an Iyonix user who wants Select", it's 2005, the Iyonix runs RO5, and Select is RO4.

7 plus 5 is 12. 2 plus 0 plus 0 plus 5 is 7. 12 plus 7 is 19, minus the difference in version numbers gives 18 people interested in Select for the Iyonix.

Either that or he's just making the whole thing up, which surely can't be the case - after all, he promised a 32-bit version of select as soon as there was hardware it could be run on....

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 27/9/05 5:19PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On 'Experienced' users offered A9homes to test:

According to the current figures on the latest iconbar poll, 85% of users consider themselves to be experienced.... (Of course, without knowing the sample size, that's not necessarily very useful information:)

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 21/9/05 1:28PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On 'Community' newsgroup proposed for RISC OS users:

alt.comp.sys.riscos seems reasonable to me; people who turn up asking hardware/software/programming/whatever stuff (having googled, or whatever) can be given advice and/or gently pointed in the direction of the correct technical group. (And at least they won't technically be off-topic:) If more divisions are needed later, there's no problem with having a.c.s.r as a newsgroup even if we also wind up with acsr.people and acsr.community....

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 8/8/05 8:35PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On MicroDigital sought by bailiffs:


The thing is that it only helps to "rally around the few small hardware developers" if those hardware developers are actually developing hardware. Rally round Castle and Stuart Tyrell, certainly - but Microdigital have been promising far more than they were delivering for a very long time now, with the Omega, and they've hurt the market quite badly by doing so. If you don't believe that, then consider Annraoi's list in the post before yours - or look at the poll that the iconbar did a couple of years ago where over 50% of people responding said that they'd not bought hardware because of the Omega (as opposed to only about 10% who wouldn't have bought anything anyway). It's a small sample, but every one of those is a customer lost for the Iyonix, or viewfinder/unipod, or Riscstation, or some other RISC OS hardware project.

Personally, I don't find that the loss of Microdigital makes the market feel any smaller at all; they've promised so much to so many, and delivered so little to so few, for so long that I'd learned to ignore them completely. Much better to have manufacturers who actually deliver (both machines and on their promises:).

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 16/07/05 12:09AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Mac VirtualRiscPC undaunted by Apple x86 switch:

Jess: Well, the obvious ideal would be a system that could use any processor, and had sockets for PCI (and modern variants) as well as podules and ISA cards (for legacy hardware) as well as the complete range of user-accessible connectors from firewire and SATA to BBC user and tube ports. ;-)

Seriously, though, the obvious advantages of having an x86 would be for hardware-supported emulation and FP. And there are probably better (ie superior power- or cost-to-MFlops ratio) solutions for the FP. At which point you find yourself calculating the number of 600MHz ARM 9 cores needed to emulate a top-end Athlon....

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 15/6/05 10:17PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Mac VirtualRiscPC undaunted by Apple x86 switch:

Applications that use lots of processing power (off the top of my head): DVD and higher resolution video, manipulating images (bitmap as well as vector), 3D graphics generation (CGI, games, whatever), speech recognition, scientific modelling.... Increasingly, cryptography will too, and any system without decent crypto will be locked out of internet businesses. And as JGZ says, you attract programmers because the system is fun (how else are they going to get to play with significantly parallel systems at home? :)) And they attract other people, because they're producing interesting software....

My 10-year-old RPC is still adequate for email and occasional hacking, although only when my arms are up to typing - hence my obsession with speech recognition; I have a Win2k box at the moment because I have to have speech recognition.

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 15/6/05 9:49PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Nick Burrett quits GCCSDK project:

I have to agree with Peter (and various others); removing the first part of the sentence changes the meaning very significantly. The version in the article implies that he sees things grinding to a halt, whereas he's actually taken on additional work administrating it (to ensure that doesn't happen) despite the other calls on his time.

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 12/6/05 11:45PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Web browser offerings compared:


How much extra coding work would be required to add an option to the RISC OS version that controlled the effect of right-clicks? That way, it could either open the link in a new window, or in a tab in the existing window (perhaps with alt-right-click performing the other action, so that both are available), keeping everyone happy.

(Rereading the above, I think I should emphasize that it's a genuine question that I don't know the answer to, and I'm not suggesting that it's easy because I haven't got a clue - it just seemed a possible way of allowing both options.)

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 19/03/05 3:01PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Discussion and Negotiation:

An interesting thought has occurred to me (but IANAL, so...):

Might it be possible for Castle and ROL to agree for sales of RO4 by third parties (ie STDevel, VA and so on) to be allowed to continue with the royalties being paid into escrow for collection by whichever side wins the arguement? This might allow people to continue selling RO4 machines without either Castle or ROL having to admit fault (until things are legally settled), and would certainly make life easier for everyone else in the market.

This is obviously more of a problem with physical ROMs (since someone paid to have those made) than for VRPC, but it might allow things to be freed up temporarily? (But, as I said, I am NOT a Lawyer and there may be serious legal reasons why it simply can't be done.)

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 18/06/04 5:44PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Discussion and Negotiation:


Please can people take the time to slow down and read everything *properly*. A lot of the arguing going on is because assorted people (on both sides) are misquoting things and then other people are taking the misquotes as absolute truth. In this case, Walks said:

"To join in the speculation: when I read the comment that Castle had bought the RISC OS technology, but not the IP"...

But if you read the Pace press release, it says:

"Castle Technology Ltd today announced the purchase of the RISC OS technology from Pace Micro Technology plc. The transaction involves the payment of an undisclosed cash sum, ongoing technical support for Pace`s existing products and the grant of a licence back to Pace for intellectual property rights."

Which means that CTL own the OS - both technology and IP, but have licensed Pace to use it (which is a fairly standard clause in these things).

Pace no longer own any part of RISC OS. They have a licence (issued by Castle) to use/sell it, but that's not involved in the current dispute and therefore *neither are they*. Pace have nothing to do with this....

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 17/06/04 01:07AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On VA halts VirtualRiscPC deliveries:

Re my own earlier comment I did of course mean 2002, not 1992 (when neither ROL or VA existed:)

Since Stuart is pushing the A6 (outside the RISC OS market) as a development machine for the A75, it seems plausible that having to stop selling the former might put a hold on the 'native' machine as well.... So this *might* 'just' be a VA/VRPC issue, rather than anything more widespread.

(Having to tell potential customers that you can't sell them a development machine because of licence disputes is not really better than saying you're temporarily unable to sell them anything!)

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 15/06/04 11:34PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On STD suspends A75, A6 range:

Re Q's comments below the article, it seems possible that Castle's opinions may have changed since 1992. After all, in 1992, they were (as ROS ltd) a licensee from Pace. Now, they own RISC OS themselves.

Still, it would seem foolish for CTL to stomp on ROL (which many people seem to be assuming despite the lack of evidence) without a good reason - although given past 'disagreements' between the two, it certainly doesn't seem impossible that ROL have overstepped the bounds....

 is a RISC OS Userchrisj on 15/06/04 6:49PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Search the archives

Today's featured article

  • Review: A9home v. Koolu
    Clash of the tiniest
     31 comments, latest by polas on 18/10/07 6:03PM. Published: 15 Oct 2007

  • Random article

  • A6 review part 1
    So what's it like living with a desktop PC and VRPC?
     26 comments, latest by guestx on 19/1/04 11:14AM. Published: 16 Jan 2004

  • Useful links

    News and media:

    Top developers:
    RISCOS LtdRISC OS OpenMW SoftwareR-CompAdvantage SixVirtualAcorn

    CJE MicrosAPDLCastlea4X-AmpleLiquid SiliconWebmonster


    RISCOS.org.ukRISCOS.orgRISCOS.infoFilebaseChris Why's Acorn/RISC OS collectionNetSurf

    Non-RISC OS:
    The RegisterThe InquirerApple InsiderBBC NewsSky NewsGoogle Newsxkcddiodesign

    © 1999-2009 The Drobe Team. Some rights reserved, click here for more information
    Powered by MiniDrobeCMS, based on J4U | Statistics
    "Leaking tit bits creates rumours, confusion and often mangles facts"
    Page generated in 0.5558 seconds.