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

Profile for coling

ContactAbout me
Email:
Private
ICQ:
AOL:
Yahoo:
Username: coling
Realname: colin g
About me:
Homepage:
Face/Logo:
Comments posted:14 (show all)

Recent comments

On RISC OS camps to discuss future development:

Convergent APIs sound a good idea but I can't see how it can happen. ROOL are not developing RO5 they are just supplying a repository for an 'Official' version of RO5. Any extra features added to Select, for example, are a divergence in the RISC OS API and would require people to volunteer to match the changes to Select in RO5. It isn't going to happen because volunteer programmers offer what they want to RO5 not what ROOL directs them to add. Similarly ROL are not going to match changes made to RO5 as they may want to use their limited resources to do something else - there's no point in them just tracking RO5.

Even if everything goes perfectly and RO5 and Select have the same API - effectively joining the split - what then? You have a free OS which does the same as Select - where does that leave Select?

I'd like to see ROL and Castle agree to a new Shared source licence acceptable to ROL (I'd give ROL the same rights as Castle) and for all Select's and ROOL's source code to be released under the same licence. I think this is the quickest way to converge the APIs.

 is a RISC OS Usercoling on 28/11/07 2:26PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Sell PCs without Windows urges think tank:

in reply to guestx:

Yes I've heard of intel but they are just another player on the hardware side of the equation. If for the moment you take Linux out of the mix you have a box designed to run windows, a box that runs OS X and a box that runs riscos. Until the mac changed only the windows box uses the intels 86 processor so most of intels profits are in making processors to run windows. So intel's main concern is not to break compatability with windows.

It is not something clever that microsoft have done to have all the hardware manufacturers first thought be about microsoft they haven't even engineered it that way it's a consequence of their overwhelming domination. and the fact that it's great news for hardware manufacturers in that they only need concern themselves with one OS that's why new companies jump on the bandwagon to make hardware for windows boxes - huge market small target.

The article boils down to there should be more competition for the use of the windows hardware box and this means linux as no other OS developer is bothered about it. Apple could have put OS X on a windows box, they have enough clout to buy windows boxes without windows at the lowest of prices so why don't they? Because they know you can't make money selling a windows box with a different OS to windows at the same or cheaper price and make money from it and neither can linux if you could there would be warehouses selling linux boxes. I would price a box with windows removed as dearer than the same box with windows. It's all about making money and no-one is going to be sacked for planning a future based around microsoft.

I'm going to try and leave it there I'm repeating myself now :-) It's all only my opinion anyway

 is a RISC OS Usercoling on 26/09/07 3:24PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Sell PCs without Windows urges think tank:

Surely it is a backward step for users to have to install the operating system however easy that is made? You wouldn't expect to have to do that for other devices that have operating systems would you?

There are many users who just use the machine as it comes out of the box and never install a program. Part of the boom in home computing and thus the force for driving down prices has been the capabilities of the computer out of the box.

Yes there are standard interfaces for devices but they are targeted at windows - as you say yourself things would be different if you didn't have windows. You have to remember that you have many manufacturers of the same computer, ie a windows box, and it is in their interest to collaborate to keep their costs down and it is this collaboration where the 'standard' interfaces come from.

They are effectively not standard interfaces but windows box interfaces that computers like the mac and iyonix use to keep their costs down. No-one is making a device with a new interface for an Iyonix. If 90% of computers were BBC computers the Tube would now be a standard interface.

 is a RISC OS Usercoling on 26/9/07 10:21AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Sell PCs without Windows urges think tank:

It seems obvious to me - but my logic always seems to be at odds with everyone else :-) It has nothing to do with my opinions of the operating systems involved I would think the same if the roles of linux and microsoft were reversed.

Microsoft make an operating system and the machines that it uses are designed to run windows. It's no different than riscos and iyonix except that more than 1 company is involved. The price is driven down as manufacturers all want a piece of the microsoft hardware pie and think that they can make a profit making windows boxes cheaper/faster/better.

You can't tell me that any company starting up a hardware business making PC hardware don't have at the top of it's agenda that the hardware must work with windows. They don't care about any other operating system The only profit in the game is to sell windows boxes because you can sell them fast.

Then there are the box shifters. As long as microsoft has such dominance they only need stock boxes of windows PC's if they had to stock boxes with other operating systems the waste of floorspace taken up by computers they can't sell as quickly will drive the average price of a box up. If windows boxes outsold linux boxes 5 to 1 then you would have to make 5 times as much profit on the linux box to justify keeping it in stock and that is why buying a windows box and putting linux on it is the cheapest way of getting linux.

 is a RISC OS Usercoling on 26/9/07 8:59AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

On Sell PCs without Windows urges think tank:

My iyonix has a 500+ukp levy for not running windows and I was happy to pay it.

Mac users also pay a premium for not running windows.

If RISC OS ran natively on a PC I'd get be able to get a cheap computer courtesy of the PC manufacturers - microsoft symbiosis which would cost far less than an iyonix. PC manufacturers make their products with windows in mind and that is what drives the prices down. Linux has taken advantage of the cheap hardware produced by this relationship but the hardware is only cheap because of microsoft.

Why haven't companies decided to sell only linux PC's after all linux is free. The reason is that they can't sell them cheap enough to tempt people away from windows PC's.

 is a RISC OS Usercoling on 25/9/07 1:08PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Search the archives

Today's featured article

  • Should the TCO of RISC OS be higher?
    Show us the money
     61 comments, latest by datawave on 16/06/05 5:07PM. Published: 17 Feb 2005

  • Random article

  • Get ready for free ..riscos.org.uk URLs

     Discuss this. Published: 6 Nov 2000

  • Useful links

    News and media:
    IconbarMyRISCOSArcSiteRISCOScodeANSC.S.A.AnnounceArchiveQercusRiscWorldDrag'n'DropGAG-News

    Top developers:
    RISCOS LtdRISC OS OpenMW SoftwareR-CompAdvantage SixVirtualAcorn

    Dealers:
    CJE MicrosAPDLCastlea4X-AmpleLiquid SiliconWebmonster

    Usergroups:
    WROCCRONENKACCIRUGSASAUGROUGOLRONWUGMUGWAUGGAGRISCOS.be

    Useful:
    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
    "On Drobe's view of confidentiality and 'public interest'... I find the words 'invasion of privacy' more appropriate"
    Page generated in 0.132 seconds.