Some RISC OS 4 rants
Richard Mackin
these years.
It's a shame it doesn't seem all that different from OS3. Other than the
FileCore improvements, what else has changed? The desktop still looks like
mouldy cheese (someone said that about NewLook - I agree) and it will no
doubt feel simplistic. My other computer's a Windoze PeeCee and while
Windoze 95 looks ugly it gets some things right. You don't have to pay a
fortune for internet software and it multi-tasks better. Shouldn't have
Acorn concentrated on these?
Also, the development tools are miles behind other platforms. Acorn canned
C/C++ v6 (with a REAL C++ compiler) which was our only other hope. However,
expect a third-party release in 1999 that might redress the balance...
Also, notice the minimum spec? SARPC-only? Someone at Acorn obviously has
Bill Gates Syndrome, believing we all have top-of-the-line systems. I've
only got an A3010 which runs RISC OS 3.1 quite respectively. The OS, being
the most fundamental piece of software imaginable, should put as little
strain on system resources as possible, so giving RISC OS 4 a high-end
minimum spec is insane. Mind you, what else do you expect? Acorn's current
CEO (it changes every week) could rival Saddam for lunacy.
Richard Mackin (anti-spa...@rpmsoftware.freeserve.co.uk)
Remove 'anti-spam.', it's my ASCM (Anti-Spam Counter-Measure)!
Richard Brock
<Ric...@rpmsoftware.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> Windoze 95 ... multi-tasks better.
Does it? In what way(s)? My experience of both platforms (SARPC and
200/266Mhz PCs) is that they're both about the same in terms of
multi-tasking speeds and ease of use.
Richard.
--
Richard Brock and Badger Publishing
Specialising in individualised stationery and certificates
badger.p...@argonet.co.uk
Justin Fletcher
"Richard Mackin" <Ric...@rpmsoftware.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> So, they've finally decided to give us the OS we've been screaming for all
> these years.
>
> It's a shame it doesn't seem all that different from OS3. Other than the
> FileCore improvements, what else has changed? The desktop still looks like
> mouldy cheese (someone said that about NewLook - I agree) and it will no
Personally I think it grows on you; and you can always replace them with your
old style icons if you really want.
> doubt feel simplistic. My other computer's a Windoze PeeCee and while
> Windoze 95 looks ugly it gets some things right. You don't have to pay a
> fortune for internet software and it multi-tasks better. Shouldn't have
> Acorn concentrated on these?
[snip - to bring these two statements closer together]
> Also, notice the minimum spec? SARPC-only? Someone at Acorn obviously has
> Bill Gates Syndrome, believing we all have top-of-the-line systems. I've
> only got an A3010 which runs RISC OS 3.1 quite respectively. The OS, being
I'd like to ask a question. Would you expect Windows '95 to run "quite
respectively" on a 386 ? Or would you expect to get a machine that was
actually up to the job ?
--
Gerph {djf0-.3w6e2w2.226,6q6w2q2,2.3,2m4}
URL: http://www.thevillage.ndirect.co.uk/justin/
... I wish you a hopeful Christmas, I wish you a great New Year;
All anguish pain and sadness, leave your heart and let your road be clear
dgs
Richard Mackin <Ric...@rpmsoftware.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> So, they've finally decided to give us the OS we've been screaming for all
> these years.
You have? That's odd, I don't recall you posting to these groups
much. Dejanews doesn't seem to, either. Maybe you're just
descending, vulture-like, to add your own little note of cycnicism
and help make things worse.
> It's a shame it doesn't seem all that different from OS3. Other than the
> FileCore improvements, what else has changed? The desktop still looks like
> mouldy cheese (someone said that about NewLook - I agree) and it will no
> doubt feel simplistic. My other computer's a Windoze PeeCee and while
> Windoze 95 looks ugly it gets some things right. You don't have to pay a
> fortune for internet software and it multi-tasks better. Shouldn't have
> Acorn concentrated on these?
Acorn's efforts in terms of web-browser development have been widely
discussed on these groups. While it's possible to argue that the
visual improvements that form part of the RISC OS 4 project were
misguided, I can't see how one can argue that Acorn need/needed to
improve the look of RISC OS *and* were wrong to have attempted to
do so.
There are still a great many people who would say that RISC OS
looks a lot cleaner than Windows 95 - I guess those who are running
an ARM250 alongside a Pentium might not.
...
> Also, notice the minimum spec? SARPC-only? Someone at Acorn obviously has
> Bill Gates Syndrome, believing we all have top-of-the-line systems. I've
> only got an A3010 which runs RISC OS 3.1 quite respectively. The OS, being
> the most fundamental piece of software imaginable, should put as little
> strain on system resources as possible, so giving RISC OS 4 a high-end
> minimum spec is insane.
Unfortunately, it's the belief that everyone needs to support
systems of the age of the A3010 that has helped drag Acorn down.
You criticise Acorn for being "behind the times" in one part of your
message, then moan that they don't support your five-year-old
three-hundred-pound computer in another. You praise Windows 95,
then moan that RISC OS 4 won't run on a 2MB computer. Get real.
> Mind you, what else do you expect? Acorn's current
> CEO (it changes every week) could rival Saddam for lunacy.
Actually, Stan has been CEO for quite a considerable period
of time.
Manchester Acorn User Group - http://www.acorn.manchester.ac.uk/
RPC x86 Card Info Pages - http://acorn.cybervillage.co.uk/pccard/
"Your machine is NOT dead until it stops working" - Ian Gledhill
Dave Plowman
<Ric...@rpmsoftware.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> It's a shame it doesn't seem all that different from OS3. Other than the
> FileCore improvements, what else has changed? The desktop still looks like
> mouldy cheese (someone said that about NewLook - I agree) and it will no
> doubt feel simplistic. My other computer's a Windoze PeeCee and while
> Windoze 95 looks ugly it gets some things right.
Design, including graphics, has a degree of personal taste. I very much
like the RiscOS desktop - it's clear and easy to identify. To me it is way
superior in look, clarity and functionality to Windows 95. Perhaps you might
enlighten us which desktop you would hold up as a paragon of 'good design'
--
Dave Plowman dave....@argonet.co.uk
RIP Acorn
Darren Salt
"Richard Mackin" <Ric...@rpmsoftware.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> Also, notice the minimum spec? SARPC-only? Someone at Acorn obviously has
> Bill Gates Syndrome, believing we all have top-of-the-line systems. I've
> only got an A3010 which runs RISC OS 3.1 quite respectively.
An 'updated' version of RO3.11 with a few bug fixes, the Toolbox modules and
newer versions of various other modules would be a *very* good idea.
> The OS, being the most fundamental piece of software imaginable, should put
> as little strain on system resources as possible, so giving RISC OS 4 a
> high-end minimum spec is insane. [...]
I suspect that it would work on an ARM610. Of course, this depends on what it
has in common with RO3.81...
(Having said that, I don't think that I'd say no to a bundle containing RO4
and a StrongARM (rev. T) card...)
--
| Darren Salt anti-UCE | nr. Ashington, | ds@youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk
| Risc PC, Spectrum +3, | Northumberland | ds@zap,uk,eu,org
| A3010, BBC Master 128 | Toon Army | arcsalt@spuddy,mew,co,uk
| Z80Em and 6502Em Support Packs. AY sound support.
No matter what goes wrong, it will probably look right.
alan.calder
Richard Mackin <Ric...@rpmsoftware.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Bill Gates Syndrome, believing we all have top-of-the-line systems. I've
> the most fundamental piece of software imaginable, should put as little
> strain on system resources as possible, so giving RISC OS 4 a high-end
> minimum spec is insane.
Welll.... up to a point, Lord Copper.
Your A3010, about 1992 it was introduced wasn't it. Let's see, what was
available then. For the same money you might have been able to get a 386
maybe a secondhand 486 SX25 if you were lucky.
Try running W95/98 on them.
Sad truth is that eventually everything gets left behind.
Cheers
Alan
--
Alan Calder, Milton Keynes, UK.
Paul Vigay
Darren Salt <ne...@youmustbejoking.demon.com.uk> wrote:
> An 'updated' version of RO3.11 with a few bug fixes, the Toolbox modules and
> newer versions of various other modules would be a *very* good idea.
That's a pretty good idea actually, especially as I have several older
machines with the new !Boot structure which seem to replace half their
modules on booting.
> (Having said that, I don't think that I'd say no to a bundle containing RO4
> and a StrongARM (rev. T) card...)
That raises a good question.... What happens when RISC OS 4 is actually
released and you buy a StrongArm upgrade for existing RPCs? Will the
StrongArm be supplied with ROS 4 or will it still have 3.7 and you'll have to
upgrade again immediately, or pay more to get ROS 4?
Obviously this would save people who were thinking of upgrading to StrongArm
a considerable amount of money, if ROS 4 is going to be > 100 quid.
--
Paul Vigay
Acorn Programming,
ICQ: 15533406 __\\|//__ Internet Consultancy
Web: http://www.matrix.clara.net (` o-o ') & Web Design
BBS: +44 (0)1705 871531 (ansi,8n1) -----ooO-(_)-Ooo--------------------------
But what the hell. Who needs to win prizes, eh? It's life you gotta win in.
Remove ".vogonpoetry" to reply by email.
Richard Walker
"Richard Mackin" <Ric...@rpmsoftware.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> So, they've finally decided to give us the OS we've been screaming for all
> these years.
Yep. Lovely!
> It's a shame it doesn't seem all that different from OS3. Other than the
> FileCore improvements, what else has changed?
Erm, well:
Kernel improvements, lazy task swapping, totally NEW CDFS, new Filer, new
Pinboard, new boot structure (probably similar to existing one, but without
all the RISC OS 3 guff), new configuration panel, new desktop icons (256
colours) and a newer printing system (apparently).
I wonder if we'll get any of the stuff which was going to appear on
Phoebe's hard disc...? I'm quite happy with what's in the RISC OS 4 /ROMs/
but I'd like to see lots more on the hard disc...
> The desktop still looks like mouldy cheese (someone said that about
> NewLook - I agree) and it will no doubt feel simplistic.
Oi! I think the RISC OS desktop looks rather nice. And those new icons
make it look, well, /very/ nice.
> My other computer's a Windoze PeeCee and while Windoze 95 looks ugly it
> gets some things right. You don't have to pay a fortune for internet
> software and it multi-tasks better. Shouldn't have Acorn concentrated on
> these?
Windows 95 multi-tasks better?! Really?! ARE YOU SERIOUS!!! It can't
even cope with the currently active window NOT being at the front of the
stack. Bloody hillarious you might say (unless your using it).
Internet? Browse should be part of the RISC OS 4 disc image. There's your
free browser. Socketeer (or similar) should, in my opinion, be provided
instead of Connect...
> Also, the development tools are miles behind other platforms. Acorn
> canned C/C++ v6 (with a REAL C++ compiler) which was our only other hope.
> However, expect a third-party release in 1999 that might redress the
> balance...
Er, yes, well... but development tools are not really part of RISC OS 4,
are they?
I believe that Acorn were looking at using GNU GCC to give RISC OS 'real
C++'. Of course, /they/ won't be doing this now...
> Also, notice the minimum spec? SARPC-only? Someone at Acorn obviously has
> Bill Gates Syndrome, believing we all have top-of-the-line systems.
Erm... I don't see why it wouldn't work on ARM610 or 710 systems.
Anyway, surely it's a good idea to get all users onto StrongARM machines
(or, at least, Risc PCs and A7000s). The 'legacy Archimedes' machines are
NOT helping our market (nor our developers).
> I've only got an A3010 which runs RISC OS 3.1 quite respectively.
Oh right, yeah, and I suppose you want to know why it doesn't run RISC OS 4
and Browse/Java...
--
Richard.
"Have you seen the bigger piggies In their starched white shirts."
staf...@birksch.demon.co.uk
>
>...
>> Also, notice the minimum spec? SARPC-only? Someone at Acorn obviously has
>> Bill Gates Syndrome, believing we all have top-of-the-line systems. I've
>> only got an A3010 which runs RISC OS 3.1 quite respectively. The OS, being
>> the most fundamental piece of software imaginable, should put as little
>> strain on system resources as possible, so giving RISC OS 4 a high-end
>> minimum spec is insane.
>
>Unfortunately, it's the belief that everyone needs to support
>systems of the age of the A3010 that has helped drag Acorn down.
>You criticise Acorn for being "behind the times" in one part of your
>message, then moan that they don't support your five-year-old
>three-hundred-pound computer in another. You praise Windows 95,
>then moan that RISC OS 4 won't run on a 2MB computer. Get real.
One of the reasons that Acorn used to claim as a virtue was the longevity
of its systems. And it was only a couple of years ago when they were still
pedalling A3020 systems into (primary) schools as a valid solution.
In fact...it may well be a valid system for some of the software they run.
The shame of A3010 and A3020 systems have always been the lack of
upgradeablity. Again, during the years of manufacture we were told they
would be upgradeable - using planned third party upgrades (Simtec) to
Arm7000 processors. Nothing came of it...except for a new machine - the
A7000.
This has been a dilema for Acorn......to provide an upgrade path - in which
case new machines are difficult to sell at premium prices, or upgrades have to
be priced high to make it marginal for users to consider upgrade as a viable
option. In the end, Acorn have trod a path somewhere inbetween - pleasing
no one of course.
It has been easy to upgrade 286, 386, 486 machines dating back to 1991 by simple
and cheap motherboards replacments (about 150ukp will give you 300MHz pentium
performance - possibly with new video software on motherboard provided you
don't want 3D games performance) - or about 80ukp for a 133MHz 586 upgrade for 486 machines.
Sadly upgrading Acorn machines has been punitive
Over 100ukp for an ARM3, over 100ukp for 4MB RAM, new MEMCIA for an A440 to
give it a performance which at best is barely OK.
Its a pity that the GUI was re-coded in C when the A3020/10 came out as its performance
was always like treacle compared to RiscOS2. What little RAM is in A3020 stations is
often stolen by extra modules - like Network modules, printer modules and later patches
which often use about 2MB of the RAM. A new set of ROM chips with printers, network
and current modules might easily release 1MB of RAM and provide a welcome boost
of A3020/10 owners who - if they are going to buy a new machine - may decide
that their future does not lie with Acorn, thereby shrinking the market for
Acorn Software suppliers. If necessary some of the inbuilt applications could be
displaced to disc....like !Edit, and !Paint...which I don't think will be missed by many...
--
Alan Davies
Head of Computing
Birkenhead School
dgs
Ray Dawson <R...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> But I thought that they had run out of StrongArm upgrades anyway?
They had. They've decided to make lots more, as the demand never
really dropped off...
Justin Fletcher
staf...@birksch.demon.co.uk wrote:
[snip]
> Its a pity that the GUI was re-coded in C when the A3020/10 came out as its
> performance was always like treacle compared to RiscOS2. What little RAM
Sorry; the GUI wasn't re-written in C. By the GUI I assume you mean the Wimp
module - that's in Assembler - and if you're extending it to cover the other
pre-installed modules in the OS (the filer and such like) only one that
springs to mind as being in C is FilerAction and you didn't have that
functionality.
> is in A3020 stations is often stolen by extra modules - like Network
> modules, printer modules and later patches which often use about 2MB of the
Network modules, I would have thought, would have been on the network card.
I don't know much about the A3020 though. Printer modules... well... I think
that you're no worse off than you were with RISC OS 2 printers which were
pretty awful from a configuration point of view anyhow.
> RAM. A new set of ROM chips with printers, network and current modules
> might easily release 1MB of RAM and provide a welcome boost of A3020/10
> owners who - if they are going to buy a new machine - may decide that their
> future does not lie with Acorn, thereby shrinking the market for Acorn
> Software suppliers. If necessary some of the inbuilt applications could be
> displaced to disc....like !Edit, and !Paint...which I don't think will be
> missed by many...
I think I might agree with you there...
--
Gerph {djf0-.3w6e2w2.226,6q6w2q2,2.3,2m4}
URL: http://www.thevillage.ndirect.co.uk/justin/
... What's the difference between a worm hole and a black hole ?
One's a giant imploded star and the other is a air hole in grass.
Richard Walker
Darren Salt <ne...@youmustbejoking.demon.com.uk> wrote:
> An 'updated' version of RO3.11 with a few bug fixes, the Toolbox modules
> and newer versions of various other modules would be a *very* good idea.
No it wouldn't! :-p
Those bloomin' 3.1 machines are, in my opinion, holding back software and
hardware developments for Risc PC and A7000 users. We should be phasing
them out.
[ RO 4 requires a StrongARM? ]
> I suspect that it would work on an ARM610. Of course, this depends on
> what it has in common with RO3.81...
Lots, I would imagine!
> (Having said that, I don't think that I'd say no to a bundle containing RO4
> and a StrongARM (rev. T) card...)
Why? For RiscBSD/Linux? Apparently, RISC OS 4 runs fine on pre-RevT
cards.
--
Richard.
"'Cause I don't care too much for money, money can't buy me love."
Sveinung W. Tengelsen
<URL:mailto:dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <76m9cr$92g$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Richard Mackin"
> <Ric...@rpmsoftware.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > mouldy cheese (someone said that about NewLook - I agree) and it will no
> > Windoze 95 looks ugly it gets some things right.
>
> like the RiscOS desktop - it's clear and easy to identify. To me it is way
> superior in look, clarity and functionality to Windows 95. Perhaps you might
> enlighten us which desktop you would hold up as a paragon of 'good design'
Well, the RO filer (as all current filers, except maybe BEOS) is designed to
handle a few hundred workfiles at most, easily catalogueable. But it stinks
to high skies trying to make a semblance of order in the gazillion snippets
and pieces siphooned off the net within a linear/hierarchical filer (such
as, sadly, the RO filer). Don't confuse this limitation/oversight with the
drag'n drop delight they provided us with. :) Previously I've suggested
people take a peek at www.thebrain.com and see whether they believe in
having a RO client - it could be implemented "on top of" RO proper AFAIK,
effectively replacing the filer windows as the workfile catalog/retrieve
interface. No more "oh, where did I put file_X two years ago" unproductive
delays would be nice, for one thing. :/
ObTopic: It hasn't arrived yet, has it? Why bark at something noone's seen?
--
Regards,
Sveinung W. Tengelsen
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
mailto:pixe...@online.no | I have one illusion;
http://www.sn.no/~pixeleye/Index.htm | I have no illusions.
Ian Jeffray
Darren Salt wrote:
>
> In message <76m9cr$92g$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>
> "Richard Mackin" <Ric...@rpmsoftware.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > The OS, being the most fundamental piece of software imaginable, should put
> > as little strain on system resources as possible, so giving RISC OS 4 a
> > high-end minimum spec is insane. [...]
>
> I suspect that it would work on an ARM610. Of course, this depends on what it
> has in common with RO3.81...
>
> (Having said that, I don't think that I'd say no to a bundle containing RO4
> and a StrongARM (rev. T) card...)
Indeed. I would almost certainly buy a new SA RPC if it had RO4 and
a StrongArm Rev T in it. Everyone I know who has RPCs expressed that
they would certainly go for a bundled RO4+StrongArm T upgrade.
Is anyone (with influence) at Acorn still listening to this group?...
Ian
--
___
(o o) Ian Jeffray - Software Engineer - Panasonic OWL
( V ) Mail@Work: ia...@owl.co.uk Mail@Home: i...@eh.org
/--m-m- Web: http://www.eh.org/~ian Phone: 0378 392 963
Scott Lees
Richard Walker wrote in message ...
>In message <76m9cr$92g$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>
> "Richard Mackin" <Ric...@rpmsoftware.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>even cope with the currently active window NOT being at the front of the
>stack. Bloody hillarious you might say (unless your using it).
sorry for being a pedant, but Windows _CAN_ cope with the active window
not being at the top of the stack..
Darren Salt
Richard Walker <runny...@mindless.com> wrote:
> In message <48BE5B5290%ne...@youmustbejoking.demon.com.uk>
> Darren Salt <ne...@youmustbejoking.demon.com.uk> wrote:
>> An 'updated' version of RO3.11 with a few bug fixes, the Toolbox modules
>> and newer versions of various other modules would be a *very* good idea.
> No it wouldn't! :-p
> Those bloomin' 3.1 machines are, in my opinion, holding back software and
> hardware developments for Risc PC and A7000 users. We should be phasing
> them out.
True, but there /are/ those who, for one reason or another, can't afford to
upgrade to Risc PC or can't justify the cost. For these people, such an OS
upgrade would certainly be worthwhile.
> [ RO 4 requires a StrongARM? ]
>> I suspect that it would work on an ARM610. Of course, this depends on what
>> it has in common with RO3.81...
> Lots, I would imagine!
:-)
>> (Having said that, I don't think that I'd say no to a bundle containing
>> RO4 and a StrongARM (rev. T) card...)
> Why? For RiscBSD/Linux? Apparently, RISC OS 4 runs fine on pre-RevT
> cards.
So what about lazy task switching?
--
| Darren Salt anti-UCE | nr. Ashington, | ds@youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk
| Risc PC, Spectrum +3, | Northumberland | ds@zap,uk,eu,org
| A3010, BBC Master 128 | Toon Army | arcsalt@spuddy,mew,co,uk
| Z80Em and 6502Em Support Packs. AY sound support.
You can never find any given item until you replace it or no longer need it.
micm
If you download XMouse from the MS website (it's part of the powertoys
set) you can make the window under the mouse active, like you can
configure with X.
With the arrangement, the active window *does not* pop to the top of the
stack, either.
--
"Danger could be my middle name.....but it's James"
Visit the NUMPTIE XONE : http://www.toth.org.uk/~micm
...God is real - unless declared as int
Centre Stage
<ne...@youmustbejoking.demon.com.uk> wrote:
> > Those bloomin' 3.1 machines are, in my opinion, holding back software
> and
> > hardware developments for Risc PC and A7000 users. We should be phasing
> > them out.
>
> True, but there /are/ those who, for one reason or another, can't afford
> to
> upgrade to Risc PC or can't justify the cost. For these people, such an OS
> upgrade would certainly be worthwhile.
Yes!
One of the depressing aspects of some of the criticism of the 'backword
compatibility' restrictions of RO software _and_ hardware is the assumption
that all of us who have RO 3.1x
can't-be-bothered-to-upgrade-from/are-content-with our machines. I have an
A3010 and although I love it dearly for the ease of RISC OS, I would _kill_
for an RPC 233, even for an A7000. The speed would make an immense
difference to my 'productivity' - I use my machine for business purposes,
and run 'serious' apps like Prophet 3 and Schema2 - and the ability to run
these apps simultaneously, so that eg P3 and S2 and a W/P and ArcFax and
Voyager (for E-mail) and !Printers could be on the iconbar at the same time
/and/, maybe be, exchanging data through the global clipboard or
drag-and-drop would be a real boon. But I'm limited to 4Mb RAM! And _no_, at
the moment _I_can't_afford_ to upgrade!!!
Sorry. Rant over. My Elders (in n/g terms) and Betters (ditto) may now
appropiately chastise me!
ColinC
--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ / web: www.argonet.co.uk/users/cstage
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | / csta...@argo.co.uk
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | / change mail address as:
___________________________/ cstage_at_argonet_fullstop_co_fullstop_uk)
Justin Fletcher
Centre Stage <cst...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
The thing is that you will not see an OS upgrade (at least not from the RISC
OS 4 stable) for any machine without a ARM 600 or later (in essence RPCs or
A7000s). The reasons for this are long and tortuous and basically involve
that fact that you don't have 32bit modes. Without 32bit modes you aren't
going to be able to do anything really sensible with the machine.
It isn't just a case of plugging in a new processor to get 32bit modes
either. I am reliably informed that the motherboard itself does not have the
address lines on it to support 32bit. Plus there is the fact that you can't
install more memory to these older machines.
In short, RISC OS 4 will not happen for ARM2/250/3 based machines.
Justin Fletcher
Darren Salt <ne...@youmustbejoking.demon.com.uk> wrote:
> In message <a77c0be48%runny...@breckonhill.demon.co.uk>
> Richard Walker <runny...@mindless.com> wrote:
>
> > In message <48BE5B5290%ne...@youmustbejoking.demon.com.uk>
> > Darren Salt <ne...@youmustbejoking.demon.com.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> >> (Having said that, I don't think that I'd say no to a bundle containing
> >> RO4 and a StrongARM (rev. T) card...)
>
> > Why? For RiscBSD/Linux? Apparently, RISC OS 4 runs fine on pre-RevT
> > cards.
>
> So what about lazy task switching?
You don't get it.
Joe Oldak
<URL:mailto:runny...@mindless.com> wrote:
> In message <76m9cr$92g$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>
> "Richard Mackin" <Ric...@rpmsoftware.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > obviously has Bill Gates Syndrome, believing we all have
> > top-of-the-line systems.
>
It's nothing to do with it requiring the power of a StrongARM - but I
believe, since it was only ever really intended for Phoebe, there is no
support in the Kernel for non-SA processors.
I may, of course, be wrong - but I suspect that I'm not. ;)
Have fun!
joie
--
__
_|) Joe Oldak
(_| Delirium: http://www.various-artists.demon.co.uk/delirium/
Simon Knott
Paul Vigay <pvi...@interalpha.vogonpoetry.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <48BE5B5290%ne...@youmustbejoking.demon.com.uk>,
> Darren Salt <ne...@youmustbejoking.demon.com.uk> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> > (Having said that, I don't think that I'd say no to a bundle
> > containing RO4 and a StrongARM (rev. T) card...)
>
> That raises a good question.... What happens when RISC OS 4 is
> actually released and you buy a StrongArm upgrade for existing RPCs?
> Will the StrongArm be supplied with ROS 4 or will it still have 3.7
> and you'll have to upgrade again immediately, or pay more to get ROS
> 4?
>
> Obviously this would save people who were thinking of upgrading to
> StrongArm a considerable amount of money, if ROS 4 is going to be >
> 100 quid.
>
As someone with a Strongarm upgrade on order with a CoT, I spoke to the
dealer a few days ago. His opinion seemed to be that the cost of
Strongarm + RiscOS 4 would be more than Strongarm + RiscOS 3.7 and you
would only save some nominal amount by ordering the two together ( and
in fact may not be available together until all the 3.7 kits have run
out ). The significant question being which 'company' actually releases
the OS upgrade. Acorn will not want to be left with a large number of
unsold 3.7 kits.
He also thought that mid January was extremely optimistic for a shipping
date.
In the mean time I'm going to wait and make a final decision when the
Strongarm actually becomes available ( should be this month
apparently ). If there is no actual RiscOS 4.0 at that time then I may
well get it and leave RiscOS 4.0 until it becomes 4.01 :)
--
Simon | sim...@dynarx.demon.co.uk | PGP public key available
| http://www.dynarx.demon.co.uk |
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates
Kira L. Brown
Joe Oldak <j...@various-artists.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> It's nothing to do with it requiring the power of a StrongARM - but I
> believe, since it was only ever really intended for Phoebe, there is no
> support in the Kernel for non-SA processors.
Not true, it works nicely on ARN6 and 7 processors. The version on
Acorn's developer site only works on ARM6, 7 and 8 processors, being
(as far as I can see) deliberately scuppered from working with StrongARM.
There *is* a StrongARM compatible softload version available, but you have
to be one of Acorn's Special People to get it.
> I may, of course, be wrong
You are. Thankfully :-)
kira.
--
This is a tagline.
Richard Walker
"Scott Lees" <sc...@lecomp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Richard Walker wrote in message ...
>
> > Windows 95 multi-tasks better?! Really?! ARE YOU SERIOUS!!! It can't
> > even cope with the currently active window NOT being at the front of
> > the stack. Bloody hillarious you might say (unless your using it).
>
> sorry for being a pedant, but Windows _CAN_ cope with the active window
> not being at the top of the stack..
Can it? If I'm thinking of what you're thinking, then that's a pretty weak
'solution'... those windows which are 'always on top'?
As soon as I click (or ALT-TAB) into a Window, it jumps to the front.
--
Richard.
"Listen, Do you want to know a secret."
Richard Walker
Darren Salt <ne...@youmustbejoking.demon.com.uk> wrote:
> In message <a77c0be48%runny...@breckonhill.demon.co.uk>
> Richard Walker <runny...@mindless.com> wrote:
>
> > In message <48BE5B5290%ne...@youmustbejoking.demon.com.uk>
> > Darren Salt <ne...@youmustbejoking.demon.com.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > (Having said that, I don't think that I'd say no to a bundle
> > > containing RO4 and a StrongARM (rev. T) card...)
> >
> > Why? For RiscBSD/Linux? Apparently, RISC OS 4 runs fine on pre-RevT
> > cards.
>
> So what about lazy task switching?
Erm, either:
1) Lazy task swapping is automatically disabled on pre-RevT chips.
2) Lazy task swapping works fine on pre-RevT chips.
Another thought is to combine theory (2) with the idea that the only part
of RISC OS 3.80 which was incompatible with pre-RevT StrongARMs was the OS
'soft-loader' utility! I wonder why Acorn might have done that...
--
Richard.
"Free As A Bird. It's the next best thing to be, free as a bird."
Richard Walker
Joe Oldak <j...@various-artists.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <b24958be48%runny...@breckonhill.demon.co.uk>, Richard Walker
> <URL:mailto:runny...@mindless.com> wrote:
> >
> > Erm... I don't see why it wouldn't work on ARM610 or 710 systems.
>
> It's nothing to do with it requiring the power of a StrongARM - but I
> believe, since it was only ever really intended for Phoebe, there is no
> support in the Kernel for non-SA processors.
>
> I may, of course, be wrong - but I suspect that I'm not. ;)
I think you are! How come RISC OS 3.80 works fine on ARM 610 and 710
chips? How much does the final RISC OS 4 ROM (/not/ disc) image differ
from the 3.80 one? Not by much, I would have thought, and 3.80 supported
the 610 and 710 chips.
:-p
--
Richard.
"It's been a hard day's night, and I been working like a dog."
Manu_T
<URL:mailto:cst...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> One of the depressing aspects of some of the criticism of the 'backword
> compatibility' restrictions of RO software _and_ hardware is the assumption
> that all of us who have RO 3.1x
> can't-be-bothered-to-upgrade-from/are-content-with our machines. I have an
> A3010 and although I love it dearly for the ease of RISC OS, I would _kill_
> for an RPC 233, even for an A7000. The speed would make an immense
> difference to my 'productivity' - I use my machine for business purposes,
> and run 'serious' apps like Prophet 3 and Schema2 - and the ability to run
> these apps simultaneously, so that eg P3 and S2 and a W/P and ArcFax and
> Voyager (for E-mail) and !Printers could be on the iconbar at the same time
> /and/, maybe be, exchanging data through the global clipboard or
> drag-and-drop would be a real boon. But I'm limited to 4Mb RAM! And _no_, at
> the moment _I_can't_afford_ to upgrade!!!
That's why Acorn brought out the Risc PC in 1994... for god's sake.
> Sorry. Rant over. My Elders (in n/g terms) and Betters (ditto) may now
> appropiately chastise me!
>
> ColinC
So after so many years you till couldn't save up for a A7000+ (which
sometimes can be bought for less than an Amiga 500 years ago or that
A3010).
I'm sorry but this IS a lame excuse. Risc PC is today 4 years old (going
towards it 5th year) so you had plenty of time to upgrade. It's about
time those ARM250 and ARM3 machines are ruled out. Besides there's still
plenty of software for your machine. And yes I do understand your
problem. You want to keep using your machine untill it falls appart and
even then you'd rather get it fixed then getting a brand new Risc PC. No
wonder Acorn wants to ditch its users. They moan about their old
machines but don't understand that to keep progressing they have to be
willing to buy a new machine from time to time (I think 4 years average
between each Acorn generation is NOT bad especially considering the fact
that PC users have to "progress" every 18 months).
My opinions ofcourse,
Manuel
--
Manuel Timmers NEW Email at: Man...@writeme.com
StarLigh Corp. Website: www.whib.be/starcorp
Windows95... or "how to become insane in 30 minutes!"
Dave Kingdon
Richard Mackin wrote in message <76m9cr$92g$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>So, they've finally decided to give us the OS we've been screaming for all
>these years.
>
>FileCore improvements, what else has changed? The desktop still looks like
>mouldy cheese (someone said that about NewLook - I agree) and it will no
>doubt feel simplistic. My other computer's a Windoze PeeCee and while
>fortune for internet software and it multi-tasks better. Shouldn't have
>Acorn concentrated on these?
>
>C/C++ v6 (with a REAL C++ compiler) which was our only other hope. However,
>expect a third-party release in 1999 that might redress the balance...
>
>the most fundamental piece of software imaginable, should put as little
>strain on system resources as possible, so giving RISC OS 4 a high-end
>CEO (it changes every week) could rival Saddam for lunacy.
>
>Remove 'anti-spam.', it's my ASCM (Anti-Spam Counter-Measure)!
>
>
Dave Kingdon
All this 'Windoze PeeCee' rubbish!!! Just because you said that, Microsoft's
shares plummeted and bill gates exploded!!! Please just write it properly
and stop being so ignorant.
As for Windows 95/98 being ugly? How? You said 256-colour icons were nice,
try 24-bit icons.
Understand Windows before you slag it off, please!!!
Dave
Richard Walker wrote in message ...
>In message <76m9cr$92g$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>
> "Richard Mackin" <Ric...@rpmsoftware.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> So, they've finally decided to give us the OS we've been screaming for
all
>> these years.
>
>Yep. Lovely!
>
>> It's a shame it doesn't seem all that different from OS3. Other than the
>> FileCore improvements, what else has changed?
>
>Erm, well:
>
>Kernel improvements, lazy task swapping, totally NEW CDFS, new Filer, new
>Pinboard, new boot structure (probably similar to existing one, but without
>all the RISC OS 3 guff), new configuration panel, new desktop icons (256
>colours) and a newer printing system (apparently).
>
>I wonder if we'll get any of the stuff which was going to appear on
>Phoebe's hard disc...? I'm quite happy with what's in the RISC OS 4 /ROMs/
>but I'd like to see lots more on the hard disc...
>
>> The desktop still looks like mouldy cheese (someone said that about
>> NewLook - I agree) and it will no doubt feel simplistic.
>
>Oi! I think the RISC OS desktop looks rather nice. And those new icons
>make it look, well, /very/ nice.
>
>> My other computer's a Windoze PeeCee and while Windoze 95 looks ugly it
>> gets some things right. You don't have to pay a fortune for internet
>> software and it multi-tasks better. Shouldn't have Acorn concentrated on
>> these?
>
>Windows 95 multi-tasks better?! Really?! ARE YOU SERIOUS!!! It can't
>even cope with the currently active window NOT being at the front of the
>stack. Bloody hillarious you might say (unless your using it).
>
>Internet? Browse should be part of the RISC OS 4 disc image. There's your
>free browser. Socketeer (or similar) should, in my opinion, be provided
>instead of Connect...
>
>> Also, the development tools are miles behind other platforms. Acorn
>> canned C/C++ v6 (with a REAL C++ compiler) which was our only other hope.
>> However, expect a third-party release in 1999 that might redress the
>> balance...
>
>Er, yes, well... but development tools are not really part of RISC OS 4,
>are they?
>
>I believe that Acorn were looking at using GNU GCC to give RISC OS 'real
>C++'. Of course, /they/ won't be doing this now...
>
>> Also, notice the minimum spec? SARPC-only? Someone at Acorn obviously has
>> Bill Gates Syndrome, believing we all have top-of-the-line systems.
>
>Erm... I don't see why it wouldn't work on ARM610 or 710 systems.
>
>Anyway, surely it's a good idea to get all users onto StrongARM machines
>(or, at least, Risc PCs and A7000s). The 'legacy Archimedes' machines are
>NOT helping our market (nor our developers).
>
>> I've only got an A3010 which runs RISC OS 3.1 quite respectively.
>
Dave Kingdon
mode, not the only one. As a programmer, you can choose whether your
application sits at the front when active, or sits at the front all the
time.
This has been in effect since windows 3, so please check your facts!!!
Dave
Richard Walker wrote in message ...
>In message <76ste0$jge$1...@vir.lecomp.demon.co.uk>
> "Scott Lees" <sc...@lecomp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Richard Walker wrote in message ...
>>
>> > Windows 95 multi-tasks better?! Really?! ARE YOU SERIOUS!!! It can't
>> > even cope with the currently active window NOT being at the front of
>> > the stack. Bloody hillarious you might say (unless your using it).
>>
Dave Kingdon
>In article <76m9cr$92g$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> Richard Mackin <Ric...@rpmsoftware.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> only got an A3010 which runs RISC OS 3.1 quite respectively. The OS,
being
>> the most fundamental piece of software imaginable, should put as little
>> strain on system resources as possible, so giving RISC OS 4 a high-end
>> minimum spec is insane.
>
>
>Your A3010, about 1992 it was introduced wasn't it. Let's see, what was
>available then. For the same money you might have been able to get a 386
>maybe a secondhand 486 SX25 if you were lucky.
>
>Try running W95/98 on them.
I have - it worked fine.
Dave
Dave Kingdon
Why do all people in these Acorn groups have this misconception that Bill
Gates thinks we all have top of the line systems on which to run his
software? My housemate runs Windows 95 and Office 97 pro on his 486 with
8meg of ram!!! And, guess what, HE'S NOT THE ONLY ONE!!!
Why do you keep up these pathetic beliefs that just show you up to be the
misinformed fools you really are?
Dave
PS. Buy a PC - They work properly!!!
Richard Mackin wrote in message <76m9cr$92g$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>So, they've finally decided to give us the OS we've been screaming for all
>these years.
>
>It's a shame it doesn't seem all that different from OS3. Other than the
>FileCore improvements, what else has changed? The desktop still looks like
>mouldy cheese (someone said that about NewLook - I agree) and it will no
>doubt feel simplistic. My other computer's a Windoze PeeCee and while
>Windoze 95 looks ugly it gets some things right. You don't have to pay a
>fortune for internet software and it multi-tasks better. Shouldn't have
>Acorn concentrated on these?
>
>Also, the development tools are miles behind other platforms. Acorn canned
>C/C++ v6 (with a REAL C++ compiler) which was our only other hope. However,
>expect a third-party release in 1999 that might redress the balance...
>
>Also, notice the minimum spec? SARPC-only? Someone at Acorn obviously has
>Bill Gates Syndrome, believing we all have top-of-the-line systems. I've
>only got an A3010 which runs RISC OS 3.1 quite respectively. The OS, being
>the most fundamental piece of software imaginable, should put as little
>strain on system resources as possible, so giving RISC OS 4 a high-end
Dave Kingdon
Progress is good. Using a computer designed 4 years ago has it's problems:
no modern updates in other computer systems are taken into account on the
computers you buy (eg the Internet), larger monitors are not catered for,
storage, memory, etc.
2-2.5 years between PCs is the average - and is about right for computers.
Dave
Manu_T wrote in message ...
Jonathan Amery
Dave Kingdon <dave.k...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>Actually, the active window being at the front of the screen is the default
>mode, not the only one. As a programmer, you can choose whether your
>application sits at the front when active, or sits at the front all the
>time.
>
>This has been in effect since windows 3, so please check your facts!!!
>
He was saying that.
What he wants is to have an active window *not at the front*.
Jonathan
Jonathan Amery
Dave Kingdon <dave.k...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>You sad person.
>Why do all people in these Acorn groups have this misconception that Bill
>Gates thinks we all have top of the line systems on which to run his
>software? My housemate runs Windows 95 and Office 97 pro on his 486 with
>8meg of ram!!! And, guess what, HE'S NOT THE ONLY ONE!!!
Because we've used Windows95 and Office97 - and, well, put it this way -
I could write a letter in a more profesional manner in Ovation Pro on a
RPC600 in the time it takes you to *load* Office97 on a 486!
>Why do you keep up these pathetic beliefs that just show you up to be the
>misinformed fools you really are?
Because we've tried the opposition...
>Dave
>
>PS. Buy a PC - They work properly!!!
When you run linux.
Jonathan.
Justin Fletcher
"Dave Kingdon" <dave.k...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> There you lot go again!!!!
>
> All this 'Windoze PeeCee' rubbish!!! Just because you said that, Microsoft's
> shares plummeted and bill gates exploded!!! Please just write it properly
> and stop being so ignorant.
Whilst I agree on this point, I feel you are being both unconstructive and
are targeting the wrong group.
> As for Windows 95/98 being ugly? How? You said 256-colour icons were nice,
> try 24-bit icons.
>
> Understand Windows before you slag it off, please!!!
I feel that perhaps you should try to understand newsgroup etiquette a
little. Firstly, the comp.sys.acorn heirarchy includes a group 'advocacy'
which is the true forum for the argument you seem to be flaunting so
uncontrollably.
Secondly, it is the current norm to reply to points of a news posting at the
correct place in the posting. This aids readability, ensures that you make
your point with regard to the correct thing you were replying to and reduces
confusion.
What you appear to have done is to have just discovered the
comp.sys.acorn.apps group and decided that you hate Acorn users because they
are obviously so blinkered to the fact that the Acorn is better than a PC.
There are Acorn users like that. However, you've managed to put your view
across in such a way that you've simply been voicing the alternate argument -
that PCs are better than Acorns with absolutely no other view point.
Maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure you'll tell me I am.
Dave Kingdon
stands to reason that another window that IS active is not at the front.
It's logic. Understand?
Dave
Jonathan Amery wrote in message <77bodt$a39$1...@pick.sel.cam.ac.uk>...
>In article <77bisl$am5$1...@apple.news.easynet.net>,
Andrew Veitch
<URL:mailto:dave.k...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> Understand Windows before you slag it off, please!!!
I would hope the reverse would be the case too - you actually have
experience of using (recent) Acorn machines before you come onto
this newsgroup and slag them off.
My understanding of Windows is that it took 3 attempts before it
even began to be useful ... and every attempt since then is an
excuse for Bill Gates to extract more money from a guillible
public, while contributing an ever decreasing functionality and
requiring an ever more powerful base machine to run on - or am I
perhaps being a little cynical? :)
FU to c.s.a.a.
--
Andrew Veitch mailto:a...@who.net
Vision Internet Services http://www.vision.u-net.com/
(Speaking personally)
|- In light of recent events, this tagline has been removed -|
Andrew Veitch
<URL:mailto:dave.k...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> PC users don't 'have' to 'progress' every 18 months at all.
No, but every 24-30 months is average (your figure)
> Progress is good.
I don't doubt it. However, progress just for the sake of progress
(while possibly making a quick bob on the side) should be seen
for what it is, rather than 'real' progress.
> Using a computer designed 4 years ago has it's problems:
> no modern updates in other computer systems are taken into account on the
> computers you buy (eg the Internet),
S'funny. I'm sure I can access the Internet on this 4 years old
RISC PC :) so it obviously must have taken into account these changes
on other computers. Presumably this is the same Internet that 4
years ago Bill Gates thought was a passing fad, which is one of the
reasons behind MSN?
> larger monitors are not catered for,
Why?
> storage, memory, etc.
If your storage/memory requirements are lower than the current
"industry standard" then you won't need to advance them as quickly.
Currently I'm running an OS, Internet Suite (browser/mail/news),
various Internet utilities, a DTP package, an editor, a couple of
small graphics editors (!Draw,!Paint) and a !Alarm clock - these
and a 1.2MB backdrop image fit very comfortably inside 8MB ...
and on your machine? ...
>
> 2-2.5 years between PCs is the average - and is about right for computers.
[wayhey! there goes another quoted message beneath the reply :) ]
I should add to my tagline:
Andrew Veitch
reply ... guess what, it's a Micro$oft newsreader :) ]
To which I say, thank goodness for that.
Paul Vigay
<URL:mailto:dave.k...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> You sad person.
Not as sad as losers using Outlook Express who have to quote the entire
original message only to make a few ill-informed comments!
> Why do all people in these Acorn groups have this misconception that Bill
> Gates thinks we all have top of the line systems on which to run his
> software? My housemate runs Windows 95 and Office 97 pro on his 486 with
> 8meg of ram!!! And, guess what, HE'S NOT THE ONLY ONE!!!
Aren't you the joker then? I bet you're one of those people who drive along
the fast lane of the motorway doing 40mph as well!
> Why do you keep up these pathetic beliefs that just show you up to be the
> misinformed fools you really are?
ho ho ho! You ought to get a job with Live TV. They have whole programmes for
people like you.
> PS. Buy a PC - They work properly!!!
So you know the meaning of the word "oxymoron" then?
--
Paul Vigay Computer Resources Manager,
__\\|//__ Bohunt Community School
Web: http://www.matrix.clara.net (` o-o ') Liphook, Hampshire
BBS: +44 (0)1705 871531 (ansi,8n1) ----ooO-(_)-Ooo---------------------------
All views my own and I reserve the right to change them without warning!
Dave Santorum
<URL:mailto:dave.k...@pork.product> wrote:
> LISTEN: If someone has a program that is at the front when not active, it
> stands to reason that another window that IS active is not at the front.
> It's logic. Understand?
>
> Dave
>
What is meant is - can I type into a Word window which isn't at the
front of the stack? (i.e., there are other windows overlapping the
one that is being typed into). I don't think that anybody's disputing
that both Netscape and Word could be 'active' on the same machine.
HTH
DS
--
d a m a g e p e r s p e c t i v e s
http://www.crespo.demon.co.uk/
Jonathan Amery
Dave Kingdon <dave.k...@pork.product> wrote:
>LISTEN: If someone has a program that is at the front when not active, it
>stands to reason that another window that IS active is not at the front.
>It's logic. Understand?
Yes - but consider the case where you want to have an active window not
at the front when there aren't any windows that are always at the front on
the screen...
Jonathan.
Peter Howkins
> In article <ekX4OvUP#GA....@ntdwwaaw.compuserve.com>, Dave Kingdon
> <URL:mailto:dave.k...@pork.product> wrote:
> > LISTEN: If someone has a program that is at the front when not active, it
> > stands to reason that another window that IS active is not at the front.
> > It's logic. Understand?
> >
> > Dave
> >
>
> What is meant is - can I type into a Word window which isn't at the
> front of the stack? (i.e., there are other windows overlapping the
> one that is being typed into).
Yes.
The Program is part of the power tools set for 95. Its called Xmouse and is
quite
handy and works well.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows95/downloads/
> I don't think that anybody's disputing
> that both Netscape and Word could be 'active' on the same machine.
I'll happily dispute that word is ever active. ;)
Peter
James MacDonald
>Here's one: IT WON'T RUN OFFICE 97
Really? What a revelation!
For someone who claimed that we should "understand Windows before
slagging it off", perhaps you should understand that RISC OS does not
support the Win32 API, and therefore it won't run Office. Neither, FYI,
will Win16/32s. For someone claiming to be a programmer (the term I
would use is 'VB wanabee'), you should understand that.
--
Supporting Acorn Users North East (ACNE)
Looking for VT-RM212E Hitachi VCR remote control
We are John Cage of Borg. Assimilation troubles us;
we have to take a moment. Poughkeepsie.
Richard Walker
"Dave Kingdon" <dave.k...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
Dave, learn to quote properly. You didn't snip my sig (or anything at all)
and felt the need to reply /above/ me message. Why?! It's wrong.
> Richard Walker wrote in message ...
>
> > In message <76ste0$jge$1...@vir.lecomp.demon.co.uk>
> > "Scott Lees" <sc...@lecomp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > sorry for being a pedant, but Windows _CAN_ cope with the active
> > > window not being at the top of the stack..
> >
> > Can it? If I'm thinking of what you're thinking, then that's a pretty
> > weak 'solution'... those windows which are 'always on top'?
> >
> > As soon as I click (or ALT-TAB) into a Window, it jumps to the front.
>
> Actually, the active window being at the front of the screen is the
> default mode, not the only one.
Really...?
> As a programmer,
Ha-ha! You mean you've tried a knocked-off copy of Visual Basic?
> you can choose whether your application sits at the front when active, or
> sits at the front all the time.
>
> This has been in effect since windows 3, so please check your facts!!!
That's exactly what I was referring to when I mentioned windows which are
'always on top'. And why is it up to the programmer? What about the poor
user?
What about having windows half-uncovered, or sitting in the middle of a
stack?
Or can your brain and/or your Windows not cope with such a thing?
--
Richard.
"Well, my heart went "boom", when I crossed that room."
Richard Walker
"Dave Kingdon" <dave.k...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> There you lot go again!!!!
Oh for God's sake. I've just read through several postings of absolute
shite which all have your name in the 'from' field.
How about you just fuck off?
> As for Windows 95/98 being ugly? How? You said 256-colour icons were
> nice, try 24-bit icons.
Erm, no. What's the point in a ~40x40 pixel area?
> Understand Windows before you slag it off, please!!!
I don't think anybody understands Windows - that's the problem!
--
Richard.
"This happened once before, when I came to your door, no reply."
Darren Salt
"Dave Kingdon" <dave.k...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> Actually, the active window being at the front of the screen is the default
> mode, not the only one. As a programmer, you can choose whether your
> application sits at the front when active, or sits at the front all the
> time.
Translation: "As a programmer, you can choose whether your application
obscures whatever the user is referring to when active, or obscures whatever
the user is referring to all of the time."
By not allowing for the user choosing to give the window the input focus
*and* keep it at its current depth, Windows isn't really offering any choice
at all.
BTW, most of the broken postings that we see around here are sent by users of
M$ Outlook Depressed. Use a proper newsreader.
[snip quoted text]
--
| Darren Salt anti-UCE | nr. Ashington, | ds@youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk
| Risc PC, Spectrum +3, | Northumberland | ds@zap,uk,eu,org
| A3010, BBC Master 128 | Toon Army | arcsalt@spuddy,mew,co,uk
| ZapEmail. ZapDS. MakeExtern.
If I send this, does that mean that you'll read it?
micm
> >Your A3010, about 1992 it was introduced wasn't it. Let's see, what was
> >available then. For the same money you might have been able to get a 386
> >maybe a secondhand 486 SX25 if you were lucky.
> >
>
> >Try running W95/98 on them.
>
>
> I have - it worked fine.
>
> Dave
That's great, considering the minimum spec for Win95 is a 486. How do
you make that work on a 386, then?
--
"Danger could be my middle name.....but it's James"
Visit the NUMPTIE XONE : http://www.toth.org.uk/~micm
...We are John Cage of Borg. Assimilation troubles us; we have to take a moment.
André Timmermans
> That's great, considering the minimum spec for Win95 is a 486. How do
> you make that work on a 386, then?
>
Incorrect, the minimal spec was a 386 with 4MB of RAM and VGA.
And it worked, even if once the system was loaded you had
not enough memory left to open even something as simple as
the control panel.
André
alan.calder
Dave Kingdon <dave.k...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> >Your A3010, about 1992 it was introduced wasn't it. Let's see, what was
> >available then. For the same money you might have been able to get a 386
> >maybe a secondhand 486 SX25 if you were lucky.
> >
> >Try running W95/98 on them.
> I have - it worked fine.
> Dave
Forgive me for what I am about to say, Dave. You write arrant bollocks!
There's is no way that an 486 SX25 would run W95/98 'fine', it would work
but very poorly. On the 386 just forget the whole idea - I just cannot
believe that you have done it.
In which case I find it hard to believe anything you say and I have a
strong suspicion that you know less about Acorn's than the very small
amount you know about PCs.
Actually, you *could* make 386s and low spec 486s run W95/98 adequately
but this would require them to be used as network computers using Citrix
Winframe etc. But I doubt you've done this,
Now can you go away?
alan.calder
Dave Kingdon <dave.k...@pork.product> wrote:
> LISTEN: If someone has a program that is at the front when not active, it
> stands to reason that another window that IS active is not at the front.
> It's logic. Understand?
> Dave
Umm, no - don't follow that!
Of course a window at the front that is not active will not be the active
window. Yep, got that.
And a window behind that one that is active will be the active window.
Got that, yep.
But how does help us with the original question about having an active
window in Windows that was *not* at the front?
Kira L. Brown
"Dave Kingdon" <dave.k...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> Here's one: IT WON'T RUN OFFICE 97
It'll run TechWriter, though. Which reads Word files- in fact,
it reads them far more frequently than Word will.
It'll run Browse. It'll even run RealAudio now. It'll run
Studio24, which I love deeply.
It'll run Zap. Now, for me, a professional programmer, this is
a killer application. Find me a Linux box or a Windows box
or a BeBox or whatever- *anything*- that will run Zap. I'm
prepared to pay for this, big money.
Now, Dave, why exactly are you on these newsgroups?
kira.
--
This is a tagline.
Kira L. Brown
alan.calder <alan....@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <77biil$a8e$1...@apple.news.easynet.net>,
> Dave Kingdon <dave.k...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> > [snip]
> On the 386 just forget the whole idea - I just cannot
> believe that you have done it.
I have, as an experiment.
It took 25 minutes to get to the desktop, which thrashed the hard disc
constantly for the whole time it was running. The machine had 6 Mbytes
of RAM and a 386sx16 processor...
> Now can you go away?
I don't think he can.
Kira L. Brown
"Dave Kingdon" <dave.k...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> You sad person.
>
> My housemate runs Windows 95 and Office 97 pro on his 486 with
> 8meg of ram!!! And, guess what, HE'S NOT THE ONLY ONE!!!
And it is *slow*. It *is* slow. You can't deny that. Win95
and Office 97 on a 486 with 8 Mbytes of RAM is *SLOW*.
> Why do you keep up these pathetic beliefs that just show you up to be the
> misinformed fools you really are?
>
> PS. Buy a PC - They work properly!!!
Fascinating then that your newsreader isn't quoting properly.
Or that Internet Explorer 4 has massive RFC noncompliancies in
its fetcher DLLs, yes, on the net we call that 'not working
properly'.
Or that Microsoft's Java VM doesn't do full bounds checking on arrays,
again, not working properly.
Or that the supposedly HTML4 compliant Internet Explorer 5 fails the
compliancy tests. Another instance of 'not working properly'.
Or that Windows98 *still* contains huge chunks of 16bit code, in the
system VM in fact, that cause it to be slow and unstable.
I can go on for hours you know. I am a professional programmer. I
have a level 2 MCP certificate. I have written Win32 applications[1]
and I have supported > 400 users of Win95. I have built machines
for running Windows 95, NT3 and NT4. The one thing you can be sure
of with Windows is that it DOES NOT WORK PROPERLY. [2]
You really don't know much about Windows, do you? Well listen
to one who does, buddy. Your little OS is a *toy*. It doesn't
work properly. It was never finished. Its programming model is
primitive and restrictive. Its system DLLs are full of memory leaks.
Its DMA subsystem... well... isn't. And as for stability, well,
just don't bother.
I'm not saying RISC OS is perfect, or even that it is good. All I am
saying is that your assertion that Windows works properly is
fundamentally untrue and the product of a disordered mind.
kira.
[1] I'm only now recovering.
[2] Or if it does, you can be sure it's not going to twice.
Mark Greenwood
>
<All snipped>
As someone who has recently, and slightly reluctantly, left the Acorn
world (I needed to run Cubase) I would like to point out that *neither*
Windows or RiscOS work properly. RiscOS has many failings (no
pre-emption, no virtual memory, slow I/O (but that's a hardware failing
really, er, er, I think that's it). Windows98 is just a nightmare - I've
been using it since Christmas and have already had to reinstall it once
- but it does give far better I/O performance and has better
multitasking than RiscOS. The GUI stinks, but that's just personal
preference. Neither platform is what I would call particularly stable or
reliable.
The problem for me with RiscOS was lack of software to do the things I
wanted to do. If I was doing DTP I'd still be using RiscOS, (although
without Quark Xpress experience you would be hard pressed to find a DTP
job in the real world [sad fact number 1]).
Neither platform is perfect. You pays yer money, you takes yer choice. I
miss some things about RiscOS, but I like being able to take my pick of
peripherals and run Cubase.
Just some random thoughts.
Mark.
Richard Mackin
alan.calder wrote in message <48c2fd11f6...@argonet.co.uk>...
>In article <77biil$a8e$1...@apple.news.easynet.net>,
> Dave Kingdon <dave.k...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>> >available then. For the same money you might have been able to get a 386
>> >maybe a secondhand 486 SX25 if you were lucky.
>> >
>
>> >Try running W95/98 on them.
>
>
>> I have - it worked fine.
>
>> Dave
>
>Forgive me for what I am about to say, Dave. You write arrant bollocks!
>There's is no way that an 486 SX25 would run W95/98 'fine', it would work
>believe that you have done it.
I used to have an 8MB 486SX/25 and it ran the most recent release of Win95
just fine, and I no memory worries either while running apps like Word 97 or
Delphi 2.0
>
>In which case I find it hard to believe anything you say and I have a
>strong suspicion that you know less about Acorn's than the very small
>amount you know about PCs.
>
>Actually, you *could* make 386s and low spec 486s run W95/98 adequately
>but this would require them to be used as network computers using Citrix
>Winframe etc. But I doubt you've done this,
>
>Now can you go away?
>
Richard Mackin
>In message <ant06205...@various-artists.demon.co.uk>
> Joe Oldak <j...@various-artists.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <b24958be48%runny...@breckonhill.demon.co.uk>, Richard
Walker
>> <URL:mailto:runny...@mindless.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Erm... I don't see why it wouldn't work on ARM610 or 710 systems.
>>
>> It's nothing to do with it requiring the power of a StrongARM - but I
>> believe, since it was only ever really intended for Phoebe, there is no
>> support in the Kernel for non-SA processors.
>>
>> I may, of course, be wrong - but I suspect that I'm not. ;)
>
>I think you are! How come RISC OS 3.80 works fine on ARM 610 and 710
>chips? How much does the final RISC OS 4 ROM (/not/ disc) image differ
>from the 3.80 one? Not by much, I would have thought, and 3.80 supported
>the 610 and 710 chips.
Actually, RISC OS 4's kernel was a largely a ground-up rewrite.
>
>:-p
>
>
>--
>Richard.
>
>"It's been a hard day's night, and I been working like a dog."
>
Richard Mackin
>Here's one: IT WON'T RUN OFFICE 97
It won't run MSOffice 97 for the following (obvious reasons):
1. It's got an ARM chip.
2. It runs RISC OS
3. It's definitely 'Intel Outside'
Are you stupid?
>Richard Mackin wrote in message <76m9cr$92g$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>>So, they've finally decided to give us the OS we've been screaming for all
>>these years.
>>
>>It's a shame it doesn't seem all that different from OS3. Other than the
>>FileCore improvements, what else has changed? The desktop still looks like
>>mouldy cheese (someone said that about NewLook - I agree) and it will no
>>doubt feel simplistic. My other computer's a Windoze PeeCee and while
>>Windoze 95 looks ugly it gets some things right. You don't have to pay a
>>fortune for internet software and it multi-tasks better. Shouldn't have
>>Acorn concentrated on these?
>>
>>Also, the development tools are miles behind other platforms. Acorn canned
>>C/C++ v6 (with a REAL C++ compiler) which was our only other hope.
However,
>>expect a third-party release in 1999 that might redress the balance...
>>
>>Also, notice the minimum spec? SARPC-only? Someone at Acorn obviously has
>>Bill Gates Syndrome, believing we all have top-of-the-line systems. I've
>>only got an A3010 which runs RISC OS 3.1 quite respectively. The OS, being
>>the most fundamental piece of software imaginable, should put as little
>>strain on system resources as possible, so giving RISC OS 4 a high-end
>>minimum spec is insane. Mind you, what else do you expect? Acorn's current
>>CEO (it changes every week) could rival Saddam for lunacy.
>>
>>Richard Mackin (anti-spa...@rpmsoftware.freeserve.co.uk)
>>Remove 'anti-spam.', it's my ASCM (Anti-Spam Counter-Measure)!
>>
>>
>
>
Richard Mackin
Dave Kingdon wrote in message <77bihb$a8c$1...@apple.news.easynet.net>...
[snip]
>PS. Buy a PC - They work properly!!!
Do they hell. Win95 crashed on me three times last night, and the hard drive
likes to stop spinning.
Thomas Rankin
micm <M.J.Ma...@sms.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> That's great, considering the minimum spec for Win95 is a 486. How do
> you make that work on a 386, then?
>
Eer, I've run it on an 8MB 386 (Cant remember whether it was an 8MHz, 16, 25/33?)
It was great fun, took about 10 minutes to enter Win95.
Very Usable in the sense that you could do nothing of value with it in
anything like an efficient manner.
The clock still worked tho. afair.
--
Thomas Rankin
"Dave Kingdon" <dave.k...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> PC users don't 'have' to 'progress' every 18 months at all.
>
> Progress is good. Using a computer designed 4 years ago has it's problems:
> no modern updates in other computer systems are taken into account on the
> computers you buy (eg the Internet), larger monitors are not catered for,
> storage, memory, etc.
>
> 2-2.5 years between PCs is the average - and is about right for computers.
>
> Dave
>
Larger monitors tend to follow well laid out standards which are applicable
on many platforms.
Are you seriously advocating that we must all buy a new machine every 2-2.5
years?
Some of us can't afford such a capital purchase every 2-2.5 years.
Businesses tend to depreciate their equipment over 5 years (except computers)
(When I Say Businesses I really mean Technoplogy Groups).
Whats wrong with us liking computers that we still feel that we can use after
such a short period of time?
--
Why am I replying to this Crap?
Luke Bosman
Dave Kingdon <dave.k...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> Actually, the active window being at the front of the screen is the
> default mode, not the only one. As a programmer, you can choose
> whether your application sits at the front when active, or sits at
> the front all the time.
Unfortunately, I'm not a programmer, I'm a user.
Luke
[F-U's set]
--
* Confucius say, "Wise man never play leapfrog with unicorn."
Reply-to address is valid. ICQ# 13198442
PGP key available from http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/lukebosman/luke.txt
For Southend Utd. news and results: http://surf.to/blue.anorak
For Fulwood Methodist Church: http://welcome.to/fulwood
Luke Bosman
Dave Kingdon <dave.k...@pork.product> wrote:
> LISTEN: If someone has a program that is at the front when not
> active, it stands to reason that another window that IS active is not
> at the front. It's logic. Understand?
LISTEN: If someone writes a reply, it's traditional to put it after the
message to which one is replying. It's logic. Understand?
Unfortunately, your argument only seems to apply to programmers. How
can I, as a user, write a Lotus WordPro 97 document on one side of the
screen while moving artwork from CorelDraw without windows constantly
changing position?
I can do this with ease using equivalent packages on Risc OS.
[FU's set to .advocacy]
Luke
--
* Confucius say, "War never determine who right, just who's left."
Luke Bosman
Richard Walker <runny...@mindless.com> wrote:
> > As for Windows 95/98 being ugly? How? You said 256-colour icons
> > were nice, try 24-bit icons.
> Erm, no. What's the point in a ~40x40 pixel area?
But don't you understand? More colour = more art.
Isn't that obvious? No?
Okay.
Luke
--
* Confucius say, "Wise man never play leapfrog with unicorn."
Reply-to address is valid. ICQ# 13198442
Luke Bosman
Kira L. Brown <kbr...@neutralino.demon.com.uk> wrote:
> In message <77bihb$a8c$1...@apple.news.easynet.net>
> "Dave Kingdon" <dave.k...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> > You sad person.
> > My housemate runs Windows 95 and Office 97 pro on his 486 with
> > 8meg of ram!!! And, guess what, HE'S NOT THE ONLY ONE!!!
> And it is *slow*. It *is* slow. You can't deny that. Win95
> and Office 97 on a 486 with 8 Mbytes of RAM is *SLOW*.
Has anyone noticed that you never see 'Dave Kingdon' and 'Greg
Hennessy' in the same thread at the same time?
FWIW, my father-in-law, when he was at the Acorn Midlands show with me,
expressed regret that his P166 running Win98 seemed so much slower and
less pleasant to use than a Risc PC.
Luke
--
* If you ate pasta and antipasta, would you still be hungry?
Bob W
<URL:mailto:dave.k...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Why.... etc. etc. etc.
>
> Why do..... etc. etc. etc.
>
Why do you spend so much time in Acorn Newsgroups?
I'll use a machine I like, you use a machine you like,
and we'll both save on our phone bills.
--
Bob W.
Acorn Strongarm Risc PC.
Stewart Brodie
"Richard Mackin" <ric...@rpmsoftware.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Richard Walker wrote in message
> <2f7867c048%runny...@breckonhill.demon.co.uk>...
> >In message <ant06205...@various-artists.demon.co.uk>
> > Joe Oldak <j...@various-artists.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <b24958be48%runny...@breckonhill.demon.co.uk>, Richard
> Walker
> >> <URL:mailto:runny...@mindless.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Erm... I don't see why it wouldn't work on ARM610 or 710 systems.
> >>
> >> It's nothing to do with it requiring the power of a StrongARM - but I
> >> believe, since it was only ever really intended for Phoebe, there is no
> >> support in the Kernel for non-SA processors.
> >>
> >> I may, of course, be wrong - but I suspect that I'm not. ;)
> >
> >I think you are! How come RISC OS 3.80
Firstly, some people seem to think that RISC OS 3.8 == RISC OS 4. It
doesn't.
> > works fine on ARM 610 and 710 chips?
Build option switch.
> > How much does the final RISC OS 4 ROM (/not/ disc) image differ from the
> > 3.80 one?
Several modules are newer (eg. all the Toolbox modules), and they may be one
or two extras added, several bug fixes etc.
> > Not by much, I would have thought, and 3.80 supported the 610 and 710
> > chips.
>
> Actually, RISC OS 4's kernel was a largely a ground-up rewrite.
Is that right? I've not going to bother to deny all the claptrap notions
I've read about what RISC OS 4 has, does or not in this and related threads.
It's too entertaining - and I like a good laugh. :)
(speaking personally)
--
Stewart Brodie, Software Engineer
Element 14 Ltd
645 Newmarket Road
Cambridge, CB5 8PB, United Kingdom WWW: http://www.e-14.com/
Richard Walker
"Richard Mackin" <ric...@rpmsoftware.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Richard Walker wrote in message
>
> > [ RISC OS 4 may require a StrongARM ]
> >
> > How come RISC OS 3.80 works fine on ARM 610 and 710 chips? How much
> > does the final RISC OS 4 ROM (/not/ disc) image differ from the 3.80
> > one? Not by much, I would have thought, and 3.80 supported the 610 and
> > 710 chips.
>
> Actually, RISC OS 4's kernel was a largely a ground-up rewrite.
I disagree.
But even if it was/is, it's hardly going to be a million miles away from
version 3.80 which functions on ARM610 and 70 processors.
--
Richard.
"I am the eggman, they are the eggmen. I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob."
Robin Clive-Matthews
<URL:mailto:sbr...@e-14.com> wrote:
> In message <77ikcl$fs7$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>
> "Richard Mackin" <ric...@rpmsoftware.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > Actually, RISC OS 4's kernel was a largely a ground-up rewrite.
>
> I've read about what RISC OS 4 has, does or not in this and related threads.
> It's too entertaining - and I like a good laugh. :)
Sooo ... one has to ask : Seeing as ROS4 is supposed to be available
soon-ish, is there a web page around that we can use to actually find out
/for/ /certain/ what is different, what the compatibility is like with
previous versions and how much we are going to be expected to pay for all of
that ?
Like so much that is going on recently here, all we're getting are
rumours/suspicions, and yet we are going to be the ones who will be paying
for the thing.
Personally, I'm going to need a lot of convincing to pursuade me to upgrade.
3.70 works fairly well, and if plugging in a new/updated/re-written/whatever-
the-hell-it-is operating system is going to stop things from working, then I
don't suppose I'll bother.
BFN !
--
Robin Clive-Matthews (Uni email: rp-c...@uwe.ac.uk)
Home: http://www.arcstone.demon.co.uk Ex Work: http://www.metricgroup.co.uk
Computers: http://www.acorn.com/ University: http://www.uwe.ac.uk
Richard Walker
Stewart Brodie <sbr...@e-14.com> wrote:
[ R.M. reckons RO4 will not run on ARM 610/710 systems ]
> In message <77ikcl$fs7$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>
> "Richard Mackin" <ric...@rpmsoftware.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Richard Walker wrote in message
> > <2f7867c048%runny...@breckonhill.demon.co.uk>...
> >
> > > How come RISC OS 3.80
>
> Firstly, some people seem to think that RISC OS 3.8 == RISC OS 4. It
> doesn't.
I agree, but I wouldn't have thought it's /very/ far away (as I suggested
below).
> > > works fine on ARM 610 and 710 chips?
>
> Build option switch.
OK.
> > > How much does the final RISC OS 4 ROM (/not/ disc) image differ from
> > > the 3.80 one?
>
> Several modules are newer (eg. all the Toolbox modules), and they may be
> one or two extras added, several bug fixes etc.
Like I guessed... nothing which is /very/ far away from 3.8. I can't see
what could have been added which would break pre-SA processors.
If, as you suggest, processor compatibility is provided through a build
option switch, then there's no reason at all for RISC OS 4 to be restricted
to StrongARM machines, is there?
Or, were you referring only to 3.8 with that statement, and something has
since been added (to 4.0) which /requires/ StrongARM?
> > Actually, RISC OS 4's kernel was a largely a ground-up rewrite.
>
> Is that right? I've not going to bother to deny all the claptrap notions
> I've read about what RISC OS 4 has, does or not in this and related
> threads. It's too entertaining - and I like a good laugh. :)
:-)
--
Richard.
"Hey Jude, don't make it bad. Take a sad song and make it better."
Rhodri James
Richard Walker <runny...@mindless.com> wrote:
> But even if it was/is, it's hardly going to be a million miles away from
> version 3.80 which functions on ARM610 and 70 processors.
Such touching faith...
--
Rhodri James *-* Wildebeeste herder to the masses
If you don't know who I work for, you can't misattribute my words to them
... Things that go 'spoo' in the night
Richard Walker
Rhodri James <rho...@wildebst.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <48fe5c448%runny...@breckonhill.demon.co.uk>,
> Richard Walker <runny...@mindless.com> wrote:
>
> > But even if it was/is, it's hardly going to be a million miles away from
> > version 3.80 which functions on ARM610 and 710 processors.
>
> Such touching faith...
Of course! :-)
OK, so maybe something has since been added which requires a StrongARM.
Why could this not be automatically disabled for ARM610/710 processors? Or
is it something on the disc image, I wonder?
Surely RISC OS 4 will be handy in an A7000(+)...?
--
Richard.
"Will you still need me, will you still feed me. When I'm sixty-four."
Thomas Rankin
"Richard Mackin" <ric...@rpmsoftware.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Dave Kingdon wrote in message <77bibe$a10$1...@apple.news.easynet.net>...
> >Here's one: IT WON'T RUN OFFICE 97
>
> It won't run MSOffice 97 for the following (obvious reasons):
> 1. It's got an ARM chip.
> 2. It runs RISC OS
> 3. It's definitely 'Intel Outside'
>
> Are you stupid?
>
My RPC700 has run Office 97 before, I nuked it cause it wasn't much of an
improvement over office 4.2 which was 3 years (or 4?) older.
The only differences seemed to be that it consumed a lot more resources,
stole control from the user and had a stupid animated "Helper".
Oh and HTML Authoring (not that anybody would want to use Word97 for HTML).
Oh and the obvious Excel 97/Word 97/Powerpoint 97 are completely file-format
incompatible with older versions. (cheap trick)
--
MattLB
> Studio24, which I love deeply.
Do mean Studio24Pro by this, as I find Studio24 (the first one) to be
horribly buggy and glitchy?
MattLB
Frank Jukes
Mike Henry <mi...@nospam.tw2.com> wrote:
> I certainly do not want a "crippled" version of RO4 that doesn't
> take advantage of the RevT SA...
What exactly are the advantages of Rev T SA over other StrongArm cards?
--
Frank Jukes
John Whitington
From an article I saw in IT Week (one of those free newspapers that get
sent to buisnesses (11th Jan, Page 10), I quote:
"The software is aimed at Acorn's A7000 PC range, which sells largely to
the education market, and the RiscPC range"
If they got this info from acorn, which I presume they did then *either*:
1. RISC OS 4 works on ARM7500 and hence probably ARM610/710 (likely)
2. There will be an SA upgrade for A7000 (very unlikely)
I think SB's silence on this matter probably indicates that the SA only
posts
may be what he is laughing at.
Hedley Hunnisett
TR> Oh and the obvious Excel 97/Word 97/Powerpoint 97 are completely
TR> file-format incompatible with older versions. (cheap trick)
Are you sure? College has just installed 97 and I had no trouble loading
Excel 5 files to get some printouts last week.
--
Hedley Hunnisett of Wigston Magna, Leicestershire, England
hed...@arcticbb.demon.co.uk
Using British Acorn computer technology with StrongARM power!
*** !DigiMail 1.4.6 (28-Mar-1998) - The Acorn BBS OLR ***
Anti-UCE address: hedleyh at arcticbb dot demon period co period uk
Please translate this Anti-UCE address for private replies - thank you.
--
++++ ArcTic BBS - Internet Gateway - Email - NewsGroups ++++
++ http://www.arcticbb.demon.co.uk - +44 1819031309 24hrs ++
Richard Walker
"John Whitington" <jo...@kechb.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Surely RISC OS 4 will be handy in an A7000(+)...?
>
> "The software is aimed at Acorn's A7000 PC range, which sells largely to
> the education market, and the RiscPC range"
Hmm.
> If they got this info from acorn, which I presume they did then *either*:
>
> 1. RISC OS 4 works on ARM7500 and hence probably ARM610/710 (likely)
ARM7500 is quite a different beasty to ARM610/710, you know! :-)
Mind you, I really don't see why RISC OS 4 (the final product) should not
work on ARM610/710/7500/SA processors.
> 2. There will be an SA upgrade for A7000 (very unlikely)
Or even 'impossible'. :-)
I've just 'checked' something, and it /seems/ that certain versions of RISC
OS 4's kernel automatically disable lazy task swapping if they are found to
be running on pre-revT StrongARM chips. I don't know wether or not lazy
task swapping works on ARM610/710/7500 processors (I think it only breaks
on pre-revT SAs because of a hardware bug, which shouldn't be present in
non-SA chips!).
--
Richard.
"Take these broken wings and learn to fly all your life."
Brian Carroll
Richard Walker <runny...@mindless.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I've just ............ pre-revT StrongARM chips. ........... etc
Could someone please explain what is meant by Rev(ision?) T SA, and
how does one identify it?
TIA.
Brian.
--
______________________________________________________________
Brian Carroll, Ripon, North Yorkshire, UK
br...@argonet.co.uk
______________________________________________________________
Thomas Rankin
address...@nospam.demon.co.uk (Hedley Hunnisett) wrote:
> On 17 January 1999, Thomas Rankin wrote about Some RISC OS 4 rants saying:
>
> TR> Oh and the obvious Excel 97/Word 97/Powerpoint 97 are completely
> TR> file-format incompatible with older versions. (cheap trick)
>
> Are you sure? College has just installed 97 and I had no trouble loading
> Excel 5 files to get some printouts last week.
>
I am sure, it works the other way too if you only have text (sometimes)
If you have graphics then it is less likely to work, if it does then when you
go to print the top left hand corner will be blown up by about 6times and you
will not be able to see any of the rest.
You will notice similar fx with WORD etc.
The cheap trick takes into acct. the logic of the, Everyone Owns Excel so we
must to remain competative.
Imagine that one person 'Upgrades' then they send a sheet to someone else,
to view the sheet they either use a read-only browser or buy the new version.
Since having the browser installed is considered inconvenient they promptly
upgrade.
Then you have two ppl. sending out documents that are the new format, and
suddenly this ecsulated.
Next thing you know, virtually every reasonably sized company have upgraded
all their machines to the new version.
A Good (cheap) way to ensure millions of sales.
Btw. have you noticed any improvements over Excel 5?
(note I say improvements not new annoying features)
Oh, if you have Office 4.2 installed (the one that Excel 5 came with)
you can't install over it with O 97, for some reason you end up with a
corrupt registry and normally end up needing to re-install windows, which is
nice .:-)
Sometimes it's possible to have them to co-exists, but normally it doesn't
last.
Richard Walker
Brian Carroll <br...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <3f7891c648%runny...@breckonhill.demon.co.uk>,
> Richard Walker <runny...@mindless.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > I've just ............ pre-revT StrongARM chips. ........... etc
>
> Could someone please explain what is meant by Rev(ision?) T SA, and
> how does one identify it?
OK.
When such chips are made, they get a 'version number' (or, in this case,
'letter'!). Those StrongARMs which are likely to be in Risc PCs to date
are usually revision K chips.
Since the first SA-100s rolled off the line, there has been a small
hardware bug which affects certain operations. For RISC OS 3.7, Acorn
issued 'ROMPatches' which works-around the problem by patching RISC OS. I
believe there's a detailed document on this very topic somewhere on Acorn's
FTP site - ftp://ftp.acorn.co.uk Anyway... revision T (and later) chips
have this bug corrected.
Apparently, the lazy task swapping in RISC OS 4 is affected by this bug, so
won't work on 'pre-revision T' chips. For Phoebe, this was not a problem,
since she was due to ship with a revision T chip. The same bug also causes
problems with memory with ARM Linux and RiscBSD, which is why Simtec were
looking into doing a 'revision T upgrade service' for StrongARM cards.
You can identify your StrongARM revision by looking at the text on the chip
itself. Somewhere, it says 'SA-110x', where x is the revision letter.
Hope this helps.
--
Richard.
"All you need is love, love. Love is all you need."
Rik Griffin
dave.k...@ukonline.co.uk ("Dave Kingdon") wrote:
> Here's one: IT WON'T RUN OFFICE 97
Thank fuck for that
> Richard Mackin wrote in message <76m9cr$92g$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> >So, they've finally decided to give us the OS we've been screaming for all
> >these years.
--
"This moment hangs, like your ragged hair."
Celebrate - Fields of the Nephilim
Rik Griffin
mgre...@madge.com (Mark Greenwood) wrote:
> As someone who has recently, and slightly reluctantly, left the Acorn
> world (I needed to run Cubase) I would like to point out that *neither*
> Windows or RiscOS work properly. RiscOS has many failings (no
> pre-emption, no virtual memory, slow I/O
Something not working as you would like it to is not the same as it not
working properly. RISC OS is not supposed to have PE, VM, etc, so therefore
it not having those things doesn't mean it's broken.
Rik Griffin
mi...@nospam.tw2.com (Mike Henry) wrote:
> In article <8497cc448%runny...@breckonhill.demon.co.uk>, Richard
> Walker <runny...@mindless.com> wrote:
>
> >If, as you suggest, processor compatibility is provided through a build
> >option switch, then there's no reason at all for RISC OS 4 to be restricted
> >to StrongARM machines, is there?
>
> This is actually quite worrying. I haven't got a StrongARM so I would be
> wanting to buy a RevT SA and RO4 at the same time. I certainly do not
> want a "crippled" version of RO4 that doesn't take advantage of the RevT
> SA...
The only reason that the developer release of RISC OS 3.8 (or whatever you
want to call it) was made non-SA compatible was for commercial reasons ... ie
if it won't run on an SA, it's not a commercially attractive product. Hence
safer to release to developers for _testing_ of code.
Any sensible RO4 build would probably detect the processor at startup (as
existing RISC OS does) and enable/disable any features which need a certain
CPU as required.
Rik Griffin
Fr...@fjukes.demon.co.uk (Frank Jukes) wrote:
> In article <36a0c...@news1lo.highwayone.net>,
> Mike Henry <mi...@nospam.tw2.com> wrote:
>
> > I certainly do not want a "crippled" version of RO4 that doesn't
> > take advantage of the RevT SA...
>
> What exactly are the advantages of Rev T SA over other StrongArm cards?
Very few, if you are running RISC OS.
The Rev T chips have bugs fixed that were present in earlier versions.
Thesebugs prevent the use of the lazy task switching in RISC OS 4. Apparently
they also cause problems for unix kernels too.
Rik Griffin
br...@argonet.co.uk (Brian Carroll) wrote:
> Could someone please explain what is meant by Rev(ision?) T SA, and how
> does one identify it?
When the StrongARM chip was first invented, the design had flaws. Therefore
the first SA chips were not perfect and did not always perform according to
spec.
So they fixed the known bugs in the next batch, and called the new chip
"Revision B" or whatever. Obviously there have been quite a few bugs to fix,
as we are now on "Revision T".
You can probably identify the revision of a SA chip, by the writing on it. My
guess is that rev T chips will say something like "SA-110 Rev T".
Brian Carroll
Richard Walker <runny...@mindless.com> wrote:
[snip]
> When such chips are made .......... usually revision K chips.
> Since the first SA-100s ......... revision T (and later) chips have
> this bug corrected.
> Apparently, the lazy task swapping ............ doing a 'revision T
> upgrade service' for StrongARM cards.
> You can identify ........ Somewhere, it says 'SA-110x', where x is
> the revision letter.
> Hope this helps.
It does. Thanks for a very clear and concise answer. And Rik G too.
Mark de Vries
<URL:mailto:mo...@cheesey.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <369B87...@madge.com>,
> mgre...@madge.com (Mark Greenwood) wrote:
> > As someone who has recently, and slightly reluctantly, left the Acorn
> > world (I needed to run Cubase) I would like to point out that *neither*
> > Windows or RiscOS work properly. RiscOS has many failings (no
> > pre-emption, no virtual memory, slow I/O
> Something not working as you would like it to is not the same as it not
> working properly. RISC OS is not supposed to have PE, VM, etc, so therefore
> it not having those things doesn't mean it's broken.
Indeed. It would be more correct to say that neither windows 98 nor
RiscOS 3.7 are up to standard. Windows fails primarily in the department
of reliability. Risc OS because it misses features a modern OS can be
expected to have. Note that I do not feel that preemptive multitasking
and systemwide virtual memory are necessary parts of any OS. Provisions
for these should be made as part of the operating system, but should not
be the default.
Mark de Vries
--
Manu_T
<URL:mailto:mo...@cheesey.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> The Rev T chips have bugs fixed that were present in earlier versions.
> Thesebugs prevent the use of the lazy task switching in RISC OS 4. Apparently
> they also cause problems for unix kernels too.
>
Perhaps someone could explain "lazy task switching"?
What's the lazy part anyway? Is this better than the current "task
switching"? I thought "lazy" sounded negative?
CU
--
Manuel Timmers NEW Email at: Man...@writeme.com
StarLigh Corp. Website: www.whib.be/starcorp
Windows95... or "how to become insane in 30 minutes!"
Manu_T
<URL:mailto:mo...@cheesey.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> mgre...@madge.com (Mark Greenwood) wrote:
>
> > As someone who has recently, and slightly reluctantly, left the Acorn
> > world (I needed to run Cubase) I would like to point out that *neither*
> > Windows or RiscOS work properly. RiscOS has many failings (no
> > pre-emption, no virtual memory, slow I/O
>
> Something not working as you would like it to is not the same as it not
> working properly. RISC OS is not supposed to have PE, VM, etc, so therefore
> it not having those things doesn't mean it's broken.
>
better?
My expierence is (and I've said it all before):
No computer is perfect. They ALL have their flaws. But from all those
imperfect machines the Acorn Risc Os systems are best.
All IMHO ofcourse
Justin Fletcher
Manu_T <Man...@writeme.com> wrote:
> In article <19990121....@cheesey.demon.co.uk>, Rik Griffin
> <URL:mailto:mo...@cheesey.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Very few, if you are running RISC OS.
> >
> > The Rev T chips have bugs fixed that were present in earlier versions.
> > Thesebugs prevent the use of the lazy task switching in RISC OS 4. Apparently
> > they also cause problems for unix kernels too.
> >
>
> Perhaps someone could explain "lazy task switching"?
> What's the lazy part anyway? Is this better than the current "task
> switching"? I thought "lazy" sounded negative?
It is 'lazy' because it means that all the WindowManager does on a context
switch (ie a new application starting) is mark that the new application is
paged in. Then it calls whatever routines it needs - filters, the original
code, whatever. That will probably cause a memory access failure, which
is caught by the WindowManager and causes that page to be mapped into
memory, and the instruction re-executed. In that way, large applications
don't have their memory completely mapped in and so don't slow the machine.
Not that they tend to much anyhow.
I don't know what the performance gain will be, but it might be noticable
through greater responsivity. At the end of the day it just means that
when applications are larger they should be more responsive than previously.
Coupled with the general speed up across the system it should be nice.
--
Gerph {djf0-.3w6e2w2.226,6q6w2q2,2.3,2m4}
URL: http://www.thevillage.ndirect.co.uk/justin/
... What's the difference between a worm hole and a black hole ?
One's a giant imploded star and the other is a air hole in grass.
Dave Kingdon
Dave
Thomas Rankin wrote in message ...
>In message <77ikrn$g4i$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>
> "Richard Mackin" <ric...@rpmsoftware.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Dave Kingdon wrote in message <77bibe$a10$1...@apple.news.easynet.net>...
>> >Here's one: IT WON'T RUN OFFICE 97
>>
>> It won't run MSOffice 97 for the following (obvious reasons):
>> 1. It's got an ARM chip.
>> 2. It runs RISC OS
>> 3. It's definitely 'Intel Outside'
>>
>> Are you stupid?
>>
>My RPC700 has run Office 97 before, I nuked it cause it wasn't much of an
>improvement over office 4.2 which was 3 years (or 4?) older.
>The only differences seemed to be that it consumed a lot more resources,
>stole control from the user and had a stupid animated "Helper".
>Oh and HTML Authoring (not that anybody would want to use Word97 for HTML).
>Oh and the obvious Excel 97/Word 97/Powerpoint 97 are completely
file-format
>incompatible with older versions. (cheap trick)
>--
Kira L. Brown
"Dave Kingdon" <dave.k...@pork.product> wrote:
> Long file names?
Interestingly enough, we have had those for quite a while.
kira.
--
This is a tagline.
Andrew Veitch
Yes, RISC OS 4's got them. Thanks for asking :)
Andrew.
(who's seriously trying to see the relationship between the quote
that this message was above, and the actual message itself - erk!)
--
Andrew Veitch mailto:a...@who.net
Vision Internet Services http://www.vision.u-net.com/
(Speaking personally)
|- Coming soon ... the all new, whiter than white tagline ... -|
Jason Wolfe
> won't work on 'pre-revision T' chips. For Phoebe, this was not a problem,
> since she was due to ship with a revision T chip. The same bug also causes
> problems with memory with ARM Linux and RiscBSD, which is why Simtec were
I've just taken a look at my StrongARM chip and it is Rev-K :-(
Does this mean that when RiscOS4 comes out, that its function on my computer
will in some way be degraded? Or do the ROM patches still fix the problem?
And what is 'lazy task swapping' in any case?
Thanks to who ever answers!!
--
Jason Wolfe
jwo...@clara.net
http://www.jwolfe.clara.net
Manu_T
<URL:mailto:ge...@innocent.com> wrote:
> In message <ant21221...@whib.online.be>
> Manu_T <Man...@writeme.com> wrote:
>
> I don't know what the performance gain will be, but it might be noticable
> through greater responsivity. At the end of the day it just means that
> when applications are larger they should be more responsive than previously.
> Coupled with the general speed up across the system it should be nice.
>
So the majority (whom are having a rev K) will not benefit from a more
responisive desktop?
Justin Fletcher
Manu_T <Man...@writeme.com> wrote:
> In article <6e91ec848%Jus...@helen.winsley.org>, Justin Fletcher
> <URL:mailto:ge...@innocent.com> wrote:
> > In message <ant21221...@whib.online.be>
> > Manu_T <Man...@writeme.com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't know what the performance gain will be, but it might be noticable
> > through greater responsivity. At the end of the day it just means that
> > when applications are larger they should be more responsive than previously.
> > Coupled with the general speed up across the system it should be nice.
>
> So the majority (whom are having a rev K) will not benefit from a more
> responisive desktop?
Yes, but just not as responsive (I guess) as with rev T. I've not seen the
effect as I don't have a rev T, but the difference on my SA is quite
impressive I feel. Certainly taskwindows are one hell of a lot more
responsive and in general things 'feel' smoother. I can't put anything more
quantitive down, but the timings /out of the desktop/ in Doom+ were 20%+
higher (20% is my measurement for a 710 with Ursula; I forget what it was
for the SA, but it's a bit more than that).
Andy Edgeworth
>
> Actually, you *could* make 386s and low spec 486s run W95/98 adequately
> but this would require them to be used as network computers using Citrix
> Winframe etc. But I doubt you've done this,
>
>
I loaded Win 95 onto a 386 (took over 4HOURS!!!)
as a print server - worked a treat. Wouldn't do
anything else - at least nothing I could be
bothered to wait for...
--
Andy Edgeworth