The future of the RISC OS world
Alex Singleton
state of the RISC OS market and where I think it ought to move in the
future. This posting will be contentious, I'm sure, but the truth is
that I think the RISC OS world has been prioritising its efforts in the
wrong directions, with people having unrealistic views of what can be
achieved. I hope to challenge some assumptions here and welcome
feedback either here or by email.
There are four main approaches to the future of the RISC OS world:
1) Updated RISC OS on ARM-based hardware
2) Emulation
3) Adding RISC OS UI concepts to other operating systems
4) Moving RISC OS software to other platforms
1) Updated RISC OS on ARM-based hardware
This approach has been followed over the past eight years but
Microdigital and Riscstation have both found it too difficult to make
money out of it, and the Iyonix is five years old. The ARM processor is
being developed for embedded uses, rather than desktop PC use. The A9
is a nice addition but I doubt from now on we are going to see many new
ARM/RISC OS computers being brought to market, if any. In addition,
RISC OS Ltd is struggling to get out minor updates to the OS - there
are not enough paying customers to employ a full-time development team.
They can give the OS a new version number or two, but it doesn't mean
that major work is being done. Let's face it, this approach is coming
to the end of the road.
2) Emulation
This is now a better option than developing new ARM-based hardware
because you can take advantage of the performance offered by processors
designed for personal computer use. I know this will appaul some people
but the development costs are too high to keep bringing faster and
faster "native" ARM-based machines to market. Emulation means that
drivers for the latest graphics cards, printers etc don't have to be
written by the RISC OS market.
But emulation is a bit of a ghetto - in that the number of people using
it for serious use is going to decline year by year as people switch to
other software that runs directly on their machines.
(It would be nice also to see VirtualAcorn released for the Mac.)
3) Adding RISC OS UI concepts to other operating systems
This is the approach of ROX Desktop for Linux:
http://rox.sourceforge.net/desktop/static.html
It introduces draggable save as dialogue boxes like in RISC OS,
application directories and a RISC OS-style iconbar. I am not sure,
however, that it has really gained popularity and the concepts like
application directories have not taken off in the Linux work.
However, I think it's an area that perhaps should be looked at again.
Pathfinder for Mac OS X is a good example of people who wanted to
replace part of the Mac OS UI were able to - they created an
alternative to the the Mac OS Finder (the Filer on the Mac):
Those who prefer the RISC OS icon bar to the Mac dock could, I think
without too much difficulty, implement "Icon Bar for the Mac".
I wonder how difficult it would be to make Mac windows stay in the
position in the window stack when you click in them, a la RISC OS?
Richard Hallas has said: "I think that in terms of user experience, Mac
OS X is sort of halfway between RISC OS and Windows. It does have some
really nice and surprisingly RISC OS-like features that mean that,
overall, I do enjoy using it. But it also has some pretty brain-dead
features that make it regrettably Windows-like as well." (source:
http://www.iconbar.com/articles/Why_ex-RISC_OS_users_should_get_a_Mac/index1106.html#96225
). I suspect Richard and other users out there who would value a "RISC
OS UI Pack for Mac".
4) Moving RISC OS software to other platforms
According to Rich Goodwin (
http://www.iconbar.com/articles/Thats_just_sick_and_wrong/index1099.html
): "If someone were to get ArtWorks, Photodesk and StrongEd working in
Windows, I'd never switch my Risc PC on at all."
There are people who have been waiting patiently for Prophet Accounts
to come out for other platforms - it is being launched for Mac, Windows
and Linux in January. The approach the company has taken is to develop
in Java allowing them to serve multiple platforms.
The difficulty with the Unix Porting Project is that the size of the
RISC OS world doesn't generate enough cash to pay first class
programmers to spend all day every day programming. But porting from
RISC OS to other platforms makes much more sense than because there is
a much larger pool of potential customers.
There's a lot of software for RISC OS that nowadays that is rather
dated or where there are perfectly good programs for other platforms.
But it might be that StrongEd could usefully be ported, for example.
Ovation Pro is already available for Windows, but not Mac, and ArtWorks
is available as XaraExtreme for Windows and Linux and soon for Mac.
This approach of porting the best bits of the RISC OS software base has
not received enough attention. What programs do people really like from
the RISC OS world that have not been ported elsewhere?
Conclusion
The most ardent RISC OS users might dislike 3 and 4 but the fact is
that they are the only viable way to keep the best parts of the RISC OS
world alive. There are tens of thousands of ex-RISC OS users out there
for who using RISC OS itself is unviable, but - along with people
who've never used RISC OS - might just welcome ports of StrongEd or Zap.
As I argued on The Icon Bar (
http://www.iconbar.com/articles/Why_ex-RISC_OS_users_should_get_a_Mac/index1106.html
) many of the reasons people liked RISC OS are reasons people should
like the Mac. As Paul Vigay said when commenting on that piece, the
Mac's "underlying system is more reliable and secure than Windows".
What I'm suggesting is that if people really, truly value aspects of
the RISC OS world, we should recognise that schemes like RISC OS Select
aren't getting anywhere, major hardware development is unprofitable,
and a better approach would be to take the things people really like
and bring them over to the Mac.
--
Alex Singleton
http://www.alexsingleton.com/
diodesign
Alex Singleton wrote:
> There are four main approaches to the future of the RISC OS world:
>
> 1) Updated RISC OS on ARM-based hardware
> 2) Emulation
> 3) Adding RISC OS UI concepts to other operating systems
> 4) Moving RISC OS software to other platforms
5) Instead of wringing hands and worrying about the fate of RISC OS and
whether or not your friends are using it, spend the time instead on
writing documentation, finding and fixing bugs, adding features,
designing user interfaces, writing tutorials, updating websites and
webpages, blogging development of applications, buying products and
upgrades, and generally getting stuck into helping RISC OS rather than
worrying about it.
2007 will be decided on how much participation and team work we can get
from users, developers and everyone in between. Given the power of the
Internet, with mailing lists, forums, development trackers and blogs,
we don't have any excuses :)
Just my view.
Chris.
Andrew Hill
> As I argued on The Icon Bar (
> http://www.iconbar.com/articles/Why_ex-RISC_OS_users_should_get_a_Mac/index1106.html
> ) many of the reasons people liked RISC OS are reasons people should
> like the Mac. As Paul Vigay said when commenting on that piece, the
> Mac's "underlying system is more reliable and secure than Windows". What
> I'm suggesting is that if people really, truly value aspects of the RISC
> OS world, we should recognise that schemes like RISC OS Select aren't
> getting anywhere, major hardware development is unprofitable, and a
> better approach would be to take the things people really like and bring
> them over to the Mac.
Shouldn't this have been posted to comp.sys.apple.* as 'What I'd like to
see on Mac OS'? Your own website's logo at the bottom 'Made on a Mac'
kind of gives it away ;-).
Best wishes,
Drew
Alex Singleton
> Shouldn't this have been posted to comp.sys.apple.* as 'What I'd like
> to see on Mac OS'? Your own website's logo at the bottom 'Made on a
> Mac' kind of gives it away ;-).
Well of course your post was from Thunderbird for Windows - the fact is
that most people who are nominally part of the RISC OS world are using
other computer platforms for much if not most of their computing needs.
I just think there needs to be some honesty about the future of the
RISC OS world, rather than people engaging in wishful thinking like
people have seen with RISC OS Select, the Omega, the monthly Qercus
magazine etc. There are valuable things out there - like StrongEd. They
can either become relevant for the post-Acorn world or languish in
obscurity. I for one would like to see the best parts of the RISC OS
world find themselves popularised further afield.
For what it's worth, I actually think that Windows rather than the Mac
is more in need of a StrongEd port. I do miss StrongEd but SubEthaEdit
on the Mac has quite a number of nice features including the very
useful multi-line editing that I worshipped in StrongEd. Conversely, I
seem to be stuck using the dreadful Notepad on Windows.
Rob Kendrick
> There are valuable things out there - like StrongEd. They
> can either become relevant for the post-Acorn world or languish in
> obscurity. I for one would like to see the best parts of the RISC OS
> world find themselves popularised further afield.
>
> For what it's worth, I actually think that Windows rather than the Mac
> is more in need of a StrongEd port.
If you think a port is even in the remotest bit possible, you have a
complete misunderstanding of the technical issues, to such an extent that
your opinions suddenly have a lot less weight.
I do miss StrongEd but SubEthaEdit
> on the Mac has quite a number of nice features including the very
> useful multi-line editing that I worshipped in StrongEd. Conversely, I
> seem to be stuck using the dreadful Notepad on Windows.
This is as bad as being stuck with the dreadful !Edit on RISC OS. There
are plenty of very fine text editors available for Windows, much like
there are on other platforms: several of which are vastly superior to
anything you'll find on RISC OS.
B.
David
Alex Singleton <alex.si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2006-12-27 01:10:43 +0000, Andrew Hill <us...@example.net> said:
>
>> Shouldn't this have been posted to comp.sys.apple.* as 'What I'd like
>> to see on Mac OS'? Your own website's logo at the bottom 'Made on a
>> Mac' kind of gives it away ;-).
>
> Well of course your post was from Thunderbird for Windows - the fact is
> that most people who are nominally part of the RISC OS world are using
> other computer platforms for much if not most of their computing needs.
snipped...
I use RISC OS for 90% of my computer needs, very neatly integrated
with Windows systems in my school. Unfortunately I still have to use
Risc PCs rather than Iyonix, but am managing OK. The Local Authority
sends material in Word and PDF format, occasionally in Excel. There is
no problem at all in accessing the material and sending information
back - it doesn't matter to them what system I use.
I develop a lot of teaching material using Textease Studio Plus, and
it is much easier to develop in RISC OS rather than in Windows (drag
and drop and the filing system particularly). And yes, I am an
experienced user of Windows too - but I just use the right tools for
the job.
Where will RISC OS go in 2007. A very difficult question. Without the
ability to print from a web page or access Flash animation and
interactivity, RISC OS is going nowhere in the education world. In a
web and communication centred world, RISC OS is an also ran. But in
areas such as graphics and publishing, as far as my use is concerned
RISC OS still cuts it.
All, of course, IMHO
Best wishes
--
Dave Wisnia, Leeds, UK
Stuart
David <ds...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> Where will RISC OS go in 2007. A very difficult question. Without the
> ability to print from a web page
???
I find printing a web page easy enough and Fresco's ability to select
which bits don't get printed a godsend.
Printing can also easily be accomplished using other apps too - save as
text, save as draw, save as HTML (admittedly without the images) and save
the image.
Printing a map from Multimap is a doddle - select printable version - save
the image to a temporary directory and then drag it over a Fresco window
then print. Result - just a map without any of the other garbage printed
out
I don't think even the windows boys have yet come up with a method of
printing flash animations.
--
Stuart Winsor
From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.
For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk
Alex Singleton
> 5) Instead of wringing hands and worrying about the fate of RISC OS and
> whether or not your friends are using it, spend the time instead on
> writing documentation, finding and fixing bugs, adding features,
> designing user interfaces, writing tutorials, updating websites and
> webpages, blogging development of applications, buying products and
> upgrades, and generally getting stuck into helping RISC OS rather than
> worrying about it.
My point is that that approach is failing and will continue to fail.
It's a bit lile Nick Leeson, the man who brought down Barings Bank, as
portrayed in Rogue Trader: he thinks that he if he trades against the
market, he'll gain enough momentum to change the direction the market
is going in - but he can't because he's trading against the market and
he doesn't have enough resources. There are not enough people doing
RISC OS programming any more, and the truth is that regardless of what
anyone who reads this newsgroup does, there will be fewer RISC OS user
twelve months from now than today.
According to Paul Vigay, Zap "is the primary reason why I could never
switch to Mac OS as a replacement to RISC OS". Yet the reality is that
most people have already switched for the majority of their computer
use to Mac or Windows, if not entirely. Over the past decade, RISC OS
users have voted with their feet and moved to other platforms, many
retaining fond memories of particular RISC OS packages. That being the
case, is it better for the likes of Zap and StrongEd to be left in a
ghetto, or to see the best of RISC OS brought out for other platforms?
The Mac is more like RISC OS than Windows - yet most ex-RISC OS users
have doubtless switched to Windows, which I think is a shame. And I
think it's a good thing that packages like Sibelius and soon Prophet
will run on the Mac.
Bringing favoured RISC OS user interface features and favoured RISC OS
apps to Mac OS will involve less work and be more economically viable
than bringing moden OS facilities (e.g. pre-emptive multitasting) and
all the application software we want (OpenOffice and thousands of other
titles) to RISC OS itself.
Alex Singleton
> If you think a port is even in the remotest bit possible, you have a
> complete misunderstanding of the technical issues, to such an extent that
> your opinions suddenly have a lot less weight.
I recognise that it's written in assembler and would need rewriting in
a different language. A quick visit to dictionary.com informs me that a
port is:
"to create a new version of (an application program) to run on a
different hardware platform"
So I think my use of the word is OK.
druck
> Well of course your post was from Thunderbird for Windows - the fact is
> that most people who are nominally part of the RISC OS world are using
> other computer platforms for much if not most of their computing needs.
Certainly not.
I don't normally have anything non RISC OS in the house, but over Christmas
I've borrowed an OQO ultra mobile PC from the office to web browse wirelessly
instead of getting out of bed.
Now the thing doesn't work too badly for web browsing, Firefox 2 runs at a
decent speed (faster than the Iyonix version) even on batteries where the
things Crueso is only operating at 300MHz (still gets almost too hot to hold),
but is severely let down by the slowness of XP. Lanuching applications takes
an age (leading to accidental multiple lauches), and even opening new windows
on apps such as Genini is far too slow - and thats on mains when its doing
1GHz, frying fingers and making a noise like a power drill.
I've had a few nights web browsing, but I've also had to spend an evening
working out why the internal speaker just stopped working, another trying to
turn cleartype back on after that just stopped working, an another trying to
get Google Earth to work but it wouldn't. The only thing its been able to do
that I couldn't on RISC OS is waste another evening viewing crap videos on
youtube.
The moral of the story, is if you want something doing without having to fix
the machine first or get distracted by crap, or frustrated by manky excuse
for an OS, its quicker to get out of bed and use RISC OS.
FUs to csa.advocacy
---druck
--
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
Ben Shimmin
> On 2006-12-27 01:10:43 +0000, Andrew Hill <us...@example.net> said:
>
>> Shouldn't this have been posted to comp.sys.apple.* as 'What I'd like
>> to see on Mac OS'? Your own website's logo at the bottom 'Made on a
>> Mac' kind of gives it away ;-).
>
> Well of course your post was from Thunderbird for Windows - the fact is
> that most people who are nominally part of the RISC OS world are using
> other computer platforms for much if not most of their computing needs.
> I just think there needs to be some honesty about the future of the
> RISC OS world, rather than people engaging in wishful thinking like
> people have seen with RISC OS Select, the Omega, the monthly Qercus
> magazine etc. There are valuable things out there - like StrongEd. They
> can either become relevant for the post-Acorn world or languish in
> obscurity. I for one would like to see the best parts of the RISC OS
> world find themselves popularised further afield.
MONG MONG MONG
> For what it's worth, I actually think that Windows rather than the Mac
> is more in need of a StrongEd port. I do miss StrongEd but SubEthaEdit
> on the Mac has quite a number of nice features including the very
> useful multi-line editing that I worshipped in StrongEd. Conversely, I
> seem to be stuck using the dreadful Notepad on Windows.
MONG MONG MONG
--
<b...@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
`Mother died today. Or maybe yesterday, I don't know.'
-- Albert Camus, _L'Etranger_
george
David <ds...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> In message <2006122701451064440-alexsingleton@gmailcom>
> Alex Singleton <alex.si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2006-12-27 01:10:43 +0000, Andrew Hill <us...@example.net> said:
[snip]
>>
>> Well of course your post was from Thunderbird for Windows - the fact is
>> that most people who are nominally part of the RISC OS world are using
>> other computer platforms for much if not most of their computing needs.
> snipped...
>
> I use RISC OS for 90% of my computer needs,
As do I...
[snip]
>
> Where will RISC OS go in 2007. A very difficult question. Without the
> ability to print from a web page or access Flash animation and
> interactivity, RISC OS is going nowhere in the education world. In a
> web and communication centred world, RISC OS is an also ran.
[snip]
I heartily agree. With Peter Naulls' continued work on the Firefox
port and the ongoing development of Netsurf I feel a lot more
confident about the browser issue. The thing that keeps making it
necessary for me to switch on my PC laptop is the absence of a Flash
plugin, and this is where I hope porting efforts in 2007 will be
concentrated. A RealPlayer port would be terrific, but no doubt the
licensing and hardware issues are formidable; a Flash port is
hopefully do-able.
George
--
dom news
"Alex Singleton" <alex.si...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2006122623421637709-alexsingleton@gmailcom...
> Another year is nearly over and I have been thinking about the current
> state of the RISC OS market and where I think it ought to move in the
> future. This posting will be contentious, I'm sure, but the truth is that
> I think the RISC OS world has been prioritising its efforts in the wrong
> directions, with people having unrealistic views of what can be achieved.
> I hope to challenge some assumptions here and welcome feedback either here
> or by email.
>
> There are four main approaches to the future of the RISC OS world:
>
> 1) Updated RISC OS on ARM-based hardware
> 2) Emulation
> 3) Adding RISC OS UI concepts to other operating systems
> 4) Moving RISC OS software to other platforms
>
>
5) Open/Shared/Whatever source RISC OS and port it to other hardware
- there are plenty of (ARM) platforms out there crying out to be ported to
ROL / Castle for whatever reasons cannot afford to do this commercially.
Whilst I hold no candle for either organisation, them giving up control
of some / all of their IP would be better for them than the proposed
options 3 or 4! Difficulty is doing this profitably and to a degree that
is useful
Cheers
Dom
[snip]
John Cartmell
Alex Singleton <alex.si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the fact is that most people who are nominally part of the RISC OS world
> are using other computer platforms for much if not most of their computing
> needs.
The fact is that you're guessing. Like most guesses of this kind it probably
has much (if not most) of its input from those posting to internet groups or
lists. It's a biassed view.
It's wrong.
The RISC OS community needs RISC OS on ARM.
RISC OS emulation can help.
Many (most?) people using RISC OS on ARM use RISC OS as their main computing
platform or as their main (only) platform of choice outside work.
--
John Cartmell jo...@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
Nick Boalch
[snip]
> However, to date, I have yet to find even a single editor which is even 10%
> as nice as Zap to use. There simply isn't one - or if anyone says there is,
> then they're obviously not a *power* user, or don't do (for example) web
> design on the move.
Zap was certainly the application I missed most from RISC OS when I first
stopped using it.
However, I've adapted almost fully to (g)Vim now -- there is something of a
learning curve, including getting used to fully modal editing, but once you
get the hang of it it's similarly powerful to Zap.
It also has the advantage of being cross-platform: there's a port to RISC OS
of version 6.3, maintained by Andy Wingate, and although the rest of the
world is up to a stable version 7.0 now vim 6.3 is nevertheless eminently
usable.
Cheers,
N.
--
Nick Boalch <URL:http://nick.frejol.org/>
Ams
<snip>
>
>
> 1) Updated RISC OS on ARM-based hardware
>
> This approach has been followed over the past eight years but
> Microdigital and Riscstation have both found it too difficult to make
> money out of it, and the Iyonix is five years old. The ARM processor is
> being developed for embedded uses, rather than desktop PC use. The A9
> is a nice addition but I doubt from now on we are going to see many new
> ARM/RISC OS computers being brought to market, if any. In addition,
> RISC OS Ltd is struggling to get out minor updates to the OS - there
> are not enough paying customers to employ a full-time development team.
> They can give the OS a new version number or two, but it doesn't mean
> that major work is being done. Let's face it, this approach is coming
> to the end of the road.
Some of that Alex is, with respect, a selective reading of what
happened. Microdigital promised hardware before it was ready, had lots
of depositors and then failed to complete the project in a timely
manner. If they *had* done so, they *would* have made money.
The "opening" up of RISC OS suggests an avenue where further OS
development *can* occur without the hardware vendors stumping up money
they don't have. As to the ARM being aimed at "embedded uses" some of
those are *not* low performance. Multicore ARMs are used in high
performance cards (such as ones from nVidia), ARM have also (for the
first time) encouraged the use of larger caches (which clock for clock
will give better performance than any existing RISC OS desktop
machines).
Now is *not* the time to drop out of ARM native development - IMHO.
>
>
> 2) Emulation
>
> This is now a better option than developing new ARM-based hardware
> because you can take advantage of the performance offered by processors
> designed for personal computer use. I know this will appaul some people
> but the development costs are too high to keep bringing faster and
> faster "native" ARM-based machines to market. Emulation means that
> drivers for the latest graphics cards, printers etc don't have to be
> written by the RISC OS market.
>
Emulation is a dead end, much beloved of such cutting edge machines
like the ZX Spectrum and Commodore 64. If *no one* buys (or if few
people buy) native ARM hardware then it will become too expensive to
develope for - but then why persist with it at all. If a platform is
dead (which is basically what platforms are when they can only exist
under emulation) then it's dead and it's time to move one (IMHO).
By the way I don't think we've reached that point... yet.
> But emulation is a bit of a ghetto - in that the number of people using
> it for serious use is going to decline year by year as people switch to
> other software that runs directly on their machines.
>
> (It would be nice also to see VirtualAcorn released for the Mac.)
>
So let's *not* go emulation then. You can't argue *for* emulation and
then at the same time argue that it's a ghetto.
As to VA on the Mac so what? The Mac is now a PC (like the Windows ones
same hardware), why not bite the bullet and use Windows (and VARPC)?
>
> 3) Adding RISC OS UI concepts to other operating systems
>
> This is the approach of ROX Desktop for Linux:
>
> http://rox.sourceforge.net/desktop/static.html
>
> It introduces draggable save as dialogue boxes like in RISC OS,
> application directories and a RISC OS-style iconbar. I am not sure,
> however, that it has really gained popularity and the concepts like
> application directories have not taken off in the Linux work.
>
>From a RISC OS user's perspective (mine) so what ? If Linux users like,
dislike drag-n-drop or applications directories is very much neither
here or there. At the end of the day if they accept it they'll think
"wow just how cool Linux is for doing this" rather than "oh that came
from RISC OS how cool...".
>
> http://www.cocoatech.com/pf4/
>
> Those who prefer the RISC OS icon bar to the Mac dock could, I think
> without too much difficulty, implement "Icon Bar for the Mac".
>
> I wonder how difficult it would be to make Mac windows stay in the
> position in the window stack when you click in them, a la RISC OS?
>
Again as a RISC OS user why in the name of blue Hades would I care if
Mac OS has windows that stay in position or not.
<snip>
> 4) Moving RISC OS software to other platforms
>
> According to Rich Goodwin (
> http://www.iconbar.com/articles/Thats_just_sick_and_wrong/index1099.html
> ): "If someone were to get ArtWorks, Photodesk and StrongEd working in
> Windows, I'd never switch my Risc PC on at all."
>
In short to kill off the RISC OS platform get the native software
running on another platform. Why should we want this? Surely that's
just plain silly.
> There are people who have been waiting patiently for Prophet Accounts
> to come out for other platforms - it is being launched for Mac, Windows
> and Linux in January. The approach the company has taken is to develop
> in Java allowing them to serve multiple platforms.
>
Java? So will thes same code run on RISC OS as well or just in Mac,
Windows and Linux? Or do RISC OS users now suffer the indignity of
having to use Prophet Accounts in a form that will never be further
developed because it doesn't run under the latest version of Java?
Besides these platforms *already* have their own native applications
that do that job pretty well, I doubt if Sage will be quaking in their
boots at the thought of Prophet Accounts entering the fray....
> The difficulty with the Unix Porting Project is that the size of the
> RISC OS world doesn't generate enough cash to pay first class
> programmers to spend all day every day programming. But porting from
> RISC OS to other platforms makes much more sense than because there is
> a much larger pool of potential customers.
>
Firefox 2 has just been ported *from* Linux to RISC OS by Peter Naulls
surely that shows that there *is* a viable means of using Linux
software native under RISC OS.
Additionally I'd suspect it costs a programmer money whether they
program for RISC OS or try to retarget their code from RISC OS to
Windows or Mac OS or Linux. The rewards for doing this are by no means
certain.
> There's a lot of software for RISC OS that nowadays that is rather
> dated or where there are perfectly good programs for other platforms.
> But it might be that StrongEd could usefully be ported, for example.
> Ovation Pro is already available for Windows, but not Mac, and ArtWorks
> is available as XaraExtreme for Windows and Linux and soon for Mac.
>
That helps other platforms - not RISC OS.
If I were porting code to *another* platform it certainly wouldn't be
for Mac (and possibly not Linux) but for Windows. That's the
predominant OS, it's where to aim for if you're porting stuff. That's
not to say Mac OS or Linux don't merit support - but rather would they
*pay* for such development - answer probably not.
> This approach of porting the best bits of the RISC OS software base has
> not received enough attention. What programs do people really like from
> the RISC OS world that have not been ported elsewhere?
>
That's because it's a mindnumbingly stupid thing to do. If your
platform has *any* even marginal advantage giving it away to other
platforms gains you nothing - and in fact makes it easier - and even
more likely to sap away your few remaining RISC OS users onto other
platforms.
>
> Conclusion
>
> The most ardent RISC OS users might dislike 3 and 4 but the fact is
> that they are the only viable way to keep the best parts of the RISC OS
> world alive. There are tens of thousands of ex-RISC OS users out there
> for who using RISC OS itself is unviable, but - along with people
> who've never used RISC OS - might just welcome ports of StrongEd or Zap.
>
Most of those tens-of-thousands of ex-RISC OS users have left and never
looked back. What they do makes absolutely *no* difference to RISC OS
as they're unlikely to come back (and certainly won't do so if their
favourite RISC OS apps are moved to Windows, Mac OS X or Linux).
The trust of what you propose while a useful intellectual exercize
simply shows porting to other platforms apps from RISC OS would simply
kill RISC OS. That emulation is *not* a solution (and the emulation you
get (Windows) may not be the one you want). That RISC OS problems need
(i). Clear, consise effective development of the native OS and (ii) The
development of newer hardware. What you propose does neither and sounds
like a dead end.
Regards
Annraoi
Adam
Alex Singleton wrote:
> On 2006-12-27 00:44:38 +0000, "diodesign" <diod...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > 5) Instead of wringing hands and worrying about the fate of RISC OS and
> > whether or not your friends are using it, spend the time instead on
> > writing documentation, finding and fixing bugs, adding features,
> > designing user interfaces, writing tutorials, updating websites and
> > webpages, blogging development of applications, buying products and
> > upgrades, and generally getting stuck into helping RISC OS rather than
> > worrying about it.
>
> My point is that that approach is failing and will continue to fail.
> It's a bit lile Nick Leeson, the man who brought down Barings Bank, as
> portrayed in Rogue Trader:
Come on now, it's nothing like that at all.
> he thinks that he if he trades against the
> market, he'll gain enough momentum to change the direction the market
> is going in - but he can't because he's trading against the market and
> he doesn't have enough resources.
Nick Leeson was playing a win-lose game - either he won or the entire
rest of the market won. As you describe - unsurprisingly he lost!
The RISC OS market is not like that because it doesn't need to "win" at
the expense of Windows or MacOS or Linux or AmigaOS or whateverOS.
There's plenty of resource to go round - it's just a case of providing
things people want (as obliquely referred to by Chris).
> There are not enough people doing RISC OS programming any more,
Depends what you mean by "enough".
> and the truth
"the" truth? Your "truth" presumably ;-)
> is that regardless of what
> anyone who reads this newsgroup does, there will be fewer RISC OS user
> twelve months from now than today.
I don't think that's necersarily true. There is an intermitant drip of
ex-users coming back to investigate and I suspect those of us still
hanging around have already found ways to survive in a minority
platform (e.g. in my case I split my time between RISC OS and Windows)
so don't have any particular reason to leave.
[snip discussion of applications]
> Bringing favoured RISC OS user interface features and favoured RISC OS
> apps to Mac OS will involve less work and be more economically viable
> than bringing moden OS facilities (e.g. pre-emptive multitasting) and
> all the application software we want (OpenOffice and thousands of other
> titles) to RISC OS itself.
I think you're missing a fundamental point. No amount of porting of
applications would ever replicate the "look and /feel/" of RISC OS. In
fact, I suspect trying to shoe-horn RISC OS-designed apps into another
OS paradigm might end up with the worst of both worlds!
Adam
Andrew Hill
> On 2006-12-27 01:10:43 +0000, Andrew Hill <us...@example.net> said:
>
>> Shouldn't this have been posted to comp.sys.apple.* as 'What I'd like
>> to see on Mac OS'? Your own website's logo at the bottom 'Made on a
>> Mac' kind of gives it away ;-).
>
> Well of course your post was from Thunderbird for Windows - the fact is
> that most people who are nominally part of the RISC OS world are using
> other computer platforms for much if not most of their computing needs.
Indeedy. But I have my reasons for doing that. I actually prefer
Messenger Pro (and on my job list is setting up M Pro as a mail server
on the A9...) But if you want to develop software on RISC OS and do
'other things' simultaneously, I'd recommend not testing your software
on the machine you use for your normal stuff - so I use my PC for my web
browser / email as a permanent connection whilst I'm doing programming
stuff on the A9... Two A9s would do the job equally well, but I need the
PC for Access and Powerpoint for work stuff, so if it's going to exist
it might as well be used for something - and even a Mac isn't going to
solve my Access problems ;-). That's not need (I /could/ use M Pro +
Netsurf / FF2), it's practicality: if I developed anything low-level on
a PC, you can bet I'd be using two PCs (in fact I used to use two PCs in
the days when I did serious programming, and that was only fairly
high-level database app stuff!!!)
I acknowledge that for certain applications you must look outside of
RISC OS land. However, that doesn't mean I would advocate your approach
to 'port everything to (insert favourite OS name here)' as that defeats
the whole point of why people like RISC OS in the first place - for the
OS. That argument rolls easily into 'why not port everything to Windows,
because it's got a far bigger userbase than anything else, then we could
have everything on one OS'.
Best wishes,
Drew
Ray Dawson
> In article <2006122701451064440-alexsingleton@gmailcom>,
> Alex Singleton <alex.si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > the fact is that most people who are nominally part of the RISC OS
> > world are using other computer platforms for much if not most of their
> > computing needs.
>
> The fact is that you're guessing. Like most guesses of this kind it
> probably has much (if not most) of its input from those posting to
> internet groups or lists. It's a biassed view.
But is probably a pretty good guess.
> It's wrong.
Your opinion, but as usual, not in touch with reality.
> The RISC OS community needs RISC OS on ARM.
The RISC OS community needs RISC OS on anything which will run it. Relying
on ARM hardware will not encourage software writers to produce new
packages for the small ARM hardware market.
> RISC OS emulation can help.
I would think emulation could possibly outstrip the numbers running RISC
OS on ARM hardware. I would like to know the approximate current ratio of
VRPC and VA5000 compared to users of post Risc PC machines.
> Many (most?) people using RISC OS on ARM use RISC OS as their main
> computing platform or as their main (only) platform of choice outside
> work.
I note that you say 'outside work' - which reinforces Alex's assertion
above that most RISC OS users also use other platforms for much of their
computing needs /mainly at work/.
I think it fair to say that virtually all RISC OS users who are in paid
employment which involves the use of computers actually use another
platform most of the time. Some self-employed with limited requirements
may use RISC OS only but, in the main, companies use Windows.
Apart from a few diehards, RISC OS has become a hobbyist platform which
many like to use in their leisure time, rather than the platform which
they have to use at work.
Cheers,
Ray D
Chris Hughes
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <2006122701451064440-alexsingleton@gmailcom>,
> Alex Singleton <alex.si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> the fact is that most people who are nominally part of the RISC OS world
>> are using other computer platforms for much if not most of their computing
>> needs.
>
> The fact is that you're guessing. Like most guesses of this kind it probably
> has much (if not most) of its input from those posting to internet groups or
> lists. It's a biassed view.
Its his point of view and probably of a fair number of other people.
Nearly *all views* are biassed in one way or another!
>
> It's wrong.
Please tell us why?. Why is his view wrong and yours correct. You have
no idea! You are guessing as well and hoping like mad he is wrong.
Maybe he is and maybe he is not.
You are being so 'know it all' again.
>
> The RISC OS community needs RISC OS on ARM.
In your opinion, not everyone agrees (note before some parties start
attacking me - I am neither agreeing or disagreeing)
> RISC OS emulation can help.
In your opinion, not everyone agrees (note before some parties start
attacking me - I am neither agreeing or disagreeing)
> Many (most?) people using RISC OS on ARM use RISC OS as their main computing
> platform or as their main (only) platform of choice outside work.
I suspect you would be wrong, but thats *my* opinion. RISC OS for me
is slowly dying. Its not the OS, its the lack of certain software and
addon's such as printers, scanners, etc.. That work directly on RISC
OS.
--
Chris Hughes
Ams
Alex Singleton wrote:
> On 2006-12-27 00:44:38 +0000, "diodesign" <diod...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > 5) Instead of wringing hands and worrying about the fate of RISC OS and
> > whether or not your friends are using it, spend the time instead on
> > writing documentation, finding and fixing bugs, adding features,
> > designing user interfaces, writing tutorials, updating websites and
> > webpages, blogging development of applications, buying products and
> > upgrades, and generally getting stuck into helping RISC OS rather than
> > worrying about it.
>
Chris makes some valid points there.
> My point is that that approach is failing and will continue to fail.
How can actively supporting RISC OS, buying products and upgrades cause
failure? It will surely have *some* positives, not least further
development.
> It's a bit lile Nick Leeson, the man who brought down Barings Bank, as
> portrayed in Rogue Trader: he thinks that he if he trades against the
> market, he'll gain enough momentum to change the direction the market
Not another "market knows best" types !!!!!
Follow the logic of that Alex and ask yourself "why did I bother to buy
a Mac when it's a market dead-end and I've been better off opting for
the market leader Windows". Seems like your *own* selection of platform
disregards the "market". Why should *we* as RISC OS users follow a
course of action you didn't follow yourself?
> There are not enough people doing
> RISC OS programming any more, and the truth is that regardless of what
> anyone who reads this newsgroup does, there will be fewer RISC OS user
> twelve months from now than today.
Actually with a Christmas day release of Firefox by Peter Naulls (one
developer), it seems that a lot can be done by a few dedicated
developers. I'd also point out that you want most of those scarce RISC
OS developers porting their code to another OS (be it Windows, Linux or
Mac OSX). To me that sounds like a waste of time and resources, it also
ignores the wishes of the Developer surely (or do they get to choose
too?).
>
> According to Paul Vigay, Zap "is the primary reason why I could never
> switch to Mac OS as a replacement to RISC OS". Yet the reality is that
> most people have already switched for the majority of their computer
> use to Mac or Windows, if not entirely. Over the past decade, RISC OS
> users have voted with their feet and moved to other platforms,
Enough remain though to justify your pro-Mac postings. These users
haven't gone anywhere yet - in all truth you'll find that there's
probably a lower-limit/bedrock of supports who'll remain. You're trying
to persuade these to switch to the Mac.... rather than trying as Chris
suggested and doing something *positive* for the RISC OS platform.
> The Mac is more like RISC OS than Windows - yet most ex-RISC OS users
> have doubtless switched to Windows, which I think is a shame. And I
> think it's a good thing that packages like Sibelius and soon Prophet
> will run on the Mac.
RISC OS is even more like RISC OS though !
What runs/doesn't run on the Mac is of complete indifference to me, my
only interest is what effect would something running on Mac OS have on
RISC OS. If porting every single last RISC OS app to Mac OS X happened
I can only imagine it would damage RISC OS.
>
> Bringing favoured RISC OS user interface features and favoured RISC OS
> apps to Mac OS will involve less work and be more economically viable
> than bringing moden OS facilities (e.g. pre-emptive multitasting) and
> all the application software we want (OpenOffice and thousands of other
> titles) to RISC OS itself.
>
The whole point of MacOS (and a thing Steve Jobs and Steve Wosniak
wisely insisted on from the start) was that the OS is consistent.
Simply lumping RISC OS "quirks" onto it would make it inconsistent. As
such it would, I suspect, be unfavourably received by native Mac users.
As to most RISC OS users it would still be somewhat distant environment
and equally unwelcome. You'd just use up valuable developer time on a
project few RISC OS or Apple users would want.
Perhaps you should sound out Mac OS users on how *they* would react,
after all if they don't want it (or more importantly if Apple don't
want it) would the case be as economically viable then?
In truth it appears to me that you've gone Mac and you want everyone in
the RISC OS community to support that and do likewise. Why should your
OS selection depend on others? If Mac OS is the right choice for you -
fine - but why expect others to automatically think likewise?
Regards
Annraoi
diodesign
Alex Singleton wrote:
> On 2006-12-27 00:44:38 +0000, "diodesign" <diod...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > 5) Instead of wringing hands and worrying about the fate of RISC OS and
> > whether or not your friends are using it, spend the time instead on
> > writing documentation, finding and fixing bugs, adding features,
> > designing user interfaces, writing tutorials, updating websites and
> > webpages, blogging development of applications, buying products and
> > upgrades, and generally getting stuck into helping RISC OS rather than
> > worrying about it.
>
> My point is that that approach is failing and will continue to fail.
Only if people don't participate and instead turn to defeatist theories
like 'port everything to x86'. It's bonkers for the simple reason given
below.
> Bringing favoured RISC OS user interface features and favoured RISC OS
> apps to Mac OS will
...be more work than realising new developments natively on RISC OS.
It's been shown that a Realplayer port is achievable if someone puts in
the time, a Gnash Flash player port has been started and is in the
GCCSDK autobuilder, it's now trivial to implement virtual memory on
RISC OS 6, and so on.
It's bonkers to think these will take more effort to finish than
porting software tied to RISC OS to an alien platform. If porting these
was easy, there wouldn't be the need for emulation.
We all know RISC OS has its problems and is missing stuff other
platforms have. It's why I happily use a modest Mac, a Linux PC and an
ARM Linux server alongside a RiscPC and an A9home.
All in my view.
Chris.
Chris Hughes
"Ams" <a...@globalcafe.ie> wrote:
>
> Alex Singleton wrote:
>> On 2006-12-27 00:44:38 +0000, "diodesign" <diod...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>> > 5) Instead of wringing hands and worrying about the fate of RISC OS and
>> > whether or not your friends are using it, spend the time instead on
>> > writing documentation, finding and fixing bugs, adding features,
>> > designing user interfaces, writing tutorials, updating websites and
>> > webpages, blogging development of applications, buying products and
>> > upgrades, and generally getting stuck into helping RISC OS rather than
>> > worrying about it.
>>
>
> Chris makes some valid points there.
True he has some valid points.
>
>> My point is that that approach is failing and will continue to fail.
>
> How can actively supporting RISC OS, buying products and upgrades cause
> failure? It will surely have *some* positives, not least further
> development.
Err are you suggesting we just go and buy every upgrade etc even if we
don't actually want the software offered?
Therein lies one of the problems, what software is available and
whether people want it and does it do enough for *them*, or can they
get better elsewhere.
You use the tool (software in this case) for the job, regardless of
OS.
>> It's a bit lile Nick Leeson, the man who brought down Barings Bank, as
>> portrayed in Rogue Trader: he thinks that he if he trades against the
>> market, he'll gain enough momentum to change the direction the market
>
> Not another "market knows best" types !!!!!
>
> Follow the logic of that Alex and ask yourself "why did I bother to buy
> a Mac when it's a market dead-end and I've been better off opting for
> the market leader Windows". Seems like your *own* selection of platform
> disregards the "market". Why should *we* as RISC OS users follow a
> course of action you didn't follow yourself?
All I will say here is consider the fact there are still thousands
more Mac users and thus a much bigger market and income from them then
there is in the whole RISC OS market.
>> There are not enough people doing
>> RISC OS programming any more, and the truth is that regardless of what
>> anyone who reads this newsgroup does, there will be fewer RISC OS user
>> twelve months from now than today.
>
> Actually with a Christmas day release of Firefox by Peter Naulls (one
> developer), it seems that a lot can be done by a few dedicated
> developers. I'd also point out that you want most of those scarce RISC
> OS developers porting their code to another OS (be it Windows, Linux or
> Mac OSX). To me that sounds like a waste of time and resources, it also
> ignores the wishes of the Developer surely (or do they get to choose
> too?).
While that is true for the shareware/public domain software - and some
is very good indeed. Its commercial software that helps the market
grow, and they are rather thin on the ground at the moment, sadly.
People like David Pilling no longer feel there is any market left in
the RISC OS arena and now writing Windows and shortly Linux software.
>>
>> According to Paul Vigay, Zap "is the primary reason why I could never
>> switch to Mac OS as a replacement to RISC OS". Yet the reality is that
>> most people have already switched for the majority of their computer
>> use to Mac or Windows, if not entirely. Over the past decade, RISC OS
>> users have voted with their feet and moved to other platforms,
>
> Enough remain though to justify your pro-Mac postings. These users
> haven't gone anywhere yet - in all truth you'll find that there's
> probably a lower-limit/bedrock of supports who'll remain. You're trying
> to persuade these to switch to the Mac.... rather than trying as Chris
> suggested and doing something *positive* for the RISC OS platform.
You are reading this as an anti RISC OS series of postings its not!
Its trying to say we need to open our eyes a little and look at the
big bad world out there and see its moved on.
I still use RISC OS for various things, other things I use one of my
PCs for, in other words I iuse the best tool for the job. Currently
RISC OS gets the job for email and newsletters.
>
>> The Mac is more like RISC OS than Windows - yet most ex-RISC OS users
>> have doubtless switched to Windows, which I think is a shame. And I
>> think it's a good thing that packages like Sibelius and soon Prophet
>> will run on the Mac.
>
> RISC OS is even more like RISC OS though !
>
> What runs/doesn't run on the Mac is of complete indifference to me, my
> only interest is what effect would something running on Mac OS have on
> RISC OS. If porting every single last RISC OS app to Mac OS X happened
> I can only imagine it would damage RISC OS.
RISC OS / Mac OS and indeed all the other OS's as such will be dead
within 10 years I predict anyway.
[snip]
--
Chris Hughes
John Cartmell
<ch...@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <4e9bbbb...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> John Cartmell
> <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <2006122701451064440-alexsingleton@gmailcom>, Alex Singleton
> > <alex.si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> the fact is that most people who are nominally part of the RISC OS world
> >> are using other computer platforms for much if not most of their
> >> computing needs.
> >
> > The fact is that you're guessing. Like most guesses of this kind it
> > probably has much (if not most) of its input from those posting to
> > internet groups or lists. It's a biassed view.
> Its his point of view and probably of a fair number of other people.
> Nearly *all views* are biassed in one way or another!
True.
> > It's wrong.
> Please tell us why?. Why is his view wrong and yours correct. You have no
> idea! You are guessing as well and hoping like mad he is wrong. Maybe he
> is and maybe he is not.
Guess: he is basing his assumptions on internet feedback.
Certain: I am basing my views on internet feedback *and* feedback that I get
iro Qercus, *and* feedback from knowledge of sales of RISC OS hardware.
> You are being so 'know it all' again.
If his guesses are based only on internet feedback then his guesses are badly
skewed and wrong. That has been tested time after time in analogous enquiries.
If it's more widely based I'm sure we'll hear the details and then I can
withdraw my comment if necessary. Any bets? ;-)
> > The RISC OS community needs RISC OS on ARM.
> In your opinion, not everyone agrees (note before some parties start
> attacking me - I am neither agreeing or disagreeing)
IMO.
I'd say that, without hardware development the RISC OS community will cease to
exist; not immediately - but too soon. I'd also say that RISC OS (or something
similar) on ARM (or something similar) is also essential for the continuation
of desktop computing in the medium to long term. If RISC OS on ARM disappears
it will be a shame to see the space filled by something else.
> > RISC OS emulation can help.
> In your opinion, not everyone agrees (note before some parties start
> attacking me - I am neither agreeing or disagreeing)
IMO.
But I'd like to see anyone try to argue the opposite. Are you *seriously*
suggesting that it would be impossible for RISC OS emulation to help? ;-)
> > Many (most?) people using RISC OS on ARM use RISC OS as their main
> > computing platform or as their main (only) platform of choice outside
> > work.
> I suspect you would be wrong, but thats *my* opinion. RISC OS for me is
> slowly dying. Its not the OS, its the lack of certain software and addon's
> such as printers, scanners, etc.. That work directly on RISC OS.
That's your personal situation. My personal situation is as above and it's the
situation for many people that I know about. I am *not* wrong. Take away the ?
and the statement may be in error - but it's because I'm unsure about that bit
that I put it there.
BeamEnds
<snip>
> have doubtless switched to Windows, which I think is a shame. And I
> think it's a good thing that packages like Sibelius and soon Prophet
> will run on the Mac.
>
I was just e-mailed the news that !Prophet "is now available on
Windows/Mac etc". For those who are jumping for joy, don't - yet.
The current version, due on the 19th of Jan, cannot import !Prophet
files,
and has no stock control at all, so it's NOT !Prophet. It is, however,
a very good accounts system for the PC, looking much better than
anything
else - not least as, as with !Prophet, it is designed with
non-accountant users
in mind.
<snip>
Richard
Stuart
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> The RISC OS community needs RISC OS on ARM. RISC OS emulation can help.
> Many (most?) people using RISC OS on ARM use RISC OS as their main
> computing platform or as their main (only) platform of choice outside
> work.
Hmmm, I find myself agreeing with JC for a change!
Stuart
Ray Dawson <r...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> I think it fair to say that virtually all RISC OS users who are in paid
> employment which involves the use of computers actually use another
> platform most of the time.
There is no choice.
I cannot do my job without using the company software running on their
machines. However, there is a RPC on my bench and I use it for any aspect
of my work that I can use it for.
Alex Singleton
>
> Not another "market knows best" types !!!!!
>
> Follow the logic of that Alex and ask yourself "why did I bother to buy
> a Mac when it's a market dead-end and I've been better off opting for
> the market leader Windows". Seems like your *own* selection of platform
> disregards the "market". Why should *we* as RISC OS users follow a
> course of action you didn't follow yourself?
A market provides ranges of choices based on what people are willing to
pay for. For me, RISC OS was a great platform in the first half of the
90s - tens of thousands of users made it viable for software developers
to develop. Those where the days when it was viable for Computer
Concepts to have 20 people programming Impression and when lots of new
packages were being produced. There is, I think, a critical mass for
any computing platform.
> Actually with a Christmas day release of Firefox by Peter Naulls (one
> developer), it seems that a lot can be done by a few dedicated
> developers. I'd also point out that you want most of those scarce RISC
> OS developers porting their code to another OS (be it Windows, Linux or
> Mac OSX). To me that sounds like a waste of time and resources, it also
> ignores the wishes of the Developer surely (or do they get to choose
> too?).
I'm not saying people should be forced to develop anything! But Peter
Naulls - a top programmer - is effectively doing the work on Firefox
out of charity - he's certainly not earning his market rate. As he told
Drobe, he has taken a job in the US to, among other things, "attempt to
recoup the significant costs I've incurred by pursuing so much RISC OS
work in the past few years" (source:
http://www.drobe.co.uk/riscos/artifact1365.html). Who else is actually
out there doing what Peter Naulls is doing? There is, it seems to me,
only one Peter Naulls and he is not on RISC OS full time.
It's fine for Chris Williams (whose work on Drobe is admirable and
deserves much praise) to say that people should go out and buy RISC OS
products and upgrades but will it work? By work, I mean bring RISC OS
back to critical mass and create a market where people go into business
developing good programs.
This lack of critical mass is why I think emulation is better than
looking to Castle et al to develop new hardware (because of the
prohibitive cost of major hardware development) and why I think
bringing the best bits of the RISC OS world to other platforms makes
sense. Xara Xtreme has, I'm sure, sold vastly more copies for Windows
than it did as Artworks for RISC OS, yet it remains a niche product.
Same for Sibelius. You can very much remain a nice product on other
platforms, yet make good money.
All I'm really saying is that the RISC OS world would be better off
waking up to the economic realities of the computer market - I think
more would by looking at how can the things people like about the RISC
OS world be mainstreamed.
> Enough remain though to justify your pro-Mac postings. These users
> haven't gone anywhere yet - in all truth you'll find that there's
> probably a lower-limit/bedrock of supports who'll remain. You're trying
> to persuade these to switch to the Mac.... rather than trying as Chris
> suggested and doing something *positive* for the RISC OS platform.
I think most people used to RISC OS would be happier with a Mac than
Windows, though of course it depends on individual people's needs and
budgets.
I'd be surprised if there are more than 20 or 30 people these days who
use RISC OS exclusively. I think there are a lot of RISC OS users who
have another type of system running next to their RISC OS machine.
Peter Naulls
>
> I'm not saying people should be forced to develop anything! But Peter
> Naulls - a top programmer - is effectively doing the work on Firefox out
> of charity - he's certainly not earning his market rate. As he told
> Drobe, he has taken a job in the US to, among other things, "attempt to
> recoup the significant costs I've incurred by pursuing so much RISC OS
> work in the past few years" (source:
> http://www.drobe.co.uk/riscos/artifact1365.html). Who else is actually
> out there doing what Peter Naulls is doing? There is, it seems to me,
> only one Peter Naulls and he is not on RISC OS full time.
John Tytgat.
[snip rest of crazy advocacy discussion]
diodesign
Alex Singleton wrote:
[ snipped advocacy; re-ordered paragraphs ]
> It's fine for Chris Williams (whose work on Drobe is admirable and
> deserves much praise) to say that people should go out and buy RISC OS
> products and upgrades but will it work?
Thanks for the kind words, although I did suggest a load of other ways
to contribute - not just with cash, and for team-based non-commercial
projects, non-monetary contributions are probably much more
appreciated.
> http://www.drobe.co.uk/riscos/artifact1365.html). Who else is actually
> out there doing what Peter Naulls is doing? There is, it seems to me,
> only one Peter Naulls and he is not on RISC OS full time.
You're torpedoing your own ideas. If it is 'just' Peter left, how will
your favourite software be ported to x86, as you argued in favour of?
If we're so low on man power, as you suggest, it won't be possible to
achieve your proposals.
Reality shows that there are other developers here besides Peter. Their
work, together with assistance from everyone else, will have a much
more positive impact than spending ages hacking bits and pieces of RISC
OS onto Mac OS X. I still think it's absolutely bonkers.
Just my view, although it's an honour to be debating with a government
think tank's DG ;)
Chris.
Chris Hughes
Alex Singleton <alex.si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2006-12-27 20:25:25 +0000, "Ams" <a...@globalcafe.ie> said:
[snip]
>
> It's fine for Chris Williams (whose work on Drobe is admirable and
> deserves much praise) to say that people should go out and buy RISC OS
> products and upgrades but will it work? By work, I mean bring RISC OS
> back to critical mass and create a market where people go into business
> developing good programs.
I can understand that point of view.
>
> This lack of critical mass is why I think emulation is better than
> looking to Castle et al to develop new hardware (because of the
> prohibitive cost of major hardware development) and why I think
> bringing the best bits of the RISC OS world to other platforms makes
> sense. Xara Xtreme has, I'm sure, sold vastly more copies for Windows
> than it did as Artworks for RISC OS, yet it remains a niche product.
> Same for Sibelius. You can very much remain a nice product on other
> platforms, yet make good money.
Here I tend to disagree, we should if at all possible try and have
RISC OS on native hardware. But Emulation does help and is currently
the only way for RISC OS on laptops.
> All I'm really saying is that the RISC OS world would be better off
> waking up to the economic realities of the computer market - I think
> more would by looking at how can the things people like about the RISC
> OS world be mainstreamed.
>
>> Enough remain though to justify your pro-Mac postings. These users
>> haven't gone anywhere yet - in all truth you'll find that there's
>> probably a lower-limit/bedrock of supports who'll remain. You're trying
>> to persuade these to switch to the Mac.... rather than trying as Chris
>> suggested and doing something *positive* for the RISC OS platform.
>
> I think most people used to RISC OS would be happier with a Mac than
> Windows, though of course it depends on individual people's needs and
> budgets.
>
> I'd be surprised if there are more than 20 or 30 people these days who
> use RISC OS exclusively. I think there are a lot of RISC OS users who
> have another type of system running next to their RISC OS machine.
>
I strongly disagree with your figures, I personally know of at least
20 with only RISC OS hardware.
But many I suspect are also using more then one computer.
--
Chris Hughes
Chris Hughes
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <b7d1e99b...@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hughes
> <ch...@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <4e9bbbb...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> John Cartmell
>> <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> > In article <2006122701451064440-alexsingleton@gmailcom>, Alex Singleton
>> > <alex.si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> the fact is that most people who are nominally part of the RISC OS world
>> >> are using other computer platforms for much if not most of their
>> >> computing needs.
>> >
>> > The fact is that you're guessing. Like most guesses of this kind it
>> > probably has much (if not most) of its input from those posting to
>> > internet groups or lists. It's a biassed view.
>
>> Its his point of view and probably of a fair number of other people.
>> Nearly *all views* are biassed in one way or another!
>
> True.
>
>> > It's wrong.
>
>> Please tell us why?. Why is his view wrong and yours correct. You have no
>> idea! You are guessing as well and hoping like mad he is wrong. Maybe he
>> is and maybe he is not.
>
> Guess: he is basing his assumptions on internet feedback.
Yes you have guessed, you don't know for a fact, so you can't just say
he's wrong. You believe in your honest opinion he is wrong but you
don't *know*.
> Certain: I am basing my views on internet feedback *and* feedback that I get
> iro Qercus,
And these views are more valid then his, because of what precisely.
> *and* feedback from knowledge of sales of RISC OS hardware.
So you are privy to company sales figures now are you. Lucky you!
>> You are being so 'know it all' again.
>
> If his guesses are based only on internet feedback then his guesses are badly
> skewed and wrong. That has been tested time after time in analogous enquiries.
> If it's more widely based I'm sure we'll hear the details and then I can
> withdraw my comment if necessary. Any bets? ;-)
You mean like your skewed results. Sorry John, but why should I or
anyone else believe your results are more accurate then his because
you run Qercus.
>
>> > The RISC OS community needs RISC OS on ARM.
>
>> In your opinion, not everyone agrees (note before some parties start
>> attacking me - I am neither agreeing or disagreeing)
>
> IMO.
> I'd say that, without hardware development the RISC OS community will cease to
> exist; not immediately - but too soon. I'd also say that RISC OS (or something
> similar) on ARM (or something similar) is also essential for the continuation
> of desktop computing in the medium to long term. If RISC OS on ARM disappears
> it will be a shame to see the space filled by something else.
You will note I have not expressed an opinion one way or the other. I
would like RISC OS to continue but it has some major hurdles to
overcome if it is to survive.
>> > RISC OS emulation can help.
>
>> In your opinion, not everyone agrees (note before some parties start
>> attacking me - I am neither agreeing or disagreeing)
>
> IMO.
> But I'd like to see anyone try to argue the opposite. Are you *seriously*
> suggesting that it would be impossible for RISC OS emulation to help? ;-)
Again you will note John I did not express an opinion. I actually do
use emulation both on my laptops and the other PC's but still have a
RiscPC.
>> > Many (most?) people using RISC OS on ARM use RISC OS as their main
>> > computing platform or as their main (only) platform of choice outside
>> > work.
>
>> I suspect you would be wrong, but thats *my* opinion. RISC OS for me is
>> slowly dying. Its not the OS, its the lack of certain software and addon's
>> such as printers, scanners, etc.. That work directly on RISC OS.
>
> That's your personal situation.
True, but I suspect many others have the same problems, in fact I know
others do and thats why they say they are leaving the scene, there are
some ways round some of the problems, which involve having a PC
networked etc.. Gimp Print helps, etc..
> My personal situation is as above and it's the
> situation for many people that I know about. I am *not* wrong. Take away the ?
> and the statement may be in error - but it's because I'm unsure about that bit
> that I put it there.
I am happy for you.
--
Chris Hughes
Chris Hughes
Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <7d73f89b...@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,
> Chris Hughes <ch...@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> [Snip]
>
>> You use the tool (software in this case) for the job, regardless of OS.
>
> That's rubbish!
Fine, in your opinion
>
> If the OS isn't up to it, then the tool is no good. It's no good building
> the best house in the world out of the best quality bricks if the
> foundation is built on sand.
>
> There are plenty of good applications on Mac OS. However, I will never use
> them for serious work, purely because Mac OS itself is not a patch on RISC
> OS. Using RISC OS is about the whole computing environment, not just a few
> favourite applications.
So you can do everything *you* want on RISC OS can you, well bully for
you.
Can you do DVD authoring on RISC OS? No I thought not.
Paul by all means support and raise awareness of RISC OS, but get real
and come off cloud cockoo land.
One reason I won't ever use your company as an ISP is because you
rubbish everything except RISC OS, apart from your high prices.
I have supported Acorn/RISC OS for 25 years
>
>> All I will say here is consider the fact there are still thousands more
>> Mac users and thus a much bigger market and income from them then there
>> is in the whole RISC OS market.
>
> So what?
> I develop for RISC OS because I prefer RISC OS. I use RISC OS because I
> prefer RISC OS. And, I'm sure I'm not alone in those sentiments.
Fine! You and a few others seem to think that only shareware/public
domain developers are important, and ignore the commercial developers
who actually have to try and make a living out of the market. This
costs money.
>> People like David Pilling no longer feel there is any market left in the
>> RISC OS arena and now writing Windows and shortly Linux software.
>
> Whilst some others of us believe there *is* market left in the RISC OS
> arena and will continue developing RISC OS software.
David Pilling *sells* commercial software so needs to sell software to
make a living. This si different usually to shareware/public domain
developers etc.
[snip]
--
Chris Hughes
Rob Kendrick
> On 2006-12-27 05:54:58 +0000, Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> said:
>> If you think a port is even in the remotest bit possible, you have a
>> complete misunderstanding of the technical issues, to such an extent that
>> your opinions suddenly have a lot less weight.
>
> I recognise that it's written in assembler and would need rewriting in
> a different language. A quick visit to dictionary.com informs me that a
> port is:
>
> "to create a new version of (an application program) to run on a
> different hardware platform"
>
> So I think my use of the word is OK.
I think this definition is wrong. A port is to adapt existing code to
work elsewhere. What dictionary.com's rather poor definition is the act
of cloning an application.
Rob Kendrick
> In article <pan.2006.12.27....@rjek.com>,
> Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
>> This is as bad as being stuck with the dreadful !Edit on RISC OS. There
>> are plenty of very fine text editors available for Windows, much like
>> there are on other platforms: several of which are vastly superior to
>> anything you'll find on RISC OS.
>
> I think he was referring to Mac OS rather than Windows, but even so, I've
> yet to find anything which compares, even closely, to Zap.
<snip>
> However, to date, I have yet to find even a single editor which is even 10%
> as nice as Zap to use. There simply isn't one - or if anyone says there is,
> then they're obviously not a *power* user, or don't do (for example) web
> design on the move.
You're confusing your comfort and usage with an application with how good
it actually is. In almost every measurable way, Vim and EMACS are far
superior to anything native of RISC OS. They may not be as "nice" to use,
but after a few hours of using either of them, they become second nature,
just like Zap did. Or StrongEd to the people who use that instead.
The only thing I find myself using Zap for these days is its disassembly
mode. I do all my other RISC OS development in Vim on a UNIX box, and
even mostly build it on the UNIX box, and then access the end result via
NFS. This is so much more painless and smooth than doing it all natively,
words can't even begin to describe the joy.
B.
Rob Kendrick
And several others. (Not to belittle John's contributions.)
B.
Rob Kendrick
> In article <7d73f89b...@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,
> Chris Hughes <ch...@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> [Snip]
>
>> You use the tool (software in this case) for the job, regardless of OS.
>
> That's rubbish!
>
> If the OS isn't up to it, then the tool is no good. It's no good building
> the best house in the world out of the best quality bricks if the
> foundation is built on sand.
Quite. What makes this statement the funniest thing I've read all day,
however, is that I bet you think RISC OS's foundations aren't sand.
I'm a pragmatist. I use UNIX as my main desktop OS. However, if I need
to do something that'll just be easier, quicker, or plain possible but I
have to use Windows, I'll use Windows.
I can't think of anything I can do on my RISC OS box that I can't do more
quickly or efficently or cheaply using UNIX or Windows. This is the real
problem RISC OS has - too many things that people want to do can't be
done. These range from creating a DVD of their wedding footage to
accessing a specific website to playing a new game etc.
> There are plenty of good applications on Mac OS. However, I will never use
> them for serious work, purely because Mac OS itself is not a patch on RISC
> OS. Using RISC OS is about the whole computing environment, not just a few
> favourite applications.
I just don't understand this. Would you rather spend hours and hours
doing something on RISC OS that you could achieve in 30 seconds using
Windows, UNIX or Mac OS X? Isn't this akin to cutting your nose off to
spite your face?
I'm massively in favour of using the best available tool for the job.
>> All I will say here is consider the fact there are still thousands more
>> Mac users and thus a much bigger market and income from them then there
>> is in the whole RISC OS market.
>
> So what?
> I develop for RISC OS because I prefer RISC OS. I use RISC OS because I
> prefer RISC OS. And, I'm sure I'm not alone in those sentiments.
You hint above that you use it because you genuinely believe it has some
technical merit above the alternatives. Now you say it's because you
prefer it. Which is it? :)
<snip>
>> I still use RISC OS for various things, other things I use one of my PCs
>> for, in other words I iuse the best tool for the job. Currently RISC OS
>> gets the job for email and newsletters.
>
> Well some of us disagree. I use RISC OS exclusively for all my computing
> needs.
Apart from hosting your website and email, one assumes, for starters :)
B.
Steven Pampling
Stuart <SW_N...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> In article <4e9bbbb...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
> John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > The RISC OS community needs RISC OS on ARM. RISC OS emulation can help.
> > Many (most?) people using RISC OS on ARM use RISC OS as their main
> > computing platform or as their main (only) platform of choice outside
> > work.
> Hmmm, I find myself agreeing with JC for a change!
Even the Devil has mix in a little truth :-)
Steven Pampling
Alex Singleton <alex.si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Who else is actually
> out there doing what Peter Naulls is doing? There is, it seems to me,
> only one Peter Naulls and he is not on RISC OS full time.
You confuse the number of people contributing to RISC OS application
development with the number talking about it here. From what I've seen the
others leave Peter to front things.
One thing to note is that there appear to be more people porting items as
part of the project Peter contributes to than ROL have developing a branch
of the OS.
charles
Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <82c1099c...@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,
> Chris Hughes <ch...@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > So you can do everything *you* want on RISC OS can you, well bully for
> > you.
> Yes, but a great many people can also do everthing they require on RISC
> OS, and it just irritates me to see people come on here, making global
> comments about no one being able to make do with RISC OS alone. I know
> for a fact that a great many people *do* use RISC OS exclusively for all
> their computing needs.
This will very much depend on what their needs are. If you work entirely
on your own with limited contact with the outside world, then, yes, RISC OS
can cope. When I started doing DTP work, RISC OS with, initially,
Impression and later OvPro would do all I wanted. Then I started getting
contributions electronically from other people. WordPerfect files, Word
files, PDF files, pictures in Corel or Adobe formats, etc.
Once I believed that Easywriter was the answer to Word documents. but now I
know it isn't - layouts get changed and sometimes illustrations don't
appear. RIScript can sometimes make a complete mess of a PDF like ignoring
the upper case letters and switching the lower case ones to upper case.
I need a Windows machine to convert these formats. Yes, I'm sure that I
could be really fussy and demand different formats, but not all those who
send me stuff are computer literate and able to do this. And, that demand
certainly doesn't work when the source is, for instance, a pro Advertising
Agency. I'd simply lose the work to someone else who can cope with
"normal" files.
--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
Alan Leighton
Alex Singleton <alex.si...@gmail.com> wrote:
I do and I know another too. ;-)
Alan
--
Rev. Dr. Alan G.C.Leighton
Priory Lodge, 86b Church Lane
Eston, TS6 9QR
Liz Leyden
Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <4e9c3cca...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>,
> charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Impression and later OvPro would do all I wanted. Then I started getting
>> contributions electronically from other people. WordPerfect files, Word
>> files, PDF files, pictures in Corel or Adobe formats, etc.
>
> This is interesting, because I edit a paranormal magazine, with
> contributions from all around the world, and I've never had a major problem
> with importing weird and wonderful different formats, even if some do
> require a bit of global search and replacing using Zap. I even once
> received some Amiga (was it AmiPro or something) files on a Commodore
> formatted floppy disc (which did admittedly have to go via the BBC B in
> order to transfer the files in the first place).
You must have a lot more time than the rest of us humble newsletter
editors have!
You often say that you find RICS OS 'more productive' - it can't
possibly be if you're spending all that time converting files!
Actually, I still do my newsletter in Impression, mainly because I've
lost my username/password to get my BTBroadband email-thingy working
on the Win/pc and I've still got the non-functioning alleged CD-burner
on this machine. :-(
Slainte
Liz
--
http://www.v-liz.com - Kenya; Tanzania; Namibia; India; Galapagos
Photo Gallery:
http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/gallery.asp?memberID=165111
Liz Leyden
Stuart <SW_N...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> In article <4e9bbbb...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
> John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> The RISC OS community needs RISC OS on ARM. RISC OS emulation can help.
>> Many (most?) people using RISC OS on ARM use RISC OS as their main
>> computing platform or as their main (only) platform of choice outside
>> work.
>
> Hmmm, I find myself agreeing with JC for a change!
>
I wonder where he got the statistic from?
Liz Leyden
Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <82c1099c...@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,
> Chris Hughes <ch...@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> So you can do everything *you* want on RISC OS can you, well bully for
>> you.
>
> Yes, but a great many people can also do everthing they require on RISC OS,
> and it just irritates me to see people come on here, making global comments
> about no one being able to make do with RISC OS alone. I know for a fact
> that a great many people *do* use RISC OS exclusively for all their
> computing needs.
How many are a 'great many'?
How do you 'know for a fact'?
Clue: not as many as use other OSs exclusively.
As I said, if you limit your needs, even a BBC B could suffice.
[evil snip]
> Our motto is not "Internet for Everyone" for nothing.
That also can be read two ways!
Liz Leyden
Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <7d73f89b...@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,
> Chris Hughes <ch...@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I still use RISC OS for various things, other things I use one of my PCs
>> for, in other words I iuse the best tool for the job. Currently RISC OS
>> gets the job for email and newsletters.
>
> Well some of us disagree. I use RISC OS exclusively for all my computing
> needs.
Fairy nuff.
But you've said more than once that if something can't be done on RISC
OS you won't do it, so that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Your prerogative, of course.
Someone could be sticking to their BBC B on the same principle, but it
wouldn't make it the best OS for most people's needs.
>> RISC OS / Mac OS and indeed all the other OS's as such will be dead
>> within 10 years I predict anyway.
>
> Dead or not, I'll still be developing RISC OS software in 10 years time.
That can be read two ways ;-)
Alex Singleton
<invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk> said:
> From recent experience of converting a number of Word files, I've found
> that Techwriter's Word import is very impressive, and certainly better than
> anything Mac OS X can manage.
Have you tried Microsoft Word for Mac? I haven't had any problems
loading Word files into it. ;-)
Though I have to say I prefer the PDF to the Word file. One person sent
in a covering letter and CV and had been using Word's track changes
feature. When I loaded the file, Word showed that changes had been made
to the document, so I was able to step back and see other employers the
CV had been sent to and the fact that he was saying contradictory
things to different employers. It caused some amusement in the office!
Ray Dawson
>
> Yes, but I very rarely find anything I can't do on RISC OS. If I really,
> really, really needed to do something I could always use the Mac - but I
> actually can't remember the last time I *had* to use the Mac. I
> generally only use it for checking emails when I'm away from home, but
> that's largely redundant now I have my SE P990i, which is even more
> convenient for mobile emails.
But runs on Symbian 9.1 and not RISC OS.
Cheers,
Ray D
Ray Dawson
>
> Again you will note John I did not express an opinion. I actually do use
> emulation both on my laptops and the other PC's but still have a RiscPC.
As a matter of interest Chris, having both a Risc PC and RISC OS emulation
on a PC, which do you prefer to work with - and why?
Cheers,
Ray D
Ray Dawson
> In message <4e9bf884f...@dsl.pipex.com>
> Stuart <SW_N...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <4e9bbbb...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
> > John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > The RISC OS community needs RISC OS on ARM. RISC OS emulation can
> > > help. Many (most?) people using RISC OS on ARM use RISC OS as their
> > > main computing platform or as their main (only) platform of choice
> > > outside work.
> >
> > Hmmm, I find myself agreeing with JC for a change!
> >
> I wonder where he got the statistic from?
The same thin air that you have access to ;-)
Cheers,
Ray D
David
Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <9b4b449c...@liz13.uklinux.net>,
> Liz Leyden <l...@liz13.uklinux.net> wrote:
>> You often say that you find RICS OS 'more productive' - it can't
>> possibly be if you're spending all that time converting files!
>
> It never takes more than about 5 minutes to convert a file, because RISC OS
> is so efficient - and because of increased productivity, I produce the
> magazine in far less time than using alternative systems, so the 5 minutes
> spent on converting some files is still a net saving of time and effort.
>
I'm not such a staunch advocate as Paul as I do use MS Windows where
required (tools for the job)- but I find it remarkable how quickly I
can turn out newsletters of quality (imho of course) using Textease
and then turning them into PDFs for anyone to read - entirely on RISC
OS.
Bet wishes
--
Dave Wisnia, Leeds, UK
David
John Cartmell
Chris Hughes <ch...@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> You mean like your skewed results.
I have excellent reasons for believing that my 'guesses' are far better than
his guesses; and you must have even better information to know that my results
are 'skewed'.
So what extra special knowledge are you claiming to be privy to? ;-)
--
John Cartmell jo...@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
Ray Dawson
>
> > Though I have to say I prefer the PDF to the Word file. One person
> > sent in a covering letter and CV and had been using Word's track
> > changes feature. When I loaded the file, Word showed that changes had
> > been made to the document, so I was able to step back and see other
> > employers the CV had been sent to and the fact that he was saying
> > contradictory things to different employers. It caused some amusement
> > in the office!
>
> Ahh. Yes, that's always good fun and entertainment. That's why anyone
> who values privacy would be best advised NOT to use any Micro$oft
> products.
>
Send your CV to a prospective employer in Ovation Pro or Impression format
and you would have total privacy. ;-)
Mind you, you wouldn't have a job ...
Cheers,
Ray D
John Cartmell
Liz Leyden <l...@liz13.uklinux.net> wrote:
> In message <4e9bf884f...@dsl.pipex.com>
> Stuart <SW_N...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> > In article <4e9bbbb...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
> > John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> The RISC OS community needs RISC OS on ARM. RISC OS emulation can help.
> >> Many (most?) people using RISC OS on ARM use RISC OS as their main
> >> computing platform or as their main (only) platform of choice outside
> >> work.
> > Hmmm, I find myself agreeing with JC for a change!
> I wonder where he got the statistic from?
Sampling.
Hardware statistics.
User groups.
Discussions with Users.
Assuming that what Ray Dawson said would be the opposite of the truth.
&c ;-)
Liz Leyden
Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <49ad439c...@liz13.uklinux.net>,
> Liz Leyden <l...@liz13.uklinux.net> wrote:
>> As I said, if you limit your needs, even a BBC B could suffice.
>
> Yes, but the people I speak to aren't limiting their needs. RISC OS is more
> than sufficient for most needs. Sure, a lot of the people frequenting these
> newsgroups are computer geeks or 'power users' - but that's NOT the average
> 'person in the street' whom I speak to.
>
I'm neither a computer geek (I thought that was the core RO-only
market?) or a power user, but my RISC OS use is nowadays limited to
email and newses, ergo also my newsletter, and accessing old files.
I'd consider myself irresponsible as a friend if I were to recommend
anyone to buy into RISC OS. (I do get asked for recommendations,
because **surprisingly** in my social/work settings, I'm regarded as
'computer literate' - it's all relative!) I can't think what can be
done (by the 'person in the street') on RISC OS which can't be done on
other platforms, an Iyonix is more expensive than a pretty decent PC,
and since no-one knows what their computer interests will be in the
future (digital cameras were a joke when I got the RPC, for example),
there is less likelihood that RISC OS will keep up with 'general'
future uses than Windows, Macs and Linux.
Also, the average 'person in the street' will be reassured by the
knowledge that lots of people are using the same system, so help is
always on hand. I know (in the 'flesh') no one else who is currently
using RISC OS, so when I need help, I can only get it here (that's not
to diss the help here, but when remote help doesn't work out, e.g. my
CDBurner, I've nowhere else to turn). On the other hand, if I ever
need help with my pc, help will be 'just around the corner'.
Rob Kendrick
> However, I've never (in the past 20 years) found *anything* that *I* want
> to do and can't do far, far, far quicker using RISC OS than using other
> systems.
I don't believe this. As it would require you to have actually tried in
good faith every alternative. Which I don't think anybody has.
>> I'm massively in favour of using the best available tool for the job.
>
> So am I - and for me, that's RISC OS. However, I'm not disputing that you
> personally may find Unix the best tool.
I didn't say I find UNIX the best tool - you said that :) I use the tool
that's easiest for a given task, or that'll produce the best results.
Sometimes that's UNIX, sometimes that's Windows, and occationally, that's
RISC OS.
> I just get exasperated with the
> skewed opinion that the csa.* groups in general come across as - which is
> not very positive for any newcomers who may wish to subscribe to csa.*
> newsgroups.
I just get exasperated by all the blinkered advocates in the csa.* groups,
which just looks like a load of ill-guided fanboyism to any newcomers.
>> Apart from hosting your website and email, one assumes, for starters :)
>
> I was referring to all my personal needs - ie. the times when I sit down
> and actually *use* the computer. My server is stuck in a cupboard just
> sitting there serving webpages. It's not exactly what I'd class as *using*
> a computer, which I tend to equate with sitting down at a desk with a
> keyboard and mouse and actually doing my day-to-day work etc.
I notice that you come up with a clever way of excluding the things people
find that counter your argument. :)
B.
Rob Kendrick
> In article <82c1099c...@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,
> Chris Hughes <ch...@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> So you can do everything *you* want on RISC OS can you, well bully for
>> you.
>
> Yes, but a great many people can also do everthing they require on RISC OS,
> and it just irritates me to see people come on here, making global comments
> about no one being able to make do with RISC OS alone. I know for a fact
> that a great many people *do* use RISC OS exclusively for all their
> computing needs.
>
>> Can you do DVD authoring on RISC OS? No I thought not.
>
> Yes I can do DVD authoring perfectly on RISC OS. I don't copy movies if
> that's what you mean, but RISC OS is perfectly capable of creating DVDs,
> for instance photo galleries which can be viewed on an ordinary DVD player.
This is hardly what Chris was suggesting. Bunging a few photos on a disc
that your player can display is hardly DVD mastering, is it? What about
my example? (ie, mastering a DVD of the footage from a wedding, or what
not.) The problem doesn't even start at the point where the software
isn't available and the hardware's too puny for the task - many video
cameras these days only expose an interface that no RISC OS machine has to
get the video into it in the first place.
B.
Adam
Yes, I noticed that too, but in PV's defence there is a stark contrast
between the two. One (RISC OS) is argued to be nice/productive to use
because of it's graphical user interface (we all know about the
/technical/ limitations of the OS) while the other needs no user
interface at all, most of the time!
Adam
--
Adam Richardson Carpe Diem
http://www.snowstone.org.uk/riscos/
David Holden
On 28-Dec-2006, Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 09:03:05 +0000, Paul Vigay wrote:
>
> > However, I've never (in the past 20 years) found *anything* that *I*
> > want to do and can't do far, far, far quicker using RISC OS than using
> > other systems.
>
> I don't believe this. As it would require you to have actually tried in
> good faith every alternative. Which I don't think anybody has.
I believe it absolutely.. All that is required is that before you do
anything with a computer you first ask the question "can I do this on RISC
OS?". If the answer is "No" then you convince yourself you don't want to do
it.
See, it's easy ;-)
--
David Holden - APDL - <http://www.apdl.co.uk>
charles
Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4e9c3cca...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>,
> charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Impression and later OvPro would do all I wanted. Then I started
> > getting contributions electronically from other people. WordPerfect
> > files, Word files, PDF files, pictures in Corel or Adobe formats, etc.
> This is interesting, because I edit a paranormal magazine, with
> contributions from all around the world, and I've never had a major
> problem with importing weird and wonderful different formats, even if
> some do require a bit of global search and replacing using Zap. I even
> once received some Amiga (was it AmiPro or something) files on a
> Commodore formatted floppy disc (which did admittedly have to go via the
> BBC B in order to transfer the files in the first place). I've got a
> WordPerfect converter somewhere (only 26-bit though) which I think came
> on a PD disc from years ago.
It is always possible to drop the file into something like !Edit (or any
one of the other text editors) but 1. It takes time; 2. You lose any style
information.
> > Once I believed that Easywriter was the answer to Word documents. but
> > now I know it isn't - layouts get changed and sometimes illustrations
> > don't appear. RIScript can sometimes make a complete mess of a PDF
> > like ignoring the upper case letters and switching the lower case ones
> > to upper case.
> From recent experience of converting a number of Word files, I've found
> that Techwriter's Word import is very impressive,
Impressive, yes. But not necessarily accurate. I was once highly
embarrassed when re-creating a Word advert in OvPro and looking at the
original in Easywriter. Illustrations moved around the page and certain
bits of text did not appear. I daren't rely on it.
> and certainly better than anything Mac OS X can manage.
So what?
> I've never really noticed a problem with importing illustrations either.
> Do you have ImageFS loaded? That will help with a number of embedded
> images in Word files. Also, in my experience I've found !GView and
> Ghostscript to be a better combination for importing PDF files.
I could never get my head round trying to install and run these.
> > could be really fussy and demand different formats, but not all those
> > who send me stuff are computer literate and able to do this.
> No. I agree with you. People shouldn't need to do that. I just tell people
> to send me contributions in any format they like.
So do I.
--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
Ams
Alex Singleton wrote:
> On 2006-12-28 09:56:41 +0000, Paul Vigay
> <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk> said:
> > From recent experience of converting a number of Word files, I've found
> > that Techwriter's Word import is very impressive, and certainly better than
> > anything Mac OS X can manage.
>
> Have you tried Microsoft Word for Mac? I haven't had any problems
> loading Word files into it. ;-)
As you know MS Word/Office for Mac usually trails the PC version. If
you want to use MS Word (and need absolute compatibility and currency)
you'd use the Windows version.
>
> Though I have to say I prefer the PDF to the Word file. One person sent
> in a covering letter and CV and had been using Word's track changes
> feature. When I loaded the file, Word showed that changes had been made
> to the document, so I was able to step back and see other employers the
> CV had been sent to and the fact that he was saying contradictory
> things to different employers. It caused some amusement in the office!
A good reason for not using word, or if you have to export to something
generic like RTF (Rich Text Format), it'll retain content without
giving anything away. Come to think of it you could use TechWriter to
output as RTF too and avoid MS stuff althogether.
Regards
Annraoi
Liz Leyden
Now if only my RO CDBurner were working that would be ideal for me,
because I could whack the pdf file onto a CD and send it down to the
group's laser printer, where two willing (retired) volunteers would
print, fold and mail them for me!
At the moment, I print out the Impression document, photocopy them
(with permission and payment) at s*****, then have to fold, envelope,
stamp and post them myself.
I have *no* intention of buying another RISC OS CD burner, though.
The bottom line seemed to be 'you can't expect the writer of the
driver (software) to keep up with every new version of the burner
(hardware) which comes out', which is fair comment, but I'm not
wasting another penny on something which might, or might not, work.
Dr Peter Young
<invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <9a89599c...@liz13.uklinux.net>,
> Liz Leyden <l...@liz13.uklinux.net> wrote:
>> (with permission and payment) at s*****, then have to fold, envelope,
>> stamp and post them myself.
>
> Why do you always asterisk out the word school in your postings?
Because it's the next-longest four-letter-word after "Bank Manager"?
With best wishes,
Peter.
--
Peter \ / \ Prestbury, Cheltenham, Glos. GL52
Anne \ / __ __ \ England.
and / / \ | | |\ | / _ \ http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
family / \__/ \_/ | \| \__/ \______________ pny...@ormail.co.uk.
John Cartmell
Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <9a89599c...@liz13.uklinux.net>,
> Liz Leyden <l...@liz13.uklinux.net> wrote:
> > (with permission and payment) at s*****, then have to fold, envelope,
> > stamp and post them myself.
> Why do you always asterisk out the word school in your postings?
She's a teacher.
It's a swear word. ;-)
Liz Leyden
Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <a185589c...@liz13.uklinux.net>,
> Liz Leyden <l...@liz13.uklinux.net> wrote:
> [Snip]
>
>> to diss the help here, but when remote help doesn't work out, e.g. my
>> CDBurner, I've nowhere else to turn). On the other hand, if I ever need
>> help with my pc, help will be 'just around the corner'.
>
> What was the problem with your CD burner? I wrote an introductory article
> at http://www.riscos.org/software/tutorials/cdburnlite.html but I can
> always write a more advanced article.
>
It won't work.
I still have the thread of almost 200 posts from the beginning of the
year, but having religiously followed all suggestions it still won't
work. Nothng, Rien, Nada. (It reads CDs, but that's no consolation,
because I had a working CDReader before)
It seems that the driver I have won't work with the burner I have,
because it's a slightly different version. At least that's what the
vendor said, and he put it into the machine (you'd have thought he'd
have tested it!).
I'm not totally stupid. I can burn CDs without help from the Mac at
the Camera club (Toast), my Windows desktop (Roxio), my Windows laptop
(different prog). Heck, I even did it in an internet cafe in the
Galapagos which was a different prog again and written in Spanish,
with only a bit of help from the very, very nice boy who ran it (he
showed me which prog was the CDBurning prog, since I didn't recognise
the name/icon). All of these *without tutorials*. So much for RO being
intuitive.
Liz Leyden
David Holden <black...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
Teehee.
Then there's Powerpoint.
There was once a demo of !OHP (IIRC) on a mag cover which crashed this
machine three times in a row when I tried to run its own demo files.
Given that this was way before I was on the internet, I had no way of
finding out if it was just me, or the disc or what, so I deleted it,
end of story. Is anyone using it nowadays?
I use Powerpoint now for giving my talks, where I used to use a
Carousel and slides. Oh, how much better!
I only need to show up with a CD and off I go. (I usually have a
laptop/projector in the boot as a backup (and carry a CD backup), in
case of physical things going wrong!).
I find Powerpoint incredibly easy for what I need. Easy peasy to put
any number of images on a page, overlap them, put borders round them,
get them to come up one (or more) at a time, either when I click or
timed, instant or fade up (or any number of naff animations!). A nice
touch was when I did a talk on Galapagos, featuring many of the
islands. As each island is very different, I wanted a 'location' page
at the start of each new island. So I used the same map for each one,
put the title (e.g Isla Fernandina) at the top, animated an arrow to
come down from the title to the appropriate island, then another one
to go out from the island to a zoomed in map of that island, then an
arrow from there to a fading-in box with all the unique features of
that island coming in as bullet points as I clicked. QuickTime movie
(how easy can it be: choose either fade in from top/bottom/right/left
and click!) File of displaying Waved Albatrosses: just drop it in!
Another cute point in my Kenya talk was when I had a pic of mud round
a lake and I knew no-one would be able to see the Hippo, so I asked
everyone what the danger was, and they all said, "Quicksand" or "mud"
and I said, look again, and no-one could see it. Click! an arrow
flashed three times down towards the Hippo, then faded out.
The only thing I don't do in Powerpoint is resizing the images: you
can just resize (dimensions) them on the fly in Powerpoint by dragging
a corner, but when I have about 120 - 150 slides per show, several
with two or more images on a slide, having the full file-sized files
would slow things down. So I resize them in Photoshop: but as I have
an Action to do this, it takes me only seconds to set it up: one for
horizontal images, one for vertical.
Then I can send the talks to a friend in England in two versions, one
where he can click it on at his own speed, one with timed transitions
so he can sit back and just watch: he can choose.
I suppose you can do all this in RISC OS: I wonder how many different
progs/apps you would need to use to put it all together? Then you'd
have to run it off an A9 to the digital projector (so you'd be
unlikely to have backups unless you had your own: most groups nowadays
have their own pc and projector and are geared up for you showing up
with your powerpoint file on your CD. I always have the powerpoint
viewer on the CD 'just in case'.) And could you send your file to the
majority of your friends (who have pcs*) and have them see it? It
certainly couldn't be quicker or easier!
* that's not an issue if you refuse to have friends who use a PC, of
course.
Next issue:
Uploading my digital images to the company which makes them into 35mm
slides (for competitions). Can't do it with Netsurf - needs some sort
of Java (not Javascript). Maybe could do it with Peter's FF port?
I presume some similar systems are used by my stock agencies for
uploading, but I haven't tried from here - no point.
I don't have the luxury of 'refusing' to use websites which don't work
with RO: this is part of my 'Escape Plan'!
Liz Leyden
Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <9a89599c...@liz13.uklinux.net>,
> Liz Leyden <l...@liz13.uklinux.net> wrote:
>> (with permission and payment) at s*****, then have to fold, envelope,
>> stamp and post them myself.
>
> Why do you always asterisk out the word school in your postings?
Think about it!
Stuart
Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> Well, Keynote will play/export Powerpoint files, but I've not really
> examined the files in great detail yet (due to time), but if I do a RISC OS
> equivalent, I'll certainly aim to rip-off the PP file format.
Please.
I sometimes get sent PP files and have to transfer them to my wife's PC
--
Stuart Winsor
From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.
For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk
Rob Kendrick
> In article <aa05699c...@liz13.uklinux.net>,
> Liz Leyden <l...@liz13.uklinux.net> wrote:
> [Snip]
>
>> I use Powerpoint now for giving my talks, where I used to use a
>> Carousel and slides. Oh, how much better!
>
> Ahhh. If you want to see how really, really, really rubbish Powerpoint is,
> then you want to use Keynote 3 on the Mac, which is a seriously impressive
> application, and really easy to use. It's about the only redeeming
> application on Mac OS X, which I actually find a pleasure to use - which is
> why I'm thinking of writing a RISC OS version.
Keynote isn't a touch on Powerpoint, which is actually a superb piece of
software, and one of the only parts of Office I use. Keynote is pretty by
default, though, which Powerpoint is not. What you exchange for
flexibility is ease of use, I admit, but Powerpoint is hardly difficult to
use, and runs on computers that are not spectacularly overpriced. Apple
is about style over substance, after all.
>> I only need to show up with a CD and off I go. (I usually have a
>> laptop/projector in the boot as a backup (and carry a CD backup), in
>> case of physical things going wrong!).
>
> Well, Keynote will play/export Powerpoint files, but I've not really
> examined the files in great detail yet (due to time), but if I do a RISC OS
> equivalent, I'll certainly aim to rip-off the PP file format.
PDF export is really all you need. "Transition" animations are tacky and
waste the audience's time. And PDFs can be viewed pretty much anywhere,
and is an open enough format to allow programs to view them to be created
elsewhere.
>> I suppose you can do all this in RISC OS: I wonder how many different
>> progs/apps you would need to use to put it all together? Then you'd
>
> I guess OHP and/or Noticeboard (was it, I can't remember) would do what you
> want, but not so easily or stylishly, as both are a bit dated by todays
> standards - hence me thinking of writing a Keynote-like application for
> RISC OS.
Keynote's selling points are in its templates (so you need somebody
artistic to help) and the fact it runs on machines which far superior
hardware to do the pretty effects. From the look of your website, I don't
think you'll be able to do the templates (and nor would I - stick figures
I find challenging).
>> to have backups unless you had your own: most groups nowadays have their
>> own pc and projector and are geared up for you showing up with your
>> powerpoint file on your CD. I always have the powerpoint viewer on the CD
>> 'just in case'.)
>
> Actually, Powerpoint is not /that/ compatible. Unfortunately it suffers
> from 'Word syndrome' in that different machines/hardware combinations can
> completely mess up your presentation, or just completely fail to read it at
> all. I'm used to seeing people having PPP (Powerpoint Panics) when I speak
> at the various paranormal conferences I go to each year.
The only problem I've had is when you try to view a presentation made on
one machine with one display resolution on another - the text can be out
of place, etc. This is easily avoided once you know about the problem,
and every presentation system other than PDF-based ones I've come across
suffer similar (including OpenOffice's.)
>> Uploading my digital images to the company which makes them into 35mm
>> slides (for competitions). Can't do it with Netsurf - needs some sort of
>> Java (not Javascript).
>
> That sounds like they've wasted time on their website. There are perfectly
> good 'standard' ways of doing file uploads without resorting to all the
> extra work and effort of using Java or Javascript.
Good for certain tasks, yes. File posting does has it problems: there are
limits on the size of data you can upload reliably (and digital photo RAW
files are enormous) and it also means you get no progress indication,
etc. Using a Java applet lets you remove all those issues, and I imagine
fewer than 1% of their potential customers would notice it or have a
problem anyway. Doing it with HTTP posting might get them another 1%
market, but their technical support load would become massive.
B.
Dave Symes
Ray Dawson <r...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
[Snip]
> Send your CV to a prospective employer in Ovation Pro or Impression
> format and you would have total privacy. ;-)
> Mind you, you wouldn't have a job ...
> Cheers,
> Ray D
That Ray, made me laugh. :-)
Cheers
Dave S
--
Dave Symes
Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <8b3c699c...@liz13.uklinux.net>,
> Liz Leyden <l...@liz13.uklinux.net> wrote:
> > Think about it!
> Are you /that/ allergic to it then? ;-)
Interesting subject word allergies...
I still get exceeding upset at the mention of a certain piece of software
originall cobbled together by Colton Software, I think it begins with P
but a cannot write the word because it will rocket my blood pressure.
You may laugh! but on my annoyance scale of 1 to 10 (Another thread in
another place) it rates at 999 out of 10.
I'll not explain any furthur, as I can feel my pressure pushing upwards
just thinking about it.
GD
--
David
Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <aa05699c...@liz13.uklinux.net>,
> Liz Leyden <l...@liz13.uklinux.net> wrote:
> [Snip]
>
>> I use Powerpoint now for giving my talks, where I used to use a
>> Carousel and slides. Oh, how much better!
>
> Ahhh. If you want to see how really, really, really rubbish Powerpoint is,
> then you want to use Keynote 3 on the Mac, which is a seriously impressive
> application, and really easy to use. It's about the only redeeming
> application on Mac OS X, which I actually find a pleasure to use - which is
> why I'm thinking of writing a RISC OS version.
snipped...
Textease Presenter does the job nicely - only the PC version accepts a
folder full of photos and sets them out ready for display. The file
can be played and edited on RISC OS. RISC OS Textease only accepts
single files for each page.
Then, you could use Variations... just drop the folder of photos on to
Variations and click on slideshow...
Anything more sophisticated - mixture of text, graphics, diagrams,
photos... Textease Presenter does all of that (for me, though I have
used Powerpoint too).
Best wishes
--
Dave Wisnia, Leeds, UK
Chris Hughes
Ray Dawson <r...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Chris Hughes <ch...@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> Again you will note John I did not express an opinion. I actually do use
>> emulation both on my laptops and the other PC's but still have a RiscPC.
>
> As a matter of interest Chris, having both a Risc PC and RISC OS emulation
> on a PC, which do you prefer to work with - and why?
Both! I like RISC OS on native hardware, but have no issues with using
it under emulation on either my Laptops or desktop PC, I have been
known to transfer our newsletter to the windows laptop under emulation
and printed the colour pages from there, better quality then any RISC
OS drivers can currently provide, but use the RISC PC for all
email/newsgroups, accounts, etc..
--
Chris Hughes
Chris Hughes
Liz Leyden <l...@liz13.uklinux.net> wrote:
> In message <4e9c00d975inval...@invalid-domain.co.uk>
> Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <7d73f89b...@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,
>> Chris Hughes <ch...@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>> I still use RISC OS for various things, other things I use one of my PCs
>>> for, in other words I iuse the best tool for the job. Currently RISC OS
>>> gets the job for email and newsletters.
>>
>> Well some of us disagree. I use RISC OS exclusively for all my computing
>> needs.
>
> Fairy nuff.
> But you've said more than once that if something can't be done on RISC
> OS you won't do it, so that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Good point!
> Your prerogative, of course.
> Someone could be sticking to their BBC B on the same principle, but it
> wouldn't make it the best OS for most people's needs.
Actually I know someone who thinks that!
[snip]
--
Chris Hughes
Chris Hughes
Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <82c1099c...@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,
> Chris Hughes <ch...@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> So you can do everything *you* want on RISC OS can you, well bully for
>> you.
>
> Yes, but a great many people can also do everthing they require on RISC OS,
> and it just irritates me to see people come on here, making global comments
> about no one being able to make do with RISC OS alone. I know for a fact
> that a great many people *do* use RISC OS exclusively for all their
> computing needs.
And it irritates me to see people like you who keep making global
comments claiming you can do everything you want under RISC OS. I know
for a fact many can only do some of the things they want under RISC
OS.
>
>> Can you do DVD authoring on RISC OS? No I thought not.
>
> Yes I can do DVD authoring perfectly on RISC OS. I don't copy movies if
> that's what you mean, but RISC OS is perfectly capable of creating DVDs,
> for instance photo galleries which can be viewed on an ordinary DVD player.
Thats what you call DVD authoring is it. Very selective. I was on
about DVD editing.
>> Paul by all means support and raise awareness of RISC OS, but get real
>> and come off cloud cockoo land.
>
> I'm not in cloud cuckoo land. I speak from experience of speaking to a
> great many people who are perfectly pleased and happy with RISC OS - yet
> reading some of the rants on here you'd think that was impossible. I'm
> afraid that reading csa.* newsgroups gives you an *extremely* skewed view
> of RISC OS and its users. :-(
Maybe and maybe not.
>> One reason I won't ever use your company as an ISP is because you
>> rubbish everything except RISC OS, apart from your high prices.
>
> Well, then you obviously don't know my company very well. We give full
> suport to Windows, Mac, Linux and even users of other OSs. Our motto is not
> "Internet for Everyone" for nothing.
But in virtually every post you make you either rubbish Windows and
its application or Mac's and its application. Hence I have no faith in
your compnay actually looking after me if I used say Windows, or an
Apple Mac. Its the image you portray to potential customers.
>> I have supported Acorn/RISC OS for 25 years
>
> Good, well I hope you join me in supporting RISC OS for another 25 years!
Sad to say, Doubtful. I will continue to use RISC OS while I can.
--
Chris Hughes
Richard Spencer
could not let this one go by. All quotes are from Message-ID:
<200612272236018930-alexsingleton@gmailcom>
[Alex Singleton wrote, reordered]
> All I'm really saying is that the RISC OS world would be better off
> waking up to the economic realities of the computer market - I think
> more would by looking at how can the things people like about the RISC
> OS world be mainstreamed.
The "RISC OS world" is made up of individuals who will make up their
own minds how to:
a) spend their computer time (all)
b) spend their money (some), or
c) use their programming/other talents (minority, but far higher ratio
than on most other platforms, I would suggest)
Trying to lay down from on high to any or all of these groups that
$OTHER_COMPUTING_PLATFORM is a better alternative for all their
computing requirements than both RISC OS, and all the other computing
platforms out there, will be met with, at best, some skepticism. TCO,
maintenance, downtime, malware vulnerability, general hair loss,
learning and adapting to the new OS/software - go figure.
As for "economic realities" this is clearly to use x86 hardware
(fastest and cheapest) and either free software (Linux) or very
expensive software (ie. Vista or MacOS - which is currently tied to
Apple hardware but for how long...?) RISC OS native on x86 is never
going to happen, full stop.
I'm also not sure how the "things people like" about the "RISC OS
world" _can_ be mainstreamed. If you mean the GUI then it's been done
(kind of) with Thomas Leonard's ROX - if you think this is so great
maybe it could be ported to OSX. Perhaps there are more ROX-Filer
users out there than there are RISC OS users, who knows? If you mean
the local user groups then I'm sure there are Mac equivalents. If you
mean RISC OS style drag and drop/window stacking/no menu bars/icon bar
I doubt it, without at best rewriting the windowing system and all the
applications, at worst alienating the current user base of
$OTHER_COMPUTING_PLATFORM. If you mean the "community" then forget it.
> I'd be surprised if there are more than 20 or 30 people these days who
> use RISC OS exclusively. I think there are a lot of RISC OS users who
> have another type of system running next to their RISC OS machine.
Nah, at least 35 ;-) I must confess to being one of your latter
category, but with Firefox 2 running better here native on RISC OS
than over 100MBit VNC to a machine with X times more processing power,
why bother to turn the fan heater on? Speaking of Firefox:
[snip]
> Those where the days when it was viable for Computer Concepts to have
> 20 people programming Impression and when lots of new
> packages were being produced.
[...]
> But Peter Naulls - a top programmer - is effectively doing the work
> on Firefox out of charity
...and on his own. See the difference? It took your 20 people at least
4-5 years to write Impression (version 1, II, Style, Publisher), which
is just a Word Processor at the end of the day, but with access to the
modern day development tools and source code available for free, just
one programmer can bring Firefox (which has to be _the_ killer app of
the moment on any platform) to RISC OS within a couple of years.
[By development tools I do, of course, mean GCCSDK/UnixLib which is a
many-man many-year effort. But even as Rome wasn't built in a day, it
only needed to be built once. I hope you don't suggest that Firefox is
the _only_ major application that could ever be ported to RISC OS?]
We're never going to get Computer Concepts back into the RISC OS
market, or all the others that left. So new software is going to be
either: a) ported, b) a development of existing product or c) an
application developed by a RISC OS fan primarily for his/her own use.
If you have a specific need for a software product in category c) I
suggest going the RISC OS wishlist and writing a few words.
Finally:
> This lack of critical mass is why I think emulation is better than
> looking to Castle et al to develop new hardware (because of the
> prohibitive cost of major hardware development)
I disagree. Iyonix was developed in about 10 months during 2002 from
an idea into a saleable product. The A9home has been available for
some time now, and I'm not aware of the "beta" hardware being
recalled. In both cases the issue has been getting the OS to a
"finished" state. Putting this "finished" OS onto a new motherboard
design is not trivial, but I would argue it is not a "prohibitive"
cost for a company with a revenue stream.
In any case, if, as you argue, there's no "critical mass", "new
packages" or even "economic realities", then why bother to emulate a
dead/dying platform at all? If it's worth emulating it's worth using,
by definition; therefore encouraging development of useable software
is the priority, not emulating it on $OTHER_COMPUTING_PLATFORM. And
just forget trying to persuade all the developers and users of said
platform that the RISC OS way of software/GUI design is better. We're
not changing the Style Guide and they ain't gonna budge either.
Alex, maybe MacOS X does everything you want/need. Great! I'm sticking
with RISC OS though, having used Linux and liked it, but not more than
RISC OS. I suspect others will evaluate their own computing needs, or
more likely have already done so competently.
Maybe the title of this thread should have been:
"The future of the RISC OS world ... does not include me"
...and we could have all said: fairy nuff, it's a free world, even if
it's not a RISC OS one.
Regards,
--
Richard Spencer
Richard Spencer
Stuart <SW_N...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> In article <4e9c6e3e8binval...@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
> Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Well, Keynote will play/export Powerpoint files, but I've not really
>> examined the files in great detail yet (due to time), but if I do a RISC OS
>> equivalent, I'll certainly aim to rip-off the PP file format.
>
> Please.
>
> I sometimes get sent PP files and have to transfer them to my wife's PC
>
I should have thought that building the OpenOffice Impress (the
PowerPoint clone) core library using GCCSDK, with the aim of
converting said PowerPoint files to XML would be a far more realistic
starting point.
Then Paul's friendly native BBC Basic V application could
interpret/ignore all the tags it wished. Or even convert them to !OHP2
format ;-)
Why reinvent the wheel, when better ones are freely available?
--
Richard Spencer
Tim Hill
<SW_N...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> Printing a map from Multimap is a doddle - select printable version -
> save the image to a temporary directory and then drag it over a Fresco
> window then print. Result - just a map without any of the other garbage
> printed out
I find it quicker to take a snapshot in Paint and print the resultant
sprite from ArtWorks where it is easy to resize to a page if required.
Usually just the right size, in fact, to fit in the transparent cover on
my tank bag. :-)
--
* Cheap phone bills? Gift shopping? www.timil.com/usenet.php
* Spam-proof Usenet address? Visit www.invalid.org.uk
or email me: postmaster at invalid dot org dot uk
* (t...@invalid.org.uk is deleted unread - please use my valid address above)
... "Withold thine indignation, mighty heaven, and tempt us not to bear above our power" King John, Act v, Sc.6
Liz Leyden
Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <8b3c699c...@liz13.uklinux.net>,
> Liz Leyden <l...@liz13.uklinux.net> wrote:
>> Think about it!
>
> Are you /that/ allergic to it then? ;-)
>
Hence the Escape Plan.
Hopefully it's a better plan than that of some of my colleagues who
have a Pools/Lottery 'consortium'.