RiscStation laptop
Garry
ordered Riscstation laptops? Basically I'd like to know if it can be
expected any time soon.
I'd like to use RISC OS at work, but I just had a go of ArcEm on my
800Mhz G4 iMac here, and unfortunatly the performance was not
acceptable, so a laptop would seem the obvious choice.
I understand the only way to get on the group is to order a machine,
but I don't really want to order something that I have no idea when
I'll get.
Cheers
Garry
Paul F. Johnson
By the process of poking various fingers onto keys Garry generated this:
> Is anyone here in the yahoo group that is available to those who have
> ordered Riscstation laptops? Basically I'd like to know if it can be
> expected any time soon.
You could always just email the riscstation.software email addy and ask...
TTFN
Paul
The Doctor
bandits...@yahoo.co.uk (Garry) wrote:
I can only suggest you phone CTA, speak to them incredibly nicely and
see what they say.
Then post the response here ;-)
Cheers!
--
Graham
The RISC OS software site - www.thedeathzone.free-online.co.uk/software
The RISC OS hardware guide - www.thedeathzone.free-online.co.uk/hardware
Deathzone Emulation - www.thedeathzone.free-online.co.uk/emulation
The Main Control Room - www.thedeathzone.free-online.co.uk
Chris Williams
Great, I have a number of questions that I'm just dying to ask you and
everytime I phone Riscstation and let on I'm from drobe.co.uk I get told I
should speak to Roy, who's always busy.
So where's the laptop at? Are you going to demo it anywhere? Who's
designing the laptop for you? Have any of the specs/prices changed or
pssoibly upgraded hence the sudden lateness? Why is it taking so long? Has
the product been cancelled? Will it have USB now that lots of USB stuff
has started to kick off inc. mass storage?
What version of RISC OS will it run? Are you thinking of a StrongARM or
faster machine perhaps? What's being discussed on the laptop mailing list?
Are you keeping bad news from the public or could you share good news with
all of us? Why are you, yes you Paul, telling people to use VA5000 with
Windows based portable products instead of recommending your own product?
So, yes. That's off the top of my head. You have my phone number too as I
left it with the kind person at RiscStation after the nth failed call to
get hold of someone who could comment on the portable.
Many thans in advance and all the best,
--
Chris Williams | RISC OS News and sarcasm http://www.drobe.co.uk/
Garry
know what the response was.
* I've bought a couple of things off CTA, and been happy with service,
but if they reply to an email they'll be breaking the unwritten rules
of being a RISC OS dealer!
Garry
Philip Ludlam
bandits...@yahoo.co.uk (Garry) wrote:
I think CJE may have something to say about that :-) .
Yours,
Phil L.
--
http://www.philipnet.com
druck
> Is anyone here in the yahoo group that is available to those who have
> ordered Riscstation laptops? Basically I'd like to know if it can be
> expected any time soon.
Given some of the things said by PFJ on the list, I'm not expecting it ever.
> I'd like to use RISC OS at work, but I just had a go of ArcEm on my
> 800Mhz G4 iMac here, and unfortunatly the performance was not
> acceptable, so a laptop would seem the obvious choice.
About the closest you are going to get this side of never is a copy of VA5000
running on a similar looking PC laptop - which all we've every seen from
RiscStation.
> I understand the only way to get on the group is to order a machine,
> but I don't really want to order something that I have no idea when
> I'll get.
Thats the feeling the people on the group have, especially those who paid
in full almost 2 years ago - thank god I'm not one of them.
---druck
--
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
Stephen Rose
Rubbish - Personally I wouldn't have anything to do with CTA ie they
are useless and get no business from me.
On the other hand CJE have always replied to my Emails usually the same
day (and I have sent them a few).
S
--
Address: 10 Fettes Road, CRANLEIGH, Surrey, GU6 7EU
Telephone: 01483 271632
Ralph Corderoy
> > I understand the only way to get on the group is to order a machine,
> > but I don't really want to order something that I have no idea when
> > I'll get.
>
> Thats the feeling the people on the group have, especially those who
> paid in full almost 2 years ago - thank god I'm not one of them.
What was the agreement that these people handed their money over under?
Cheers,
--
Ralph Corderoy. http://inputplus.co.uk/ralph/ http://troff.org/
Paul Shayler
<ne...@druck.freeuk.com> writes
>On 10 Apr 2003 bandits...@yahoo.co.uk (Garry) wrote:
>> Is anyone here in the yahoo group that is available to those who have
>> ordered Riscstation laptops? Basically I'd like to know if it can be
>> expected any time soon.
>
>Given some of the things said by PFJ on the list, I'm not expecting it ever.
>
>> I'd like to use RISC OS at work, but I just had a go of ArcEm on my
>> 800Mhz G4 iMac here, and unfortunatly the performance was not
>> acceptable, so a laptop would seem the obvious choice.
>
>About the closest you are going to get this side of never is a copy of VA5000
>running on a similar looking PC laptop - which all we've every seen from
>RiscStation.
>
>> I understand the only way to get on the group is to order a machine,
>> but I don't really want to order something that I have no idea when
>> I'll get.
>
>Thats the feeling the people on the group have, especially those who paid
>in full almost 2 years ago - thank god I'm not one of them.
>
>---druck
>
anyone seen a "real" one? Is it "Vapourware"? Remember the other laptop
offering the "peanut", so much offered... nothing delivered.....
Regards, Paul S.
--
Paul Shayler
charles.hope
george
ra...@inputplus.co.uk (Ralph Corderoy) wrote:
> Hi druck,
>
> > > I understand the only way to get on the group is to order a machine,
> > > but I don't really want to order something that I have no idea when
> > > I'll get.
> >
> > Thats the feeling the people on the group have, especially those who
> > paid in full almost 2 years ago - thank god I'm not one of them.
>
> What was the agreement that these people handed their money over under?
>
The triumph of hope over experience?
George
--
charles.hope
> > > I understand the only way to get on the group is to order a machine,
> > > but I don't really want to order something that I have no idea when
> > > I'll get.
> >
> > Thats the feeling the people on the group have, especially those who
> > paid in full almost 2 years ago - thank god I'm not one of them.
> What was the agreement that these people handed their money over under?
That they would have a machine in a couple of months' time. That, of
course, was 16 months ago ... and I am still waiting for any communication
from RiscStation themselves.
Ralph Corderoy
> > > Thats the feeling the people on the group have, especially those
> > > who paid in full almost 2 years ago - thank god I'm not one of
> > > them.
>
> > What was the agreement that these people handed their money over
> > under?
>
> That they would have a machine in a couple of months' time. That, of
> course, was 16 months ago ... and I am still waiting for any
> communication from RiscStation themselves.
If that's the case has anyone just asked for their money back as
RiscStation seemed to have failed to keep their side of the contract.
Ray Dawson
Yes, CJE always have emails in stock :-)
Cheers,
Ray D
--
Ray Dawson
r...@magray.freeserve.co.uk
MagRay - the audio & braille specialists
Mr S C Winsor
Stephen Rose <nit...@aaugonline.net> wrote:
> In article <b5652016.03041...@posting.google.com>, Garry
> <URL:mailto:bandits...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > I've emailled CTA about it, if* they get back to me I'll let everyone
> > know what the response was.
> >
> > * I've bought a couple of things off CTA, and been happy with service,
> > but if they reply to an email they'll be breaking the unwritten rules
> > of being a RISC OS dealer!
> >
> > Garry
> >
> Rubbish - Personally I wouldn't have anything to do with CTA ie they
> are useless and get no business from me.
I have to say I've had no problems with CTA at all. In fact, I found them
most helpfull in trying to find me a SCSI lead to connect my RPC to my
scanner that didn't involve some sort of adaptor at one end or the other.
They exchanged several leads that didn't seem to work properly till I had
pity on them and gave up myself. True, I haven't bought anything from them
recently but I think that's probably because of Chris's presence on the
news groups. CJE springs to mind more readily when I am thinking of
purchasing something.
Over the years, I can truthfully say, the only dealer I had any problems
with was APDL. On one, and only one, occasion but that was sorted
eventually.
Stuart
--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | /
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
___________________________/ stuart...@argonet.co.uk
101 uses for a Pentium: No1 - A slow cooker.
Steve Fryatt
<f4e.3e96a...@blake.inputplus.co.uk>:
[RiscStation Laptop]
> > > What was the agreement that these people handed their money over
> > > under?
> >
> > That they would have a machine in a couple of months' time. That, of
> > course, was 16 months ago ... and I am still waiting for any
> > communication from RiscStation themselves.
>
> If that's the case has anyone just asked for their money back as
> RiscStation seemed to have failed to keep their side of the contract.
I'm sure a few people have said that, when they asked for their money
back, they got it immediately and with no hassle.
--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/
* "I have made this letter longer only because I have not had the time to
make it shorter." - Blaise Pascal
Ruth Trundley
<pa...@g6tsf.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Personally I'm surprised the "laptop" has not been delivered by
> now. Has anyone seen a "real" one? Is it "Vapourware"? Remember
> the other laptop offering the "peanut", so much offered... nothing
> delivered....
What a brilliant way to get a bit of cash in-flow though eh?
Glad I pulled out 16 months ago - and that was... of what's the point
even thinking about it any more. A joke's a joke - this is....
well......
--
Marten Gallagher
www.annerykiln.co.uk
Ruth Trundley
<ra...@inputplus.co.uk> wrote:
> If that's the case has anyone just asked for their money back as
> RiscStation seemed to have failed to keep their side of the
> contract.
Yep - got it back - but no apology, no acknowledgment of the interest
lost/gained by either party.
PR and RISCOS - two words never seen in the same sentence together!
--
Marten Gallagher
www.annerykiln.co.uk
Robin May
news:4be1b0ad5...@annerykiln.co.uk
> PR and RISCOS - two words never seen in the same sentence together!
Until now! (Well, the above is a sentence, isn't it?)
--
message by Robin May, living the life of an international loverman
"I wish to be entered and will pay" - A teacher forced me to say this!
War on Iraq: serving the interests of US shareholders since 2003
Jeremy C B Nicoll
Ruth Trundley <rtru...@annerykiln.co.uk> wrote:
> PR and RISCOS - two words never seen in the same sentence together!
Ruth? Martin? Whoever ... actually you see PR and RISCOS often together
in sentences. But it's usually not sentences to make one proud.
--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.
charles.hope
Steve Fryatt <ne...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> On 11 Apr, Ralph Corderoy wrote in message
> <f4e.3e96a...@blake.inputplus.co.uk>:
> [RiscStation Laptop]
> > > > What was the agreement that these people handed their money over
> > > > under?
> > >
> > > That they would have a machine in a couple of months' time. That, of
> > > course, was 16 months ago ... and I am still waiting for any
> > > communication from RiscStation themselves.
> >
> > If that's the case has anyone just asked for their money back as
> > RiscStation seemed to have failed to keep their side of the contract.
> I'm sure a few people have said that, when they asked for their money
> back, they got it immediately and with no hassle.
It has now been 3 weeks since I asked for my money back. No reply and no
money yet.
The Doctor
charles.hope <charle...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
Did you phone them or email?
Cheers!
--
Graham - Email addy is SPAM trapped!
Ralph Corderoy
> It has now been 3 weeks since I asked for my money back. No reply and
> no money yet.
If you paid by credit card then it's worth talking to them as they're
jointly liable.
Presumably, this means they actually took the cash, i.e. cashed cheques,
rather than just holding onto them as a sign of intent to buy? If so,
that's nice for them, getting interest on the money for all this time,
but not so nice for the potential purchasers.
What made it worth sending off money in advance of them being available?
Was it a `without firm orders we can't risk proceeding'?
Be sure to let us know how you get on. It could be that Usenet
publicity will make the money turn up soon.
charles.hope
The Doctor <thed...@REMOVEMEthedeathzone.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <4be2033c3dc...@argonet.co.uk>
> charles.hope <charle...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > It has now been 3 weeks since I asked for my money back. No reply and
> > no money yet.
> >
> Did you phone them or email?
After being promised return phone calls, which never materialised, I wrote
and sent the letter by "signed for" post. No reply. Followed up with an
e-mail - which was automatically acknowledged - but no reply.
--
Using a RISC PC with RISC OS4
charles.hope
> > It has now been 3 weeks since I asked for my money back. No reply and
> > no money yet.
> If you paid by credit card then it's worth talking to them as they're
> jointly liable.
Yesterday I posted letter to my credit card company with copies of
everything.
> Presumably, this means they actually took the cash, i.e. cashed cheques,
> rather than just holding onto them as a sign of intent to buy? If so,
> that's nice for them, getting interest on the money for all this time,
> but not so nice for the potential purchasers.
> What made it worth sending off money in advance of them being available?
> Was it a `without firm orders we can't risk proceeding'?
No, it was "you will definitely be supplied from the first batch" - due in
two months time (from date of ordering).
Eddie Lord
charles.hope <charle...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
Have a look at
http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/you_courts/civil/claimant/index.htm
Some good advice there. It took me over 2 months to get my deposit back
from MicroDigital. It arrived 2 days before the deadline for legal
action. All of my various letters/faxes/e-mails were ignored until the
last week. Two recorded delivery letters were returned to me.
Keep plugging away...
--
Regards
Eddie
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. - Napoleon
Ray Dawson
<eddi...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> > After being promised return phone calls, which never materialised, I
> > wrote and sent the letter by "signed for" post. No reply. Followed
> > up with an e-mail - which was automatically acknowledged - but no
> > reply.
> >
> Have a look at
> http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/you_courts/civil/claimant/index.htm
> Some good advice there. It took me over 2 months to get my deposit back
> from MicroDigital. It arrived 2 days before the deadline for legal
> action. All of my various letters/faxes/e-mails were ignored until the
> last week. Two recorded delivery letters were returned to me.
And these are two of the three hardware companies that the future of RISC
OS depends upon.
Doesn't look like a very bright futyre ;-(
Jim Lesurf
> Have a look at
> http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/you_courts/civil/claimant/index.htm
> Some good advice there. It took me over 2 months to get my deposit back
> from MicroDigital. It arrived 2 days before the deadline for legal
> action. All of my various letters/faxes/e-mails were ignored until the
> last week. Two recorded delivery letters were returned to me.
Interested in your last comment. I regard the return of recorded delivery
letters by a company as a very 'bad sign'.
I have on a few occasions in the past had recorded delivery letters I (or a
lawyer) had sent be refused by companies. (None were anything to do with
any RO-related companies.)
In each case they were refused as the company in question had good reason
to be worried that such letters might be legal documents that they wished
to avoid acknowledging they'd received. i.e. they feared accepting the
document would mean they could not then pretend they were unware of any
legal actions or claims against them.
Can't make any comment on MicroDigital as I have no knowledge of them, or
had any dealing with them.
Slainte,
Jim
--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
TechWriter http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/TechWrite/Tips1.html
Compo http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Compo/clues.html
Michael Lowe
Jim Lesurf <jc...@st-and.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <430ea4e2...@eddie.brookhaven.plus.com>, Eddie Lord
> <eddi...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > Have a look at
>
> > http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/you_courts/civil/claimant/index.htm
>
> > Some good advice there. It took me over 2 months to get my deposit back
> > from MicroDigital. It arrived 2 days before the deadline for legal
> > action. All of my various letters/faxes/e-mails were ignored until the
> > last week. Two recorded delivery letters were returned to me.
>
> Interested in your last comment. I regard the return of recorded delivery
> letters by a company as a very 'bad sign'.
It is indeed a 'bad sign'.
> I have on a few occasions in the past had recorded delivery letters I (or a
> lawyer) had sent be refused by companies. (None were anything to do with
> any RO-related companies.)
>
> In each case they were refused as the company in question had good reason
> to be worried that such letters might be legal documents that they wished
> to avoid acknowledging they'd received. i.e. they feared accepting the
> document would mean they could not then pretend they were unware of any
> legal actions or claims against them.
In fact this is likely to be ineffective if they contain legal documents.
There are very detailed rules regarding the service of legal documentation
and normally they are deemed to served when in the normal course of the post
they would be delivered. Refusing to sign for a Recorded Delivery letter
would not alter. It would then be for the recipient to show some good
reason why it was not delivered i.e. they had moved and it had been sent to
the wrong address.
All companies have to have a registered address where documents can be served.
In general Courts are well aware of companies/people who claim not have
received any document they do not wish to receive.
--
Michael Lowe
Loughton
Essex
Eddie Lord
Jim Lesurf <jc...@st-and.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <430ea4e2...@eddie.brookhaven.plus.com>, Eddie Lord
> <eddi...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > Have a look at
>
> > http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/you_courts/civil/claimant/index.htm
>
> > Some good advice there. It took me over 2 months to get my deposit back
> > from MicroDigital. It arrived 2 days before the deadline for legal
> > action. All of my various letters/faxes/e-mails were ignored until the
> > last week. Two recorded delivery letters were returned to me.
>
> Interested in your last comment. I regard the return of recorded delivery
> letters by a company as a very 'bad sign'.
>
> I have on a few occasions in the past had recorded delivery letters I (or a
> lawyer) had sent be refused by companies. (None were anything to do with
> any RO-related companies.)
>
> In each case they were refused as the company in question had good reason
> to be worried that such letters might be legal documents that they wished
> to avoid acknowledging they'd received. i.e. they feared accepting the
> document would mean they could not then pretend they were unware of any
> legal actions or claims against them.
[..]
I couldn't agree more. I had similar thoughts. In fact, if you look at
the terms of suing via the internet, if the court papers are returned
it becomes the responsibility of the injured party to deliver the said
papers. Clearly it makes the problem worse.
Annraoi
>
<snip>
> > Some good advice there. It took me over 2 months to get my deposit back
> > from MicroDigital. It arrived 2 days before the deadline for legal
> > action. All of my various letters/faxes/e-mails were ignored until the
> > last week. Two recorded delivery letters were returned to me.
>
> And these are two of the three hardware companies that the future of RISC
> OS depends upon.
>
> Doesn't look like a very bright futyre ;-(
From 1987..1999 there was only ONE manufacturer of RISC OS computers
and that was Acorn (and we got by).
There is still ONE manufacturer who can supply new RISC OS hardware
now (Castle with their Iyonix). RO is now 32 bit, there is a degree of
hardware independance. For those who can't afford to upgrade the
hardware there's the option of the excellent additions to the OS RISC
OS Ltd have made with Select.
Let's not quite count MD out yet. They may well eventually get the
Omega out the door so what's the problem ?
2 Manufacturers out of 3 ain't bad (it's twice what we ever had before
isn't it?)
Regards
Annraoi
Michael Gilbert
<URL:mailto:a...@globalcafe.ie> wrote:
> Ray Dawson <R...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<4be2b8c1f0Ray@raydawson
made and sold a decent number of RISC OS machines. Probably less than
Castle, almost certainly more than MicroDigital.
And, as far as the laptop goes, I remember Roy being very positive about
a third party, major investor, not able to say exactly who it was due to
an NDA, etc etc etc.
--
Michael Gilbert: in his own write
Was you ever stung by a dead bee?
John Cartmell
Michael Gilbert <mgil...@eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
> Despite RiscStation's cockup over the laptop, do remember that they have
> made and sold a decent number of RISC OS machines. Probably less than
> Castle, almost certainly more than MicroDigital.
AFAIK the RiscStation R7500 is still the only machine that's appropriate as
an entry machine for new users.
At less than half the price of an Iyonix it still has a valid position.
--
John Cartmell jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Acorn Publisher magazine & http://www.acornpublisher.com
Fleur Designs (boardgames)
Michael Gilbert
<URL:mailto:jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <ant14212...@riscpc.local>,
> Michael Gilbert <mgil...@eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
> > Despite RiscStation's cockup over the laptop, do remember that they have
> > made and sold a decent number of RISC OS machines. Probably less than
> > Castle, almost certainly more than MicroDigital.
>
> AFAIK the RiscStation R7500 is still the only machine that's appropriate as
> an entry machine for new users.
> At less than half the price of an Iyonix it still has a valid position.
>
Maybe just. However, it's now less than new, and there's no sign of a
refresh or new model, and it's starting to feel slow.
I've sold quite a few RS machines, and have always found them very
helpful. Any issues with hardware were generally simple QA ones on
large orders, and sorted out immediately. Even, on at least one
occasion, by Roy driving down to Devon to swap out a faulty box.
The laptop mess is very sad. Having been assured several times that the
product wasn't ready, and they wouldn't take deposits until it was, I'm
baffled as to why it was pre-announced. That doesn't fit with my
perception of the company.
John Cartmell
Michael Gilbert <mgil...@eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
> The laptop mess is very sad. Having been assured several times that the
> product wasn't ready, and they wouldn't take deposits until it was, I'm
> baffled as to why it was pre-announced. That doesn't fit with my
> perception of the company.
the waters'. When all* the development work was completed but before they
committed to production, Roy announced the item and took orders. Enough
orders were received and the go ahead signal given. Then ...
.. I don't know. Factoring in all the likely, unlikely and silly mistakes
that I could imagine I made a guess at the latest date of delivery. Like
everyone else I was way out.
*OK not all. Knowing the designers development work would never stop. ;-)
george
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <ant15063...@riscpc.local>,
> Michael Gilbert <mgil...@eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
> > The laptop mess is very sad. Having been assured several times that the
> > product wasn't ready, and they wouldn't take deposits until it was, I'm
> > baffled as to why it was pre-announced. That doesn't fit with my
> > perception of the company.
> AFAIK Roy was wary about the numbers interested and so was forced to 'test
> the waters'. When all* the development work was completed but before they
> committed to production, Roy announced the item and took orders. Enough
> orders were received and the go ahead signal given. Then ...
>
> .. I don't know. Factoring in all the likely, unlikely and silly mistakes
> that I could imagine I made a guess at the latest date of delivery. Like
> everyone else I was way out.
>
> *OK not all. Knowing the designers development work would never stop. ;-)
>
This reinforces the lingering suspicion in my mind that there is in truth
only one professional RO hardware company, and it isn't RS or MD! If you
can't get a product to market, it doesn't matter how wonderful it is (going
to be). Survival in business is a function of selling products (good, bad or
indifferent) for a profit, i.e., maintaining an income which exceeds costs.
The market has never previously been big enough to sustain more than one
hardware company long term, and I doubt if it is now. So see you around
folks - I'm off to buy an Iyonix!
George
--
Paul F. Johnson
By the process of poking various fingers onto keys george generated this:
> This reinforces the lingering suspicion in my mind that there is in truth
> only one professional RO hardware company, and it isn't RS or MD!
It isn't Castle either.
Ask this question - who makes the Iyonix? It's not Castle - it's a company
called Tematic (who are ex-Pace engineers). Basically, all Castle are are
resellers for a licenced product. They've not actually done any work
(other than pay for some bits and bobs) on the Iyonix or the RPC. If
professionalism is the ability to sell someone elses product, then surely
CJE should get the award for most professional RO company!
Who makes the R7500? Simtec. However, the deal is different there. They
physically made the board, but it was a single project. Once it was made,
that was that - RS could use just about anyone to make any new boards. The
product is not "under licence" (check the back of the Iyonix and you'll
see those words). The product they shift (and shift they do) is owned by
RiscStation.
Who made the Mico and the Omega? MD did and does. The same that applies
to RS applies to MD wrt to products being their own.
TTFN
Paul
Rob Hemmings
> In article <ant14212...@riscpc.local>, Michael Gilbert
> <mgil...@eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
> > Despite RiscStation's cockup over the laptop, do remember that they
> > have made and sold a decent number of RISC OS machines. Probably less
> > than Castle, almost certainly more than MicroDigital.
> AFAIK the RiscStation R7500 is still the only machine that's
> appropriate as an entry machine for new users. At less than half the
> price of an Iyonix it still has a valid position.
And, for a non-strongARM machine, it is surprisingly quick in use.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Hemmings Southport
Tel: +44 (0)1704 573210 rhem...@argonet.co.uk
Robin May
in: news:pan.2003.04.15....@ukonline.co.uk
> Hi,
>
> By the process of poking various fingers onto keys george
> generated this:
>
>> This reinforces the lingering suspicion in my mind that there is
>> in truth only one professional RO hardware company, and it isn't
>> RS or MD!
>
> It isn't Castle either.
>
> Ask this question - who makes the Iyonix? It's not Castle - it's a
> company called Tematic (who are ex-Pace engineers). Basically, all
> Castle are are resellers for a licenced product. They've not
> actually done any work (other than pay for some bits and bobs) on
> the Iyonix or the RPC. If professionalism is the ability to sell
> someone elses product, then surely CJE should get the award for
> most professional RO company!
Really, what does this matter? Castle have delivered the product - no
one else has. If they didn't completely make it themselves then so
what? They got it off the ground.
--
message by Robin May, living the life of an international loverman
"I wish to be entered and will pay" - A teacher forced me to say this!
Please feel free to call me Robin. It is my first name after all.
Peter Naulls
"Paul F. Johnson" <paulf....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Ask this question - who makes the Iyonix? It's not Castle - it's a company
> called Tematic (who are ex-Pace engineers). Basically, all Castle are are
> resellers for a licenced product. They've not actually done any work
> (other than pay for some bits and bobs) on the Iyonix or the RPC.
Except that anyone who's spent _any_ time talking to John Ballance
(most assuredly of Castle, and did a considerable amount for Iyonix
development) will tell you that's an absolute lie.
More disinformation to add to your list. Anyone who continues to trust
_anything_ Paul says is more of a fool than he is.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org
Homepage - http://www.chocky.org/
RISC OS C Programming - http://www.riscos.info/
Unix Programs on RISC OS - http://www.chocky.org/unix/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gilbert
<URL:mailto:paulf....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> By the process of poking various fingers onto keys george generated this:
>
> > This reinforces the lingering suspicion in my mind that there is in truth
> > only one professional RO hardware company, and it isn't RS or MD!
>
> It isn't Castle either.
Snip pathetic rant. Grow up, Paul. Castle are the manufacturers. If
they choose to subcontract the work to a company that can deliver the
product, then more power to them. The name on the overalls of the guy
wielding the spanner matters not a jot.
Castle have paid for a machine and got it to market. The last time that
happened, it was the RiscStation.
Paul F. Johnson
By the process of poking various fingers onto keys Peter Naulls generated
this:
> Except that anyone who's spent _any_ time talking to John Ballance
> (most assuredly of Castle, and did a considerable amount for Iyonix
> development) will tell you that's an absolute lie.
I've spoken to John on many an occassion and yes, he does work for Castle.
As for validity, wasn't it JB who maintained that there was nothing from
Linux in OS 5? Hmmmmm
> More disinformation to add to your list. Anyone who continues to trust
> _anything_ Paul says is more of a fool than he is.
Oh sod off you boring little sod. You know, you get much further without
having to revert to this - it has nothing to do with disinformation
either. You do yourself no good either with it. People switch off, and
even have filters if both of our names appear in succession in a thread as
they invariably turn into these petty squabbles (and looking at google)
which are usually started by guess who? Well, here's an odd thing, it
ain't me.
TTFN
Paul
Paul F. Johnson
By the process of poking various fingers onto keys Michael Gilbert
generated this:
>> It isn't Castle either.
>
> Snip pathetic rant. Grow up, Paul. Castle are the manufacturers. If
> they choose to subcontract the work to a company that can deliver the
> product, then more power to them. The name on the overalls of the guy
> wielding the spanner matters not a jot.
Well, not exactly. If a product is made under licence, then the product is
made by someone else, so at the end of the day, all they are doing is
shifting someone elses product with their badge on it.
I'm not for one minute saying that they have not got a product to market -
they obviously have, but the name on the overalls is important. If the
name gets pissed off with the licencee, then bang goes the licence and the
product from said licencee. Also, depending on the terms of the licence
depends on what the company licencing the product can do with it. You only
need to look at ROS Ltd for that. Despite the bluster over having the
exclusive licence from Pace for desktop RISC OS, we have VA running OS 3.1
and Castle running OS 5 and neither Pace or ROS Ltd really doing very much
about it (despite noises coming from Pace that they had not licenced OS 5
to anyone, nothing has happened over it).
You mentioned RiscStation. This is a different kettle of fish. They paid
Simtec for the board and that is now in the R7500 machines. If anything
happens to Simtec it won't matter to the R7500 machines as the machine is
not under licence. It is their own product. Buying and badging someone
else machine is totally different.
TTFN
Paul
Robin May
in: news:pan.2003.04.15....@ukonline.co.uk
<snip FUD>
Is there any point in this?
Chris Williams
On Tue, 15 Apr 2003, Paul F. Johnson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> By the process of poking various fingers onto keys Michael Gilbert
> generated this:
>
> >> It isn't Castle either.
> >
> > Snip pathetic rant. Grow up, Paul. Castle are the manufacturers. If
> > they choose to subcontract the work to a company that can deliver the
> > product, then more power to them. The name on the overalls of the guy
> > wielding the spanner matters not a jot.
>
> Well, not exactly. If a product is made under licence, then the product is
> made by someone else, so at the end of the day, all they are doing is
> shifting someone elses product with their badge on it.
[snip moose]
Oh dear Paul, desparate trolling now are we?
http://www.drobe.co.uk/riscos/artifact632.html
--
Chris Williams | http://arabella.diodesign.co.uk/
druck
> Ask this question - who makes the Iyonix? It's not Castle - it's a company
> called Tematic (who are ex-Pace engineers). Basically, all Castle are are
> resellers for a licenced product. They've not actually done any work
> (other than pay for some bits and bobs) on the Iyonix or the RPC.
The originastion of various buisnesses designed to allow people to work from
the part of the country they are based in, is neither here nor there. The
Iyonix is very much Castle's baby and the contribution of Castle's staff,
especially John Ballance cannot be praised too highly. He is involved in
everything from personally soldering bits on to my prototype, to doing
software releases - even on Chrismas day - "well there's not much else to do
after the kids have gone to bed".
---druck
--
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
druck
> I've spoken to John on many an occassion and yes, he does work for Castle.
> As for validity, wasn't it JB who maintained that there was nothing from
> Linux in OS 5? Hmmmmm
The assumes you know the difference between the OS and the HAL, which after
weeks of arguments back then, you obviously still have picked up.
> On 15 Apr 2003 Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> > More disinformation to add to your list. Anyone who continues to trust
> > _anything_ Paul says is more of a fool than he is.
>
> Oh sod off you boring little sod.
Lacking a bit on vocabulary there, Paul.
> You know, you get much further without having to revert to this
resort
[rest of poor quality rant snipped]
Peter Naulls
> Oh sod off you boring little sod. You know, you get much further without
> having to revert to this - it has nothing to do with disinformation
[snip rant]
Well done Paul, reverting to type. You resort to personal insults when
you've been shown to be desperately wrong yet again. The information
you posted was misleading, and using big words is not going to anything
to salvage your remaining shreds of credibility. If you don't want
people to correct you, then don't post in the first place.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org
Homepage - http://www.chocky.org/
RISC OS C Programming - http://www.riscos.info/
Unix Programs on RISC OS - http://www.chocky.org/unix/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drobe - http://www.drobe.co.uk/ - Quality, Regular RISC OS News and Views
Michael Gilbert
<URL:mailto:northc...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> "Paul F. Johnson" <paulf....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote the following
> in: news:pan.2003.04.15....@ukonline.co.uk
>
> <snip FUD>
>
> Is there any point in this?
>
condition, for some reason.
Michael Gilbert
<URL:mailto:ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 15 Apr 2003 "Paul F. Johnson" <paulf....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> > I've spoken to John on many an occassion and yes, he does work for Castle.
> > As for validity, wasn't it JB who maintained that there was nothing from
> > Linux in OS 5? Hmmmmm
>
> The assumes you know the difference between the OS and the HAL, which after
> weeks of arguments back then, you obviously still have picked up.
>
> > On 15 Apr 2003 Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> > > More disinformation to add to your list. Anyone who continues to trust
> > > _anything_ Paul says is more of a fool than he is.
> >
> > Oh sod off you boring little sod.
>
> Lacking a bit on vocabulary there, Paul.
>
> > You know, you get much further without having to revert to this
> resort
> [rest of poor quality rant snipped]
>
> ---druck
>
NeilWB
Big snip
>
> Well, not exactly. If a product is made under licence, then the product is
> made by someone else, so at the end of the day, all they are doing is
> shifting someone elses product with their badge on it.
So what! Even multi-national consumer electronics manufacturers "farm
out" the design, manufacture, and even delivery of many of their
products to third party specialists - allowing them to concentrate on
their core competencies. If Acorn had understood that marketing was
THE most important element of product creation, perhaps they would
still exist.
>
> I'm not for one minute saying that they have not got a product to market -
> they obviously have, but the name on the overalls is important. If the
> name gets pissed off with the licencee, then bang goes the licence and the
> product from said licencee.
Erm, not necessarily - surely this depends upon the nature of the
licence.
> Also, depending on the terms of the licence
> depends on what the company licencing the product can do with it. You only
> need to look at ROS Ltd for that. Despite the bluster over having the
> exclusive licence from Pace for desktop RISC OS, we have VA running OS 3.1
> and Castle running OS 5 and neither Pace or ROS Ltd really doing very much
> about it (despite noises coming from Pace that they had not licenced OS 5
> to anyone, nothing has happened over it).
>
Reading your posts brings to mind the turn-of-phrase involving
opinions and a*seholes!
Neil W-B
druck
> In article <ee98c8e3...@druck.freeuk.net>, druck
><URL:mailto:ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
>> On 15 Apr 2003 "Paul F. Johnson" <paulf....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>> > You know, you get much further without having to revert to this
>> resort
>> [rest of poor quality rant snipped]
>
> Kinell, druck correcting spelling...
Not spelling, just the wrong word.
Terry
Rob Hemmings <rhem...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > AFAIK the RiscStation R7500 is still the only machine that's
> > appropriate as an entry machine for new users. At less than half the
> > price of an Iyonix it still has a valid position.
>
> And, for a non-strongARM machine, it is surprisingly quick in use.
Yes :-)
</brevity>
--
__o Terry Mills Norwich - Up The Canaries!!
_`\<,_ te...@norridge.org.uk Clan 3444; Foundation 0037; ZFC S+
(_)/*(_) Who needs Bill Gates? Acorn RiscPC (Kinetic) 233MHz
Phone: 01603-427900 http://www.norridge.org.uk
Martyn Fox
<paulf....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> Oh sod off you boring little sod.
You are an extremely bad advert for RiscStation which, until recently, you
represented on the mailing list.
If I was Roy and you were an employee instead of (AIUI) an unpaid volunteer,
I would fire you without question.
As I have often commented, abusive remarks say far more about the person
making them than the person to whom they refer.
The above remark says a lot about you.
Martyn Fox
--
_
|\/| _ _ -+- _ |_ _ Windsor, Berks. UK
| | (_| | | (_| | ) | (_) )( mf...@argonet.co.uk
ZFC Ba _| Acorn Risc Pc with StrongARM - a Wintel-free zone!
Paul F. Johnson
By the process of poking various fingers onto keys Martyn Fox generated
this:
> In article <pan.2003.04.15....@ukonline.co.uk>, Paul F. Johnson
> <paulf....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Oh sod off you boring little sod.
>
> You are an extremely bad advert for RiscStation which, until recently, you
> represented on the mailing list.
> The above remark says a lot about you.
Have a look back at the past episodes and you'll see what can drive a
person to this sort of retort. You will see a long line dating back a
couple of years (I think it started with a support issue over the ARM
Linux instructions and went downhill from there) where you will see
something said by me and if it doesn't fit Peter's myopic field of vision
(or field of reality) then it's jumped on from a height - argued the toss
over and finally one of us decides that the other one is not worth the
effort and walks away (to the cheers of many who see this as very
destructive).
Without going into the emails between us (which really does show the
levels of his pettiness), I have a feeling that google will back me up on
what I've said.
As to if I'm a bad example for a company I don't work for, I'll leave that
up to others. I'm okay with what I said (as are quite a number via email
who find Peter's abrasive tendancies to be more a disinsentive to stay
with the platform than to stay with it)
TTFN
Paul
TTFN
Paul
Ray Dawson
<mf...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <pan.2003.04.15....@ukonline.co.uk>, Paul F.
> Johnson <paulf....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> > Oh sod off you boring little sod.
> You are an extremely bad advert for RiscStation which, until recently,
> you represented on the mailing list.
> If I was Roy and you were an employee instead of (AIUI) an unpaid
> volunteer, I would fire you without question.
> As I have often commented, abusive remarks say far more about the
> person making them than the person to whom they refer.
> The above remark says a lot about you.
I think the remark was aimed back at a so-called 'respected' poster who
had posted abusive comments about Paul.
While I don't necessarily agree with Paul's views, I believe he should be
free to post them without attracting the sort of bigotted diatribes which
are so prevalent on the c.s.a newsgroups these days. There are a lot of
control freaks around who post nothing but venemous insults against
anyone who disagrees with their simple minded little views.
Yet, it seems it's perfectly permissable for them to do so. Which says a
lot for the integrity of the platform - leaving it to poison dwarfs to
have their say in defending it.
Cheers,
Ray D
--
Ray Dawson
r...@magray.freeserve.co.uk
MagRay - the audio & braille specialists
VinceH (use reply-to)
> As I have often commented, abusive remarks say far more about
> the person making them than the person to whom they refer.
In this case, though, I think it says more about the
history between Peter and Paul.
VinceH
--
VinceH can be found in the vicinity of http://www.vinceh.com
Soft Rock Software can be found around http://www.softrock.co.uk
WebChange2 for RISC OS & Windows is at http://www.webchange.co.uk
Peter Naulls
Ray Dawson <R...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> While I don't necessarily agree with Paul's views, I believe he should be
> free to post them without attracting the sort of bigotted diatribes which
> are so prevalent on the c.s.a newsgroups these days. There are a lot of
> control freaks around who post nothing but venemous insults against
> anyone who disagrees with their simple minded little views.
Paul is free to have his own views, it's not a matter of views (anyone
who doubts this should ask Chris Hughes what I said to him). It's a
matter that Paul persists in posting exceesive amounts of at best
misleading information, and in may cases, outright lies. The damage he
continues to cause far outweighs any complaints about upsetting people
on usenet. I would (and often do) correct anyone making false
statements, but Paul has shown he's impervious to subtely, so bluntness
is the only defence.
In this instance, and despite his later attempts to twist words, he
claimed that Castle played only a small role in the development of the
Iyonix - clearly false, as backed up by druck. You don't have to look
far for many more false assertions.
Ray, what you are suggesting is that I do NOT correct matters of fact,
and leave them to cause problems later on. I certainly know and expect
that you would (and have done) the same. You are of course free to
critisize my actions, but I fear you are missing the root of the
problem.
Regards, Peter
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org
Homepage - http://www.chocky.org/
RISC OS C Programming - http://www.riscos.info/
Unix Programs on RISC OS - http://www.chocky.org/unix/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RISC OS Browser Issue - http://www.chocky.org/unix/browser.html
John Cartmell
<R...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
[Snip]
> While I don't necessarily agree with Paul's views, I believe he should
> be free to post them without attracting the sort of bigotted diatribes
> which are so prevalent on the c.s.a newsgroups these days.
It doesn't even need to be bigotted or a diatribe. Can we all cool it and
*discuss* issues. Personal arguments are for e-mails (or preferable write
your thoughts on a piece of paper then tear it into little pieces* and
throw them away.
[Snip]
*the 'whilst drinking a double whisky' is optional. ;-)
John Cartmell
Terry <te...@norridge.org.uk> wrote:
> In message <4be3679e8...@argonet.co.uk>
> Rob Hemmings <rhem...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > AFAIK the RiscStation R7500 is still the only machine that's
> > > appropriate as an entry machine for new users. At less than half the
> > > price of an Iyonix it still has a valid position.
> >
> > And, for a non-strongARM machine, it is surprisingly quick in use.
> <brevity>
> Yes :-)
> </brevity>
And it has come to mind that the A7000+ still exists. I'm neutral in all
this [the room I'm in at the moment has a StrongARM RiscPC, A7000+, IYONIX
pc and a RiscStation.] ;-)
Steven Pampling
> If I was Roy and you were an employee instead of (AIUI) an unpaid
> volunteer, I would fire you without question.
In most cases volunteers should have some sort of contract, even if it's
only a terms and conditions for being there type of thing.
David Love
"VinceH (use reply-to)" <spa...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4be444d...@argonet.co.uk>,
> Martyn Fox <mf...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > As I have often commented, abusive remarks say far more about
> > the person making them than the person to whom they refer.
>
> In this case, though, I think it says more about the
> history between Peter and Paul.
and Mary! Ah1 that shows my age :-)
David
--
David Love
The important thing is never to stop questioning.
Martyn Fox
> While I don't necessarily agree with Paul's views, I believe he should be
> free to post them without attracting the sort of bigotted diatribes which
> are so prevalent on the c.s.a newsgroups these days.
I certainly believe that it is very important for Paul, like everybody else,
to be able to express his views, but wish he would do so in a more polite
manner.
Martyn
Martyn Fox
<paulf....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> Have a look back at the past episodes and you'll see what can drive a
> person to this sort of retort.
Unfortunately, if you resort to rudeness or abuse, you diminish the power of
your (possibly quite legitimate) argument because you give those who disagree
with you ammunition to use against you and make it easier for them to reject
your views out of hand.
Martyn
Paul F. Johnson
By the process of poking various fingers onto keys Martyn Fox generatedHi,
this:
> In article <pan.2003.04.16....@ukonline.co.uk>, Paul F. Johnson
> <paulf....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Have a look back at the past episodes and you'll see what can drive a
>> person to this sort of retort.
>
> Unfortunately, if you resort to rudeness or abuse, you diminish the power of
> your (possibly quite legitimate) argument because you give those who disagree
> with you ammunition to use against you and make it easier for them to reject
> your views out of hand.
Possibly. The only problem is that this goes on and on and on with the
same rhetoric flung both ways - it gets to the point that if I proved that
my Epson C60 printer prints black when I send the instruction "print
black" to it and that this is beyond any doubt, Peter would no doubt say
that I was wrong - mainly as I've said something.
It gets so darned infuriating that sometimes even the best natured of
folks lose their rags.
TTFN
Paul
Paul F. Johnson
By the process of poking various fingers onto keys Peter Naulls generated
this:
> In message <4be473...@raydawson.com>
> Ray Dawson <R...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> While I don't necessarily agree with Paul's views, I believe he should be
>> free to post them without attracting the sort of bigotted diatribes which
>> are so prevalent on the c.s.a newsgroups these days. There are a lot of
>> control freaks around who post nothing but venemous insults against
>> anyone who disagrees with their simple minded little views.
>
> Paul is free to have his own views, it's not a matter of views (anyone
> who doubts this should ask Chris Hughes what I said to him).
That's good to know, though why anyone should need to ask a third party
what has been said to me is another matter. I have no skeletons in the
closet, so out with it. Let's get this over and done with once and for all.
> It's a
> matter that Paul persists in posting exceesive amounts of at best
> misleading information, and in may cases, outright lies. The damage he
> continues to cause far outweighs any complaints about upsetting people
> on usenet. I would (and often do) correct anyone making false
> statements, but Paul has shown he's impervious to subtely, so bluntness
> is the only defence.
Um nope. Excessive (I think you meant to say) amounts is going way
overboard as is the claim of the amount of damage. I am not impervious to
the gentle-gentle approach either.
> In this instance, and despite his later attempts to twist words, he
> claimed that Castle played only a small role in the development of the
> Iyonix - clearly false, as backed up by druck. You don't have to look
> far for many more false assertions.
Twist words? Nah. Why should I twist them when the meaning is blatently
obvious.
Look at it this way.
The similarities of the board which was at Pace and the Iyonix board is
remarkable. The Iyonix board does not come from Castle, is not designed by
Castle or even has the Castle name on it. The Iyonix is made under
licence. The origins of the operating system are dubious to say the least.
The amount of GPL stuff in the HAL and other less obvious bits of the OS
are there. Despite what is said, the HAL is not (as is claimed) a BIOS.
If you remove the OS, the HAL will not do anything. If you remove the OS
from a PC, the machine will still boot up. To say that the HAL is not part
of the OS is therefore incorrect to say the least. The XScale on *core
processing* is roughly double the speed of the SA (as verified by Kevin
Bracey), despite banging on about it, the XScale is also a machine on a
chip (akin to the ARM7500FE chips) which means that performance is hit.
I'm not saying that Castle didn't do some work on it. They did - how else
could the hack to get the PCI GF2 card to work be done (cross connecting a
couple of wires to reverse the Red-Blue / Blue-Red lines instead of using
a cheap lead to the monitor or external connector) and the dodgy USB
system (yes, it is based on DeviceFS, but a version which no-one other
than internal to Pace had access to) which (from what I've been very
reliably told) is still not working properly.
Do I need to mention that you can't actually calibrate the colour system,
so high-end graphics packages may not work properly wrt the gamma
correction.
Now where in there has anything been twisted? Nowhere.
> I fear you are missing the root of the
> problem.
Yes, you certainly have.
TTFN
Paul
druck
> The similarities of the board which was at Pace and the Iyonix board is
> remarkable. The Iyonix board does not come from Castle, is not designed by
> Castle or even has the Castle name on it. The Iyonix is made under
> licence.
The Iyonix is Castle's machine, various aspects of the hardware design and
layout have been sub contracted to various companies, some of which were
formerly closely associated with PACE. This is how just about every piece of
electronics is manufactured these days. The term "under licence" is
meaningless.
> The origins of the operating system are dubious to say the least.
> The amount of GPL stuff in the HAL and other less obvious bits of the OS
> are there.
FUD. The patronage of the code has been fully and satisfactorily explained.
> Despite what is said, the HAL is not (as is claimed) a BIOS.
It was never claimed to be a BIOS, because it is a HAL, which if you
understand these things is a entirely different concept. "BIOS" was just
introduced as an analogy, which was very unwise, as some people dont
understand what that is either as is demonstrated by the following
sentance:-
> If you remove the OS, the HAL will not do anything. If you remove the OS
> from a PC, the machine will still boot up.
Which is not recognised by anyone as the definition of a BIOS.
> To say that the HAL is not part of the OS is therefore incorrect to say the
> least.
Rubbish.
> The XScale on *core processing* is roughly double the speed of the
> SA (as verified by Kevin Bracey), despite banging on about it, the XScale
> is also a machine on a chip (akin to the ARM7500FE chips) which means that
> performance is hit.
The XScale IOP321 is not alin to the ARM7500FE. The XScale has integrated
memory and PCI controllers (i.e. Northbridge functionality) which in no way
compromises its performance, if anything potentially enhances it by
emilinating latency between separate processor and northbridge chips.
The reason the ARM7500FE is compromised is its provision on onboard Video and
Audio DMA controllers, which means large screens will use bandwidth on the
single databus between the chip and memory, making it unavailable for the
processor and reducing performance.
The XScale does not have integrated Video or Audio. Video is provided by a
PCI card which has an entirely seperate Video DMA system and graphics
acceleration, which offers vastly better performance than any VIDC based
system.
> I'm not saying that Castle didn't do some work on it. They did - how else
> could the hack to get the PCI GF2 card to work be done (cross connecting a
> couple of wires to reverse the Red-Blue / Blue-Red lines instead of using
> a cheap lead to the monitor or external connector)
Of no interest to anyone.
> and the dodgy USB system (yes, it is based on DeviceFS, but a version which
> no-one other than internal to Pace had access to)
You mean an API that was designed by the people who created the operating
system rather than a 3rd party, which of course is a bad thing?
> Do I need to mention that you can't actually calibrate the colour system,
> so high-end graphics packages may not work properly wrt the gamma
> correction.
Gamma correction in all video modes is fully supported in the latest
firmware, and working correctly with the 32bit version of Photodesk.
> Now where in there has anything been twisted? Nowhere.
It couldn't more twisted if it was a curly wurly.
Ian Molton
druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> > The origins of the operating system are dubious to say the least.
> > The amount of GPL stuff in the HAL and other less obvious bits of
> > the OS are there.
>
> FUD. The patronage of the code has been fully and satisfactorily
> explained.
I'll add to that that I have a copy of it, proving that it is available
to end users (although I think it should have been stuck on an FTP
server too). The letter (if not the spirit) of the GPL has been
followed, and that is good enough.
--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.
Systems programmers keep it up longer.
Peter Naulls
druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2003 "Paul F. Johnson" <paulf....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> > The XScale on *core processing* is roughly double the speed of the
> > SA (as verified by Kevin Bracey), despite banging on about it, the XScale
> > is also a machine on a chip (akin to the ARM7500FE chips) which means that
> > performance is hit.
>
> The XScale IOP321 is not alin to the ARM7500FE. The XScale has integrated
> memory and PCI controllers (i.e. Northbridge functionality) which in no way
> compromises its performance, if anything potentially enhances it by
> emilinating latency between separate processor and northbridge chips.
Paul continues to have no clue what the "XScale" is, despite it being
explained to him several times. Note that he hasn't mentioned the
IOP321 at any point. XScale is the processor core, and doesn't refer to
any specific chip, and more than "ARM7" does. So saying it is a
machine on a chip is doubly wrong.
Of course, despite this, Paul continues to disseminate this false
knowledge to unwary people, who end up confused. If this isn't of
concern to anyone, it should be.
John Tytgat
> [...] the dodgy USB
> system (yes, it is based on DeviceFS, but a version which no-one other
> than internal to Pace had access to)
Does the fact that Pace's USB work and Castle's USB implementation are both
based on DeviceFS (same API) mean that the actual implementation are one and
the same ? I'm not sure. Do you have proof of that ?
Do you have facts backing up that Castle's USB system is dodgy ? My USB
devices are working fine on Castles USB podule card and I fail to see the
dodgy aspect of it.
Note that Iyonix USB API is simplified compared to their originial USB
podule API (basically a better information structuring of the Service_USB
service call data and an elegant system to hook in new drivers without too
much effort) and that the new API is now also available on their USB podule
cards. When you look at this (and in less extend, the previous) API I can't
help being pleased by the simplicity of its design, something I'm not so
sure with the Simtec USB stack.
> which (from what I've been very
> reliably told) is still not working properly.
There is a lot of hearsay around USB driver design. I wouldn't mind that we
can hear some statements *first hand*, i.e. from people who are actually
writing USB drivers and hear some clear facts (or what those people think
that are facts).
It is too easy to claim so called facts based on "reliably told". I don't
buy this anymore.
BTW, I just want to share the following story : I can still hear Roy
publically saying at the previous Wakefield show that Castle's USB stack
can't work at all *by design* (because it is based on DeviceFS) while I had
a working USB mouse and keyboard one week after the show (at the show the
mouse & keyboard drivers were prototype and it was clearly not the "does not
work at all *by design*" situation). At that time the Simtec USB solution
was nowhere seen working. Basically you are repeating what Roy was saying
at that time...
Jo.
--
John Tytgat f u cn rd ths,
Jo...@esko-graphics.com u cn gt a gd jb n cmptr prgrmmng !
John Cartmell
Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> Paul continues to have no clue what the "XScale" is, despite it being
> explained to him several times. Note that he hasn't mentioned the
> IOP321 at any point. XScale is the processor core, and doesn't refer to
> any specific chip, and more than "ARM7" does. So saying it is a
> machine on a chip is doubly wrong.
'XScale' is commonly used both ways which is why Intel have released a
statement asking for only their definition to be used. Language doesn't
work like that!
--
John Cartmell jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Acorn Publisher magazine & FD Games http://www.acornpublisher.com
John Cartmell
<.invalid> wrote:
> Paul F. Johnson wrote:
> > [...] the dodgy USB system (yes, it is based on DeviceFS, but a
> > version which no-one other than internal to Pace had access to)
> Does the fact that Pace's USB work and Castle's USB implementation are
> both based on DeviceFS (same API) mean that the actual implementation
> are one and the same ? I'm not sure. Do you have proof of that ?
Are both of castle's implementations the same?
> Do you have facts backing up that Castle's USB system is dodgy ? My USB
> devices are working fine on Castles USB podule card and I fail to see
> the dodgy aspect of it.
Both the Simtec and the IYONIX implementation seem to work - with Simtec
winning on perceived support ATM. I haven't seen anything about the Castle
USB support for older machines. Any experience?
[Snip]
> BTW, I just want to share the following story : I can still hear Roy
> publically saying at the previous Wakefield show that Castle's USB stack
> can't work at all *by design* (because it is based on DeviceFS) while I
> had a working USB mouse and keyboard one week after the show (at the
> show the mouse & keyboard drivers were prototype and it was clearly not
> the "does not work at all *by design*" situation). At that time the
> Simtec USB solution was nowhere seen working.
I didn't have time to check at the Show but the Simtec design was certainly
working well very soon afterwards and does so now.
What devices work on the Castle card in the RiscPC? Are there any problems?
John Tytgat
> In article <3e9fb84d$0$13262$4d4e...@news.be.uu.net>, John Tytgat
> <.invalid> wrote:
>>Does the fact that Pace's USB work and Castle's USB implementation are
>>both based on DeviceFS (same API) mean that the actual implementation
>>are one and the same ? I'm not sure. Do you have proof of that ?
>
> Are both of castle's implementations the same?
Both APIs of Iyonix and their podule are now the same. Cfr.
<URL:http://www.iyonix.com/32bit/USB.shtml>. I don't know if the source
code is the same (I doubt it will be 100% the same, maybe to some extend)
but that's irrelevant. The fact that the API is the same is important.
> Both the Simtec and the IYONIX implementation seem to work - with Simtec
> winning on perceived support ATM. I haven't seen anything about the Castle
> USB support for older machines. Any experience?
Not sure what you mean with 'older machines' (non Iyonix onces ?) but I'm
using their USB podule in my RiscPC. Keyboard and mouse work, that's a
fact. I haven't tried it in my A310 but I can not remember reading
statements that it needs e.g. at least a RiscPC.
> What devices work on the Castle card in the RiscPC?
Mouse & keyboard support are standard on their USB podule. I see that they
are selling a USB scanner, see
<URL:http://www.castle.org.uk/castle/imaging.htm>. I know that their
previous USB SDKs contained source code for driving USB printers but I don't
know the status of it (nor can I find references on their website).
> Are there any problems?
I'm looking around, any handwaving to tell us their 1st hand experience ?
Chris Williams
On Fri, 18 Apr 2003, druck wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2003 "Paul F. Johnson" <paulf....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
[snippity]
> > Now where in there has anything been twisted? Nowhere.
>
> It couldn't more twisted if it was a curly wurly.
Heh :-) Perhaps Paul (and anyone else interested in the processor in the
Iyonix) should read this:
http://www.drobe.co.uk/riscos/artifact639.html
All the best,
--
Chris Williams | http://arabella.diodesign.co.uk/
VinceH (use reply-to)
<Pine.SOL.4.44.03041...@primrose.csv.warwick.ac.uk>,
Chris Williams <es...@warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
> Heh :-) Perhaps Paul (and anyone else interested in the
> processor in the Iyonix) should read this:
> http://www.drobe.co.uk/riscos/artifact639.html
The problem I have is that that article, as well as
trying to get a point across, which is obviously a
good thing, reads to me as though there is a between
the lines dig at Paul - and ISTR thinking that when
I've read a couple of other recent articles on Drobe
- and I'm not sure that sort of thing is entirely
appropriate.
(OTOH, perhaps noting that the article was written
by Peter leads me to read too much into the direct
reference to "confusing statements made by
RiscStation's spokesperson" - in which case maybe
just "confusing statements recently made on usenet"
wouldn't have been better?)
Steven Pampling
<mf...@argonet.co.uk>
wrote:
> I certainly believe that it is very important for Paul, like everybody
> else, to be able to express his views, but wish he would do so in a more
> polite manner.
Aspergers ???
(spelling??)
Martyn Fox
<jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> What devices work on the Castle card in the RiscPC? Are there any problems?
Has anybody produced a digital camera USB driver for either card?
Martyn
Peter Naulls
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <9508f8e4...@chocky.org>,
> Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> > Paul continues to have no clue what the "XScale" is, despite it being
> > explained to him several times. Note that he hasn't mentioned the
> > IOP321 at any point. XScale is the processor core, and doesn't refer to
> > any specific chip, and more than "ARM7" does. So saying it is a
> > machine on a chip is doubly wrong.
>
> 'XScale' is commonly used both ways which is why Intel have released a
> statement asking for only their definition to be used. Language doesn't
> work like that!
"XScale" is clearly used in several ways, and I've said as much in my
article, but what you say really misses the point. Paul was
attempting to make a technical point about XScales - which, even if
true for the one found in Iyonix, wouldn't have been for many other
XScale devices. Technical points need clear definitions, and Paul
wasn't in a position to give one, clearly not being aware of the
details of the Iyonix XScale.
Futhermore, XScales vary much more than, say, StrongARM devices (even
though we invariably mean the SA110), and it's crucial to say which one
we're talking about - moreso if and when there comes a point where more
than one RISC OS machine is fitted with one.
Peter Naulls
"VinceH (use reply-to)" <spa...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
> (OTOH, perhaps noting that the article was written
> by Peter leads me to read too much into the direct
> reference to "confusing statements made by
> RiscStation's spokesperson" - in which case maybe
> just "confusing statements recently made on usenet"
> wouldn't have been better?)
Paul made similar noises in the drobe comments system, hence the
wording. It seems likely that he's also been disseminating this
elsewhere too. In any case, it was high time for a proper explantion,
and I'll be updating that article shortly.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org
Homepage - http://www.chocky.org/
RISC OS C Programming - http://www.riscos.info/
Unix Programs on RISC OS - http://www.chocky.org/unix/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free RISC OS Hosting - http://www.prowl.org/
charles.hope
> By the process of poking various fingers onto keys george generated this:
> > This reinforces the lingering suspicion in my mind that there is in
> > truth only one professional RO hardware company, and it isn't RS or MD!
> It isn't Castle either.
> Ask this question - who makes the Iyonix? It's not Castle - it's a
> company called Tematic (who are ex-Pace engineers).
I'm pretty certain that my "Acorn" BBC B was made by ICL and the Teletext
adaptor was made by AB Electronics - that didn't stop them being Acorn
machines. Acorn never had any manufacturing facilities - they
subcontracted - like most electronics firms. Many products nowadays state
"Made in China" - certainly none of those factories are owned by the
brand-name owner.
charles.hope
Paul F. Johnson <paulf....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi,
> By the process of poking various fingers onto keys Michael Gilbert
> generated this:
>
> >> It isn't Castle either.
> >
> > Snip pathetic rant. Grow up, Paul. Castle are the manufacturers. If
> > they choose to subcontract the work to a company that can deliver the
> > product, then more power to them. The name on the overalls of the guy
> > wielding the spanner matters not a jot.
> Well, not exactly. If a product is made under licence, then the product
> is made by someone else, so at the end of the day, all they are doing is
> shifting someone elses product with their badge on it.
You obviously don't understand "Made under licence".
^^^^
The licence is a licence to "make".
Going to a slightly different product; at least 3 firms took out a licence
to market the BBC's LS3/5A - these three firms all built and marketed a
product that the BBC had designed. The BBC never built any - even for its
own use - they did subcontract others to make them and at least one of the
licencees was a sub-contractor!
Martyn Fox
<charle...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> Acorn never had any manufacturing facilities - they subcontracted - like
> most electronics firms.
ISTR that the Sinclair Spectrum was manufactured at the Timex watch factory
in Scotland.
John Appleby
news:4be63f9...@argonet.co.uk...
>
> ZFC Ba _| Acorn Risc Pc with StrongARM - a Wintel-free zone!
Oh the irony :)
JA
Martyn Fox
<sp...@ml-sss.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Oh the irony :)
If ZFC Ba is part of the irony, I'm afraid it's lost on me.
My StrongARM is made by DEC, IIRC.
Can anyone suggest a good contraction of Microsoft and the Pentium processor?
Thinks ...
Some people whose memories of TV commercials go back a long way may remember
the old joke:
Q. What has four bums and keeps you warm?
A. Esso Blue.
How about:
Q. What has one bum, followed by four bums and produces plenty of warmth?
A. A Pentium processor.
Martyn
--
_
|\/| _ _ -+- _ |_ _ Windsor, Berks. UK
| | (_| | | (_| | ) | (_) )( mf...@argonet.co.uk
Ian Molton
Martyn Fox <mf...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Has anybody produced a digital camera USB driver for either card?
which cam did you have in mind?
I'd think a port of gphoto2 ought to be fairly simple...
Martyn Fox
<sp...@f2s.com> wrote:
> > Has anybody produced a digital camera USB driver for either card?
> which cam did you have in mind?
Olympus C-4000 Zoom.
druck
I'm pleased to say the latest firmware from UDMA upgrade is now with us,
and fully supports gamma correction. Try it out with my !Gamma from the
link below.