ST developments New graphics card.

11 views
Skip to first unread message

Dave Symes

unread,
Apr 25, 2009, 3:03:11 PM4/25/09
to
So folks, silly jokes and stunts aside, is the graphics card from ST real
or just a load of a-holes messing about?

Dave

--

David H Wild

unread,
Apr 25, 2009, 3:58:12 PM4/25/09
to
In article <5051aa4...@triffid.co.uk>,

Dave Symes <da...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
> So folks, silly jokes and stunts aside, is the graphics card from ST real
> or just a load of a-holes messing about?

It certainly seemed to be real when I had a play with it this afternoon.
One thing that I like is that you don't need an MDF file for a modern
monitor - the card will ask the monitor and use the reply.

--
David Wild using RISC OS on broadband
www.davidhwild.me.uk

diodesign

unread,
Apr 25, 2009, 4:47:17 PM4/25/09
to

It appears to be real. A few photos here and more to come later:

http://www.drobe.co.uk/article.php?id=2490

C.

Alan Adams

unread,
Apr 25, 2009, 4:41:19 PM4/25/09
to
In message <5051aa4...@triffid.co.uk>
Dave Symes <da...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:

> So folks, silly jokes and stunts aside, is the graphics card from ST real
> or just a load of a-holes messing about?

If they were messing about, then they did it well enough to fool
people into parting with money.

High-res fast graphics for Risc PC, at least 1600*1200, probably more.
Quite pricy.

Alan


--
Alan Adams, from Northamptonshire
al...@adamshome.org.uk
http://www.nckc.org.uk/

Tim Powys-Lybbe

unread,
Apr 25, 2009, 5:26:08 PM4/25/09
to
In message of 25 Apr, Alan Adams <al...@adamshome.org.uk> wrote:

> In message <5051aa4...@triffid.co.uk>
> Dave Symes <da...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > So folks, silly jokes and stunts aside, is the graphics card from ST real
> > or just a load of a-holes messing about?
>
> If they were messing about, then they did it well enough to fool
> people into parting with money.
>
> High-res fast graphics for Risc PC, at least 1600*1200, probably more.
> Quite pricy.

I saw it too and it looked very good. I even saw a little podule in the
RISC PC. I was told that a screen of something around 2500 x 1500 could
be generated but not demonstrated as they don't have that size of
monitor.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          t...@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

Message has been deleted

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Apr 25, 2009, 6:47:40 PM4/25/09
to
In article <5051bc1c...@argonet.co.uk>,
Stuart <Spa...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> Expensive? - Hmmm, matter of opinion. How much is a viewfinder *if* you
> can find one.

Last two on Ebay made slightly more and slightly less than the STD one
costs. Dunno if they were identical models.

--
*A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand times more memory.

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Apr 25, 2009, 7:27:27 PM4/25/09
to
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:17:43 +0100
Stuart <Spa...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:

> Expensive? - Hmmm, matter of opinion. How much is a viewfinder *if*

> you can find one. If you wanted a viewfinder, here's what you want -
> more modern and fully supported.

And try finding a ViewFinder with a warranty. I think 149 quid is
quite reasonable given how much ViewFinders tend to go for on eBay;
plus developing hardware in such small quantities for the RISC OS
market is not cheap.

B.

Dave Symes

unread,
Apr 26, 2009, 1:45:25 AM4/26/09
to
In article <9b49b35150...@laptop.adamshome.org.uk>,

Alan Adams <al...@adamshome.org.uk> wrote:
> In message <5051aa4...@triffid.co.uk>
> Dave Symes <da...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:

> > So folks, silly jokes and stunts aside, is the graphics card from ST
> > real or just a load of a-holes messing about?

> If they were messing about, then they did it well enough to fool
> people into parting with money.

> High-res fast graphics for Risc PC, at least 1600*1200, probably more.
> Quite pricy.

> Alan

Thanks to all who posted with confirmation.

Considering how much a new ViewFinder card would cost (if you could get
one) and how rarer than hens teeth, second hand, guaranteed to be working
ones are, I think 150 quid for a small volume new graphics card is okay.

Dave

--

News poster

unread,
Apr 26, 2009, 4:11:55 AM4/26/09
to
In message <5051e51...@triffid.co.uk>
Dave Symes <da...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]


>
> Considering how much a new ViewFinder card would cost (if you could get
> one) and how rarer than hens teeth, second hand, guaranteed to be working
> ones are, I think 150 quid for a small volume new graphics card is okay.

150 quid plus the cost of upgrading to RISC OS 6 if you don't already
have it.

Cheers
Stan

--
http://mistymornings.net

Simon Challands

unread,
Apr 26, 2009, 6:13:04 AM4/26/09
to
In message <8d83f25...@hetnet.nl>
News poster <work...@mail.com> wrote:

Yes, expensive, but not unreasonably under the circumstances (i.e.
it's hard to see that it could be much cheaper, even with the card /
RO6 combination, and still be worth making).

--
Simon Challands

Steve Fryatt

unread,
Apr 26, 2009, 6:46:38 AM4/26/09
to
On 26 Apr, News poster wrote in message
<8d83f25...@hetnet.nl>:

Which is 200 pounds. For a low-volume graphics card, to fit to a 15 year
old machine in a minority platform, that still sounds fairly reasonable.
I doubt that STD or ROL will be getting rich on that.

--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England

http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Apr 26, 2009, 7:21:10 AM4/26/09
to
In article <e69afd51...@helvellyn.plus.com>,

Simon Challands <simon_...@helvellyn.plus.com> wrote:
> > 150 quid plus the cost of upgrading to RISC OS 6 if you don't already
> > have it.

> Yes, expensive, but not unreasonably under the circumstances (i.e.
> it's hard to see that it could be much cheaper, even with the card /
> RO6 combination, and still be worth making).

Which means I won't be in the market for it after my experiences with RO6.

--
*Red meat is not bad for you. Fuzzy green meat is bad for you.

News poster

unread,
Apr 26, 2009, 7:28:46 AM4/26/09
to
In message <aaad0052...@helvellyn.stevefryatt.org.uk>
Steve Fryatt <ne...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:

I wasn't implying that either would be getting rich on that pricing.
However the true cost for a lot of people would be the price of the card
plus the price of RO6 or Select.

Dave Symes

unread,
Apr 26, 2009, 9:34:53 AM4/26/09
to
In article <8d83f25...@hetnet.nl>,

> Cheers
> Stan

Mnnn! But as I like a number of other people, have supported the RO Select
scheme since the beginning, I do have RO 6.16 installed on this machine.
Unfortunately/fortunately it also has a Viewfinder card in it.

But the other SARPC doesn't have a VF card, and is running Select 4.39 so
I'd have to upgrade that to 6.nn which wouldn't cost me anything except
time, so 150 quid would seem okay.

Dave

Of course there are also large numbers who have not supported the Select
scheme, so I guess having to cough some extra is a fair game.
D.

--

News poster

unread,
Apr 26, 2009, 10:48:31 AM4/26/09
to
In message <5052101...@triffid.co.uk>
Dave Symes <da...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <8d83f25...@hetnet.nl>,
> News poster <work...@mail.com> wrote:
> > In message <5051e51...@triffid.co.uk>
> > Dave Symes <da...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]

>

> Mnnn! But as I like a number of other people, have supported the RO Select
> scheme since the beginning, I do have RO 6.16 installed on this machine.
> Unfortunately/fortunately it also has a Viewfinder card in it.

My occasionally used RiscPC has a Viewfinder in it that isn't supported
by RO6. So upgrading that machine without losing the advantages of a
Viewfinder would cost rather more than I want to spend on it (Vpod plus
RO6).


>
> But the other SARPC doesn't have a VF card, and is running Select 4.39 so
> I'd have to upgrade that to 6.nn which wouldn't cost me anything except
> time, so 150 quid would seem okay.

Mmmm I think I'd prefer to spend the money on another netbook/internet
tablet type device or a GPS unit.

>Of course there are also large numbers who have not supported the Select
>scheme, so I guess having to cough some extra is a fair game.

True to some degree but in effect you are paying around fifty quid for
the Vpod driver (if you don't want/need RO6).

Paul Stewart

unread,
Apr 26, 2009, 10:54:31 AM4/26/09
to
In message <c8d2165...@hetnet.nl>
News poster <work...@mail.com> wrote:

>>Of course there are also large numbers who have not supported the Select
>>scheme, so I guess having to cough some extra is a fair game.

> True to some degree but in effect you are paying around fifty quid for
> the Vpod driver (if you don't want/need RO6).

But he VPod has been designed specifically to work with RO6 and it's
new way of handling multiple graphics cards. Therefore you MUST have
RO6 in order to use this new card. It will not function on anything
less. Therefore if you want the VPod you also want/need RO6.

Regards
--
Paul Stewart - Far Bletchley, Milton Keynes, England.
(msn:pauls...@phawfaux.co.uk)

RISC OS Wakefield '09 show. Saturday Apil 25th. Be there and be
seen!
http://www.wakefieldshow.org.uk/

Brian Carroll

unread,
Apr 26, 2009, 11:02:19 AM4/26/09
to
> In message <5051aa4...@triffid.co.uk> Dave Symes
> <da...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:

> > So folks, silly jokes and stunts aside, is the graphics card
> > from ST real or just a load of a-holes messing about?

> If they were messing about, then they did it well enough to
> fool people into parting with money.

I was one of them :-) I thought GBP139 reasonable for a new
RiscPC hardware design which I never expected to see.
Unfortunately there was no documentation available so I hope it
really is as 'plug-and-play' as Matt Edgar says.

Any version of RISC OS 6.xx is sufficient except the very first
(6.02?). The simplest way to get one for non-Select subscribers
is the single-user 6.10 from RISCOS Ltd at GBP49.

I shall not be installing the podule yet as I don't have a
suitable monitor.

Brian.

--
______________________________________________________________

Brian Carroll, Ripon, N Yorks, UK briancarroll at f2s dot com
______________________________________________________________

Steve Potts

unread,
Apr 26, 2009, 1:10:02 PM4/26/09
to
In message <505218164f...@argonet.co.uk>
Brian Carroll <bric-...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <9b49b35150...@laptop.adamshome.org.uk>, Alan
> Adams <al...@adamshome.org.uk> wrote:
> > In message <5051aa4...@triffid.co.uk> Dave Symes
> > <da...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > So folks, silly jokes and stunts aside, is the graphics card
> > > from ST real or just a load of a-holes messing about?
>
> > If they were messing about, then they did it well enough to
> > fool people into parting with money.
>
> I was one of them :-) I thought GBP139 reasonable for a new
> RiscPC hardware design which I never expected to see.
> Unfortunately there was no documentation available so I hope it
> really is as 'plug-and-play' as Matt Edgar says.
>
> Any version of RISC OS 6.xx is sufficient except the very first
> (6.02?). The simplest way to get one for non-Select subscribers
> is the single-user 6.10 from RISCOS Ltd at GBP49.
>
> I shall not be installing the podule yet as I don't have a
> suitable monitor.
>
> Brian.

Brian,

*any* monitor is suitable from what I can tell - although one such as the
AK60 can't take full advantage of the Vpod functionality - other than you
*can* now get 1024 x 768 at 16M colours. Note that the AKF60 is too old to
support the automatic monitor information protocols that Vpod can support, so
for an AKF60, you'd still need the MDF Acorn produced.

Having now tried my Vpod on an AKF60, and 5 other monitors (4 LCDs & one CRT
- all of which do the auto detect stuff) I am very very happy with the
results.

Cheers
Steve.
--
StevePotts at blastzone DOT demon STOP co DOT uk (www.blastzone.demon.co.uk/)
Written on RISC OS.
http://www.riscos.com/

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Apr 26, 2009, 3:12:57 PM4/26/09
to
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 18:10:02 +0100
Steve Potts <nos...@all.invaliid> wrote:

> *any* monitor is suitable from what I can tell

Careful; monitors that only have DVI, HDMI or DisplayPort will not
work, and some monitors that require exceedingly fruity and esoteric
timing will be a pain to get to work.

And old monitors without EDID/DCC support will most likely not just
work "plug and play", as they'll need MDFs writing for them.

Any monitor with VGA over D-Sub made in the past 5 or 6 years should
work fantastically, though, I'd think.

B.

Charlie

unread,
Apr 26, 2009, 3:16:58 PM4/26/09
to
For myself I have to say I regard this development as very welcome. As
someone who's involved with a few 'retro' platforms I think the price
seems fine - this is a low-volume product.

Hmmm,
I have a few RiscOS boxes, two of which are a fairly standard SA RPC
with 4.39 and a very heavily upgraded Kinetic RPC with 4.39 &
ViewFinder2...
...the former for 'compatibility' and the latter for 'high-end' RiscOS
stuff.

Possibly a little off-topic but I'd appreciate the benefit of other's
experience:
-I'll need RO6. I've not upgraded partly because of cost (coming down)
but mostly because I didn't see 4.39 as a useful improvement over 4.02
and have heard a few 'scare stories' about RO6 - esp 6.06, the retail
version. Are my fears unfounded?
-If I get one of these cards for my VIDC RPC and so RO6 am I going to
'break' my 'compatibility' system?
-RO6 has some VF support built-in, does that improve VF
compatibility / speed anyway?
-Can anyone @ this stage give an indication of relative performance:
VF vs Vpod?
-Does anyone know for sure if the Vpod works ok with the Kinetic?
-There's a few well known issues running a VF. Are the issues the same
for the Vpod? Will the potential for running VIDC & Vpod side-by-side
come true & possibly reduce such issues?
-Any ideas as to a possible upgrade path for the Vpod? Those
headers...
-Could I run a VF and Vpod side-by-side or indeed two Vpods? Yes -
pointless, but cool.
-No doubt there's other questions I haven't asked...

I realise at this stage much of the above will come out in the wash
but any answers will help my decision-making process.

Regards.


Simon Challands

unread,
Apr 26, 2009, 3:38:37 PM4/26/09
to
In message <35cdd8f3-5725-4640...@y10g2000prc.googlegro
ups.com>
Charlie <cha...@janelane.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> -I'll need RO6. I've not upgraded partly because of cost (coming down)
> but mostly because I didn't see 4.39 as a useful improvement over 4.02
> and have heard a few 'scare stories' about RO6 - esp 6.06, the retail
> version. Are my fears unfounded?

Don't know, but softloading it means that you're not totally stuck if
it does go wrong.

--
Simon Challands

Andrew Hill

unread,
Apr 26, 2009, 4:19:13 PM4/26/09
to
Charlie wrote:

[snip]

Answered some questions from helping on the stand yesterday.

> -I'll need RO6. I've not upgraded partly because of cost (coming down)
> but mostly because I didn't see 4.39 as a useful improvement over 4.02
> and have heard a few 'scare stories' about RO6 - esp 6.06, the retail
> version. Are my fears unfounded?

Generally Installation (as has always been the case for OS upgrades) is
the bit that people have had problems with if at all - and that
completely depends upon how different your !Boot is to the presupplied
build. ALWAYS back up !Boot before upgrading the OS; anyone that has had
trouble we've advised reinstalling a clean !Boot sequence and
reintroducing components.

On the Ad6 stand we took a RISC PC from storage for the demos that had
RO 3.6 in it at 10:00am when the show opened (we were a little late on
the setup). We installed an old hard disc, RO 4.39 ROMs, a build of RO
6.14 and a VPod by 10:20am. The bit that took longest was copying the OS
and !Boot images across from CD due to the ancient CD ROM drive and hard
disc in use!

You might want to take a look at Paul Stewart's article here
http://www.drobe.co.uk/article.php?id=2481 if you're considering RO6.

> -RO6 has some VF support built-in, does that improve VF
> compatibility / speed anyway?

Yes. Drawfile rendering is a very good example, but the redesigned
graphics pipeline on RO6 means there are significant speed improvements
over the RO4 driver in all areas. Also, NB that RO6 itself has
significant speed improvements over RO4 particularly on desktop redraw
speed/accuracy on /all/ video hardware (notably 6.14 onwards).

Note you need a Rage 128 card in your ViewFinder for it to work on RO6
(the commonest card variety) - drivers are not available for the Mach64
or Radeon variants as these cards work completely differently.

> -Can anyone @ this stage give an indication of relative performance:
> VF vs Vpod?

Not confirmed by myself by the STD developers have stated speed is
roughly equivalent between a VPod and a ViewFinder (Vpod possibly
slightly quicker).

The Vpod however can support 64K cols. modes whereas VF cannot
(ViewFinder is an adaptor which has to swap blue and red on the adaptor
so unfortunately can't support 64K modes).

This is important for very high resolution modes - you can certainly
drive a Vpod at 1900X1200X64K and probably higher (this was the largest
monitor found to test it on!) You might notice a difference between 32K
cols and 16M cols; you generally won't notice between 64Kcols and 16M
cols because of the extra green - the eye perceives green more than
other colours, so doubling the number of greens is significant.

It also runs cool unlike the VF; on cases where heat is an issue
(worried about toasting your drive?) this is pretty important as the VF
puts out quite a bit of heat in your not-that-well-ventilated RPC!

> -Does anyone know for sure if the Vpod works ok with the Kinetic?

It's not anticipated to have problems as the 'core' driver code (the bit
which has to be careful with Kinetic) is identical to the VideoHWVF
driver module for ViewFinder (which is known to work on Kinetic - indeed
I have one working well next to me!). It was hoped we could test a VPod
with Kinetic at the show, unfortunately we were so busy we simply didn't
get chance!

Likewise not tested on an A7000/+ yet but should work; works OK with Arm
700 in testing.

> -There's a few well known issues running a VF. Are the issues the same
> for the Vpod? Will the potential for running VIDC & Vpod side-by-side
> come true & possibly reduce such issues?

VPod and VIDC can be run side-by-side - this was demoed on an Iiyama
monitor with dual-inputs on the stand.

For 'compatibility' (games and suchlike that make assumptions about the
location and size of video memory in RISC OS), you could use a
dual-input monitor like this with one input onto VIDC and one on VPod.
Boot with Z held down will prevent the softload working giving you a RO4
desktop and VIDC (because the VPod won't work on RO4). Boot without Z
held down and you would be in RO6 on VPod.

Note not tested and you'd need to play with that idea a little (choose a
monitor that plays nice in lower res modes for example for RO4 use!),
but the principle is probably sound.

> -Could I run a VF and Vpod side-by-side or indeed two Vpods? Yes -
> pointless, but cool.

Yes you can have up to four VPods or ViewFinders at once on RO6. You can
only output the screen to one of them however, so yes it would be
utterly pointless but cool :-).

Best wishes,

Drew

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Apr 26, 2009, 6:26:28 PM4/26/09
to
In article
<35cdd8f3-5725-4640...@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,

Charlie <cha...@janelane.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> I'll need RO6. I've not upgraded partly because of cost (coming down)
> but mostly because I didn't see 4.39 as a useful improvement over 4.02
> and have heard a few 'scare stories' about RO6 - esp 6.06, the retail
> version. Are my fears unfounded?

I'm running 4.39 on both my RPCs through choice - it is a worthwhile
upgrade over 4.02. One has the later ROMs - one is soft loaded.

I found RO6 a pile of cack - even after upgrading several 'killer apps' -
the reason I stick with RISC OS - so sold it on at a loss. It might well
be fine on a later machine than an RPC, though - but I'm not going down
that route as I have a PC for the stuff the RPC can't cope with.

--
*Go the extra mile. It makes your boss look like an incompetent slacker *

Steve Potts

unread,
Apr 26, 2009, 7:32:03 PM4/26/09
to
In message <20090426201...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:

Quite right. Thanks Rob.

Charlie

unread,
Apr 27, 2009, 2:48:25 PM4/27/09
to
Thanks v. much for the most helpful info chaps. :-)

Hmmm:
RO6 + Viewfinder.
RO6 + Viewpod.

For the former I guess that's a non-starter for me as my VF is a
Radeon one. (I'll have to check to be sure)
For the latter I'm increasingly tempted, esp as it looks like I can
have my cake & eat it - Softload RO6 + Vpod or VIDC + RO4.39
Vpod looks increasingly interesting...

Utterly OT question:
Soft load later OS over earlier I understand. I wonder, has anyone
managed the reverse..?
3.7 over 4.39 for instance - my compatibility system you see.

Peter Naulls

unread,
Apr 27, 2009, 2:52:03 PM4/27/09
to
Charlie wrote:
> Thanks v. much for the most helpful info chaps. :-)

> Utterly OT question:


> Soft load later OS over earlier I understand. I wonder, has anyone
> managed the reverse..?
> 3.7 over 4.39 for instance - my compatibility system you see.

Compatibility with what? It there are genuinely any programs
which really only work with RISC OS 3.7, then it's long past
time for them to get updated. Do you have any such examples?

druck

unread,
Apr 27, 2009, 2:54:00 PM4/27/09
to
Andrew Hill wrote:

> Charlie wrote:
>> -RO6 has some VF support built-in, does that improve VF
>> compatibility / speed anyway?
>
> Yes. Drawfile rendering is a very good example, but the redesigned
> graphics pipeline on RO6 means there are significant speed improvements
> over the RO4 driver in all areas. Also, NB that RO6 itself has
> significant speed improvements over RO4 particularly on desktop redraw
> speed/accuracy on /all/ video hardware (notably 6.14 onwards).
>
> Note you need a Rage 128 card in your ViewFinder for it to work on RO6
> (the commonest card variety) - drivers are not available for the Mach64
> or Radeon variants as these cards work completely differently.

Even with a supported card RO6's biggest problem with ViewFinder is that
it believes some guff put out by ATi about the card's capability,
rather than what it actually can do.

For example, I ran the Rage128 under RISC OS 4.x with John Kortinks
firmware at 2048x1536x32bpp @ 70Hz for about 5 years without problems.
When I installed RISC OS 6, it suddenly told me 1920x1400 was the
largest 64m colour mode it could do, and it would only do 2048x1536 at
32K colours and an unusable 54Hz.

ATi (or the clone maker) produce a dozen different products based on the
same hardware and just vary the spec sheet and the prices. So how come
JK's firmware could see through the guff, but RO6 refuses to let me use
the card to its full capability as I had been for years?

I never got a satisfactory answer to this, so wasn't much point in
keeping the RISC PC around or RO6 for that matter.

---druck

Peter Naulls

unread,
Apr 27, 2009, 3:11:09 PM4/27/09
to
druck wrote:

> For example, I ran the Rage128 under RISC OS 4.x with John Kortinks
> firmware at 2048x1536x32bpp @ 70Hz for about 5 years without problems.
> When I installed RISC OS 6, it suddenly told me 1920x1400 was the
> largest 64m colour mode it could do, and it would only do 2048x1536 at
> 32K colours and an unusable 54Hz.

I did a self-upgrade on my ViewFinder many years ago, and have no
idea what card is it in now (but it was the precise one that JK
said was supported, when he upgraded the firmware to support
beyond the original card). So, I don't know if it were to
work with RO6, even if I could physically get to my RiscPC
right now.

> ATi (or the clone maker) produce a dozen different products based on the
> same hardware and just vary the spec sheet and the prices. So how come
> JK's firmware could see through the guff, but RO6 refuses to let me use
> the card to its full capability as I had been for years?
>
> I never got a satisfactory answer to this, so wasn't much point in
> keeping the RISC PC around or RO6 for that matter.

Yes, although the situation with NVidia cards isn't much better. At
least the Iyonix comes with an okish card that is fully supported by
the OS, but I'm still very unclear on the situation of the NVidia
driver in RISC OS 5 - whether it's a binary blob or something else -
questions to ROOL/CTL have gone unanswered ;-(

Assuming you could find a PCI version, it would be almost better to
put an Intel chipset video card into Iyonix, which if nothing else,
have excellent OSS Linux support.

Andrew Hill

unread,
Apr 27, 2009, 3:15:50 PM4/27/09
to
Charlie wrote:
> Thanks v. much for the most helpful info chaps. :-)
>
> Hmmm:
> RO6 + Viewfinder.
> RO6 + Viewpod.
>
> For the former I guess that's a non-starter for me as my VF is a
> Radeon one. (I'll have to check to be sure)

For completion I should point out you can purchase R128 cards (through
RO Dealers or the usual sources of 2nd hand PC equipment) and put them
into your ViewFinder to run RO6. Beware that there are a /lot/ of card
varieties though; the driver supports all the ones that the author is
aware of (ie. all the ones used for the ViewFinder release and a couple
of others), but new ones keep being found from various third-party
manufacturers which may or may not work.

Worth this pointing out as a Select subscription provides a multiple
machine license for RO6 - so if it's a Radeon you can exchange it out to
use on both. NB the R128 driver on RO6 is significantly faster than a
Radeon on RO4.

Best wishes,

Dre

John Tytgat

unread,
Apr 27, 2009, 3:31:28 PM4/27/09
to
Peter Naulls wrote:
> Yes, although the situation with NVidia cards isn't much better. At
> least the Iyonix comes with an okish card that is fully supported by
> the OS, but I'm still very unclear on the situation of the NVidia
> driver in RISC OS 5 - whether it's a binary blob or something else -
> questions to ROOL/CTL have gone unanswered ;-(

http://www.riscosopen.org/viewer/view/mixed/RiscOS/Sources/Video/HWSupport/NVidia/
might be the answer you're looking for.

John.

Peter Naulls

unread,
Apr 27, 2009, 3:42:47 PM4/27/09
to

Ah, thanks. Although this looks odd:

http://www.riscosopen.org/viewer/view/mixed/RiscOS/Sources/Video/HWSupport/NVidia/s/FromC?rev=1.1;content-type=text%2Fplain

The rest of the assembler looks pretty readable, and well commented,
from the bits I looked at.

Graham Thurlwell

unread,
Apr 27, 2009, 5:58:21 PM4/27/09
to
On the 26 Apr 2009, News poster <work...@mail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> the true cost for a lot of people would be the price of the card
> plus the price of RO6 or Select.

I would imagine that the sort of people who would pay �150 to upgrade
the graphics on their RPC are quite likely to already be subscribing
to Select or would at least be happy to pay for RO6 as well.

My main family machine is an Omega. Last time I tried to install RO6
on it, it wouldn't boot so I had to revert it to RO 4.39. A little
disappointing but I already knew that Dave Atkins allegedly took ROL's
Omega away for repairs, they never saw it again and can't develop for
it any more.

The same Select subscription is also used on my A7000+ and VRPC on a
PC and, when Dad gets round to buying one, a Macbook. I talked to
Advantage Six at Wakefield this weekend, and they told me my A9home
will eventually have a version of RISC OS 6 on it so I've found the
Select scheme a positive experience.

Overall, my family consider our investment over the years as money
well spent. Iyonix users' mileage varies, of course.

--
Jades' First Encounters Site - http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.

nos...@jades.org /is/ a real email address!

Chris Evans

unread,
Apr 28, 2009, 5:33:07 AM4/28/09
to
In article <gt51rn$l06$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Peter Naulls

If I recall it accuratly JB told me for every slight change in a new batch
of graphics cards (new firmware etc) JB had to run a special test that gave
him a result that he then sent to nVidia and recieved back a block of code
from nVidia that was then put into the Iyonix's bootstrap and run before
RISC OS is started.

I think this pre RISC OS booting is one of the problems that ROL found when
they investigated trying to do a ROM image of Select for the Iyonix.


Chris Evans

--
CJE Micro's / 4D 'RISC OS Specialists'
Telephone: 01903 523222 Fax: 01903 523679
ch...@cjemicros.co.uk http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/
78 Brighton Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 2EN
The most beautiful thing anyone can wear, is a smile!

Steffen Huber

unread,
Apr 28, 2009, 7:22:22 AM4/28/09
to
Chris Evans wrote:
[snip]

> I think this pre RISC OS booting is one of the problems that ROL found when
> they investigated trying to do a ROM image of Select for the Iyonix.

Wanting(?) to deliver a full Select ROM image for the IYONIX has to
count as one of the worst ideas ever. Let RISC OS 5 do the init stage,
and take over then. Just like Select softload on a Risc PC.

Steffen

--
Steffen Huber
hubersn Software - http://www.hubersn-software.com/

News poster

unread,
Apr 28, 2009, 8:46:26 AM4/28/09
to
In message <3603c252...@d.thurlwell.btopenworld.com>
Graham Thurlwell <nos...@jades.org> wrote:

> On the 26 Apr 2009, News poster <work...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > the true cost for a lot of people would be the price of the card
> > plus the price of RO6 or Select.
>
> I would imagine that the sort of people who would pay �150 to upgrade
> the graphics on their RPC are quite likely to already be subscribing
> to Select or would at least be happy to pay for RO6 as well.

[snip]


>
> Overall, my family consider our investment over the years as money
> well spent. Iyonix users' mileage varies, of course.
>

Fortunately I let my Select sub lapse just before the long, post 4.37
hiatus in Select development. Seeing as I only use the Iyonix on a
regular basis these days, and bearing in mind the continuing vagueness
from ROL about Select for Iyonix, a Select subscription would have
represented spectacularly bad value for money for me. I'd have spent a
lot more than a new Eeepc for a product I could not use.

As you say YMMV.
Regards
Stan
--
http://mistymornings.net

druck

unread,
Apr 28, 2009, 10:17:50 AM4/28/09
to
Graham Thurlwell wrote:
> My main family machine is an Omega. Last time I tried to install RO6
> on it, it wouldn't boot so I had to revert it to RO 4.39. A little
> disappointing but I already knew that Dave Atkins allegedly took ROL's
> Omega away for repairs, they never saw it again and can't develop for
> it any more.

The same thing happened to our ARM Club's Omega, bricked it reflashing
with a sound DMA fix, sent it back to Micro Digital and never saw it
again. We weren't sure whether to laugh or cry, but then we did win it
at Wakefield a few years back, rather than paying good money for it.

---druck

druck

unread,
Apr 28, 2009, 10:21:01 AM4/28/09
to
Charlie wrote:
> Utterly OT question:
> Soft load later OS over earlier I understand. I wonder, has anyone
> managed the reverse..?
> 3.7 over 4.39 for instance - my compatibility system you see.

It should be possible, I had a 3.7 ROM image for emulation use, but I
never tried it on the RPC. You'd need a old format disc to boot off
though, as it wouldn't understand a RO4 long names disc which is what
most people will be using.

---druck

Charlie

unread,
Apr 28, 2009, 11:11:53 AM4/28/09
to

Thanks again,
Although I could quote specifics as to why I still run pre-RO4 from
time to time (under emulation) it's got more to do with 'wouldn't it
be fun if...' than necessity. While I still use my Acorn's for some
serious work (mostly to do with specific apps I like too much to give
up using) they are for me basically toys to play with.

Sorry to be so OT again:
I'm most interested to hear that several people have sucesfully self-
upgraded their VF cards. I had considered doing so myself as I always
get graphic corruption on rebooting - my VF only works from a cold
boot...
...I had contacted JK for advice on this very subject. I must say he
was very helpful but told me that I couldn't swap GFX cards: Although
I could re-flash the VF if needed the AGP cards supplied with the VF
had a custom BIOS for the VF that would be near-impossible to change @
home. I wonder if his memory is getting as bad as mine!
Hopefully this means I can solve two VF problems:
-Change the AGP card & stop that reboot corruption.
-Change the AGP card & have the option for RO6.
Oh, and back on topic that will give me a chance to try out RO6 with
regard to a potential Vpod purchase.

Thanks again.

Peter Naulls

unread,
Apr 28, 2009, 11:43:27 AM4/28/09
to
Charlie wrote:

>
> Thanks again,
> Although I could quote specifics as to why I still run pre-RO4 from
> time to time (under emulation)

Would still be interested in these specifics. As I said, if they
affect you, then they probably affect others still holding off
on upgrades.

> I'm most interested to hear that several people have sucesfully self-
> upgraded their VF cards. I had considered doing so myself as I always
> get graphic corruption on rebooting - my VF only works from a cold
> boot..

I don't recall that any one ever did this besides me - certainly
the number of people who ever did it would have been very small.
I had to return the card I had initially ordered, and get the
guy to sort through a box of cards to get the precise one which
matches and I hard ordered.

Again, I'd have to open up my RiscPC to see the precise
card I installed.

.
> ...I had contacted JK for advice on this very subject. I must say he
> was very helpful but told me that I couldn't swap GFX cards: Although
> I could re-flash the VF if needed the AGP cards supplied with the VF
> had a custom BIOS for the VF that would be near-impossible to change @
> home. I wonder if his memory is getting as bad as mine!
> Hopefully this means I can solve two VF problems:
> -Change the AGP card & stop that reboot corruption.
> -Change the AGP card & have the option for RO6.
> Oh, and back on topic that will give me a chance to try out RO6 with
> regard to a potential Vpod purchase.

Some of JK's comments were a bit confusing, which I attribute to his
English as a second language, and took several readings to comprehend.
Certainly his warnings about upgrades were important, precisely
because of the difficulty in obtaining the exact card.

Below, is a post JK made, which I think is most relevant to this topic.
This dates from 2003, so the links will be old:

"A few developments on the Radeon support front.

Deliveries of 128 MB Radeon Viewfinders and upgrades
are currently based on the Hercules 3D Prophet 9200
SE dual display card :

http://europe.hercules.com/showpage.php?p=78&b=0&f=1

This AGP card supports dual-head operation via a second,
standard VGA connector instead of a DVI connector. This
saves those wanting to use their Radeon Viewfinders in
dual-head mode from having to buy a DVI-to-VGA convertor.

64 MB Radeon Viewfinders and upgrades are currently based
on the Sapphire Radeon 7000 SDR card :

http://www.sapphiretech.com/vga/7000sdr.asp

Other AGP cards may (and probably will) be used in the
future, although the basic feature sets (64 MB/TV-Out
and 128MB/TV-Out/Dual-head) will never change.

A few users have asked whether or not they can buy their
own Radeon card. The answer is probably important enough
to repeat here : No.

First of all, this is because only a few specific AGP cards
are supported. There are too many differences between AGP
cards (most of a technical nature) to support them all 'out
of the box', as in PCs.

Most importantly, however, implementing support for Radeon
has cost a considerable amount of development time which can
no longer be provided for free. To recoup some of the costs,
Radeon upgrades 'cost more', and Radeon based AGP cards are
all electronically 'locked' to the Viewfinder software, i.e.
only cards bought from Windfall will work.

Last but not least, I have finished and will shortly release
a 'magnifier' type application for Radeon based Viewfinders.
This exploits the hardware overlay capabilities of Radeon
and provides a large, real-time updated, scaled view (with
interpolation) on any part of the desktop (much like RISC
OS !CloseUp), without using any processor time."

John Kortink

unread,
Apr 28, 2009, 12:23:15 PM4/28/09
to

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 08:11:53 -0700 (PDT), Charlie
<cha...@janelane.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>[...]


>
>Sorry to be so OT again:
>I'm most interested to hear that several people have sucesfully self-
>upgraded their VF cards. I had considered doing so myself as I always
>get graphic corruption on rebooting - my VF only works from a cold
>boot...
>...I had contacted JK for advice on this very subject. I must say he
>was very helpful but told me that I couldn't swap GFX cards: Although
>I could re-flash the VF if needed the AGP cards supplied with the VF
>had a custom BIOS for the VF that would be near-impossible to change @
>home. I wonder if his memory is getting as bad as mine!

Not really. You can self-upgrade to (some) Rage 128
cards. You cannot self-upgrade to any Radeon card.

It's neither complicated nor confusing.


John Kortink

--

Email : kor...@inter.nl.net
Homepage : http://www.inter.nl.net/users/J.Kortink

There's something to be said, for getting out of bed

Message has been deleted

Charlie

unread,
Apr 28, 2009, 2:11:22 PM4/28/09
to
@JK:
Thanks for the clarification :-)
I case I forget to mention - The Viewfinder: Wonderful bit of work! My
sincere thanks to you for developing it & the years of faithful
service I've had from my VF-RPC.

...........................

Hmmm,
Can't upgrade a Radeon VF, but can upgrade a Rage 128 VF...
...if I've understood it's the Rage version RO6 supports..?
I feel a 'pointless project' coming on:
'Downgrade' my VF if I can find a compatible Rage 128 &...
...did I mention I spend too much time playing with my old computers?

Peter Naulls

unread,
Apr 28, 2009, 4:55:15 PM4/28/09
to
John Kortink wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 08:11:53 -0700 (PDT), Charlie
> <cha...@janelane.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>
>> Sorry to be so OT again:
>> I'm most interested to hear that several people have sucesfully self-
>> upgraded their VF cards. I had considered doing so myself as I always
>> get graphic corruption on rebooting - my VF only works from a cold
>> boot...
>> ...I had contacted JK for advice on this very subject. I must say he
>> was very helpful but told me that I couldn't swap GFX cards: Although
>> I could re-flash the VF if needed the AGP cards supplied with the VF
>> had a custom BIOS for the VF that would be near-impossible to change @
>> home. I wonder if his memory is getting as bad as mine!
>
> Not really. You can self-upgrade to (some) Rage 128
> cards. You cannot self-upgrade to any Radeon card.
>
> It's neither complicated nor confusing.

Well, I think it is somewhat confusing, simply due to lack of
centralised information on the matter. You either need to be
on the mailing list and dig through archives or look at old
versions of windfall.nl, etc. I know it's really not
very complicated given clear information.

Would you be willing to write a document on the matter for
the riscos.info wiki? Or perhaps better, edit one written
by someone else? If nothing else, I'm sure CJE would
appreciate it for their potential customers, or those
wondering about RISC OS versions versus various
graphics cards.


Richard Porter

unread,
May 5, 2009, 4:37:35 PM5/5/09
to
The date being 26 Apr 2009, Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> decided to
write:

I'm using a Hanns-G HU196D with MDF from Castle. It should be OK but
I'm getting some glitches in windows, usually comprising a stack of
short horizontal bars in background colour connected by dotted
'fly-back' lines covering a small area of the screen. These can appear
when opening, closing, resizing, scrolling or updating windows (i.e.
most things). Wiping another window over the glitch clears it.

Has anyone else come across this problem? I'm using a Kinetic RPC
running 6.14.

--
Richard Porter
rich@ / www. richardporter.me.uk
"You can't have Windows without pains."

Steve Potts

unread,
May 10, 2009, 4:40:37 PM5/10/09
to
In message <e84dd95...@user.minijem.plus.com>
Richard Porter <dontu...@address.uk.invalid> wrote:

[snip]


>
> I'm using a Hanns-G HU196D with MDF from Castle. It should be OK but
> I'm getting some glitches in windows, usually comprising a stack of
> short horizontal bars in background colour connected by dotted
> 'fly-back' lines covering a small area of the screen. These can appear
> when opening, closing, resizing, scrolling or updating windows (i.e.
> most things). Wiping another window over the glitch clears it.

You're using an MDF rather than let the auto detection of Vpod choose the
correct settings?

> Has anyone else come across this problem? I'm using a Kinetic RPC
> running 6.14.

I'm on a StrongArm Risc PC and 6.14 (various monitors tried) with no problems
when letting Vpod auto detect the monitor and choose the modes available for
me.

Steve.

Brian Carroll

unread,
May 11, 2009, 9:23:12 AM5/11/09
to
In article <7ac72352...@spotts.btconnect.com>, Steve Potts
<nos...@all.invaliid> wrote:

[Snip]

> *any* monitor is suitable from what I can tell - although one
> such as the AK60 can't take full advantage of the Vpod
> functionality - other than you *can* now get 1024 x 768 at 16M
> colours. Note that the AKF60 is too old to support the
> automatic monitor information protocols that Vpod can support,
> so for an AKF60, you'd still need the MDF Acorn produced.

> Having now tried my Vpod on an AKF60, and 5 other monitors (4
> LCDs & one CRT - all of which do the auto detect stuff) I am
> very very happy with the results.

After your encouraging remarks I dug out my spare RiscPC from
storage which has RISC OS 6.10 on it. After following the
installation instructions I got by email from Matt Edgar Vpod
worked perfectly.

I was using a 10 yr old "Tiny" badged 17" CRT monitor and was
/amazed/ that Vpod identified it properly and found a driver -
"Optiquest 17" CRT (OQI 5734)" and displayed up to 1280 x 1024,
C16M, 60Hz very nicely indeed. The improvement in the desktop and
graphics responsiveness go a long way to offset the slow
processor and hard disc on that machine (compared with my main
RiscPC). For me, the Vpod purchase was money well spent.

By using my old enhanced Acorn AKF85 MDF I was able to get
up to 1600 x 1200, C16M, 54Hz; a bit flickery and too small for
my eyes on this 17" screen, but it does show it will be worth my
while to buy a large modern wider screen; I shall be looking for
one with both digital and analogue inputs so I can use it with my
PC as well as the RiscPC. Any recommendations?

Brian.

--
______________________________________________________________

Brian Carroll, Ripon, N Yorks, UK briancarroll at f2s dot com
______________________________________________________________

Steve Potts

unread,
May 11, 2009, 2:52:56 PM5/11/09
to
In message <5059c88d33...@argonet.co.uk>
Brian Carroll <bric-...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

> By using my old enhanced Acorn AKF85 MDF I was able to get
> up to 1600 x 1200, C16M, 54Hz; a bit flickery and too small for
> my eyes on this 17" screen, but it does show it will be worth my
> while to buy a large modern wider screen; I shall be looking for
> one with both digital and analogue inputs so I can use it with my
> PC as well as the RiscPC. Any recommendations?

Brian

I have a rather nice Samsung SyncMaster 205BW. Not sure if you can still get
them, but I'd certainly recommend Samsung LCDs from the performance of this
one.

Cheers

Kevin Wells

unread,
May 11, 2009, 5:54:26 PM5/11/09
to
In message <5abde659...@spotts.btconnect.com>
Steve Potts <nos...@all.invaliid> wrote:

>In message <5059c88d33...@argonet.co.uk>
> Brian Carroll <bric-...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> By using my old enhanced Acorn AKF85 MDF I was able to get
>> up to 1600 x 1200, C16M, 54Hz; a bit flickery and too small for
>> my eyes on this 17" screen, but it does show it will be worth my
>> while to buy a large modern wider screen; I shall be looking for
>> one with both digital and analogue inputs so I can use it with my
>> PC as well as the RiscPC. Any recommendations?
>
>Brian
>
>I have a rather nice Samsung SyncMaster 205BW. Not sure if you can still get
>them, but I'd certainly recommend Samsung LCDs from the performance of this
>one.
>
>Cheers
>Steve.

This one?

<http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000F9SNIW?ie=UTF8&tag=thblofke-21>


--
Kev Wells http://riscos.kevsoft.co.uk/
http://kevsoft.co.uk/ http://kevsoft.co.uk/AleQuest/
ICQ 238580561
Walk upon England's mountains green?

Richard Porter

unread,
May 11, 2009, 6:56:45 PM5/11/09
to
The date being 11 May 2009, Steve Potts <nos...@all.invaliid> decided
to write:

> In message <5059c88d33...@argonet.co.uk>
> Brian Carroll <bric-...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:

> [snip]

>> By using my old enhanced Acorn AKF85 MDF I was able to get
>> up to 1600 x 1200, C16M, 54Hz; a bit flickery and too small for
>> my eyes on this 17" screen, but it does show it will be worth my
>> while to buy a large modern wider screen; I shall be looking for
>> one with both digital and analogue inputs so I can use it with my
>> PC as well as the RiscPC. Any recommendations?

> I have a rather nice Samsung SyncMaster 205BW. Not sure if you can still get


> them, but I'd certainly recommend Samsung LCDs from the performance of this
> one.

I'm using a Hanns-G HU196D at 1280 x 1024. Images are improved because
I could only use 256 colours before at this resolution, but I'm
getting a copule of odd effects. Light greys are very washed-out so
that background images and shading disappear. I've tried adjusting the
brightness and contrast but to no avail.

Also I'm getting some very strange interference on certain types of
windows and on drop-down menus. The windows are those containing icons
like filer windows, the top and bottom panes of the Messenger Edit
mail/news window, but not the main editor pane. Changing the screen
resolution or frequency or number of colours doesn't seem to make much
difference. I'm guessing it could be a timing problem. I wonder if the
Vpod was tested on a 300MHz machine.

Steve Potts

unread,
May 12, 2009, 3:03:49 AM5/12/09
to
In message <615bf759...@talktalk.net>
Kevin Wells <kevin...@talktalk.net> wrote:

> In message <5abde659...@spotts.btconnect.com>
> Steve Potts <nos...@all.invaliid> wrote:
>
> >In message <5059c88d33...@argonet.co.uk>
> > Brian Carroll <bric-...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> By using my old enhanced Acorn AKF85 MDF I was able to get
> >> up to 1600 x 1200, C16M, 54Hz; a bit flickery and too small for
> >> my eyes on this 17" screen, but it does show it will be worth my
> >> while to buy a large modern wider screen; I shall be looking for
> >> one with both digital and analogue inputs so I can use it with my
> >> PC as well as the RiscPC. Any recommendations?
> >
> >Brian
> >
> >I have a rather nice Samsung SyncMaster 205BW. Not sure if you can still
> >get them, but I'd certainly recommend Samsung LCDs from the performance of
> >this one.
> >
> >Cheers
> >Steve.
>
> This one?
>
> <http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000F9SNIW?ie=UTF8&tag=thblofke-21>

Yep. That's the one. I had recommended it a few months back to someone and
they'd not been able to source one at the time. I guess they're "back in
stock" at Amazon then.

Steve Potts

unread,
May 12, 2009, 3:09:04 AM5/12/09
to
In message <b10ffd5...@user.minijem.plus.com>
Richard Porter <dontu...@address.uk.invalid> wrote:

[snip]


> I'm guessing it could be a timing problem. I wonder if the Vpod was tested
> on a 300MHz machine.

Would the processor speed make a difference??? I assumed Vpod ran at its own
speed as far as producing a display is concerned. I don't understand how
these things work to be perfectly honest though.

Or are you saying its a kinetic and therefore its architecture is different?
Again, I don't really know what difference that makes - never had my hands on
a kinetic, so not sure about the practical differences.

Brian Carroll

unread,
May 12, 2009, 4:33:54 AM5/12/09
to
In article <b10ffd5...@user.minijem.plus.com>, Richard

Porter <dontu...@address.uk.invalid> wrote:
> The date being 11 May 2009, Steve Potts <nos...@all.invaliid>
> decided to write:
> > In message <5059c88d33...@argonet.co.uk> Brian
> > Carroll <bric-...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:

[Snip]

> >> ... I shall be looking for one with both digital and


> >> analogue inputs so I can use it with my PC as well as the
> >> RiscPC. Any recommendations?

> > I have a rather nice Samsung SyncMaster 205BW. Not sure if
> > you can still get them, but I'd certainly recommend Samsung
> > LCDs from the performance of this one.

Thanks, Steve, for that info. I'll have a look.

> I'm using a Hanns-G HU196D at 1280 x 1024. ... Light


> greys are very washed-out so that background images and
> shading disappear. I've tried adjusting the brightness and
> contrast but to no avail.

I had something similar with a Videoseven monitor some years ago.
I found the ranges of contrast and brightness were inadequate for
the RiscPC but were much better for a PC (for which it was no
doubt designed and where it is still in use). A considerable
improvement was possible on the RiscPC by using David Ruck's
!Gamma application and on the PC by a similar application from
Adobe.

> Also I'm getting some very strange interference on certain

> types of windows and on drop-down menus. ... I wonder if the


> Vpod was tested on a 300MHz machine.

My RiscPC uses a fan-cooled 287MHz StrongARM; is that what you
mean?

Graeme

unread,
May 12, 2009, 5:04:32 AM5/12/09
to
In message <505a31e697...@argonet.co.uk>
Brian Carroll <bric-...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]
>

> I had something similar with a Videoseven monitor some years ago.
> I found the ranges of contrast and brightness were inadequate for
> the RiscPC but were much better for a PC (for which it was no
> doubt designed and where it is still in use). A considerable
> improvement was possible on the RiscPC by using David Ruck's
> !Gamma application and on the PC by a similar application from
> Adobe.
>

I'm using a Vidoeseven on this Kinetic, seems to be fine. I was using it on
my old SA and the picture always had a green tint despite using !Gamma to try
and correct it. Now it's fine.

--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/>

druck

unread,
May 12, 2009, 6:31:10 AM5/12/09
to
Steve Potts wrote:
> In message <b10ffd5...@user.minijem.plus.com>
> Richard Porter <dontu...@address.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> I'm guessing it could be a timing problem. I wonder if the Vpod was tested
>> on a 300MHz machine.
>
> Would the processor speed make a difference??? I assumed Vpod ran at its own
> speed as far as producing a display is concerned. I don't understand how
> these things work to be perfectly honest though.

Hardware wise any podule card will be accessed with the same I/O timings
regardless of the processor speed. The RPC originally came with a 30MHz
ARM6, and correctly designed peripherals should work with that right up
to the StrongARM running at up to 10x the clock speed.

However in practice, a faster processor may deliver events quicker or in
a different order compared to slower ones. So with a very complex
podule, there may be some unexpected timing consequences, which need to
be addressed in firmware.

> Or are you saying its a kinetic and therefore its architecture is different?
> Again, I don't really know what difference that makes - never had my hands on
> a kinetic, so not sure about the practical differences.

A Kinetic is a StrongARM card with it's own faster memory on board,
which is used in preference but also in addition to the slower memory on
the motherboard. This can result in memory intensive operations running
quite a bit faster. The drawback is that fast DMA transfers can't be
made in to the on board memory, making disc operations from some 3rd
party IDE and SCSI cards quite a bit slower.

Podules which work with the StrongARM, should not be affected by the
Kinetic apart from the lack of DMA. If they work in a non DMA slot, they
should be ok. However, some podules (e.g. older APDL IDE card) if placed
in a DMA slot and the DMAManager module was present, would assume they
could use DMA and could fail. I got around this by unplugging all
instances of the DMAManager module, from the ROM and also any on podule
cards, and it then worked perfectly with the Kinetic*

* Until each new Select release where the module numbers in the ROM
changed resulting in the DMAManager no longer being unplugged. A bit of
fiddling was required each time to sort that out, until ROL released a
fix with RO6.

---druck

Ray Dawson

unread,
May 12, 2009, 9:46:11 AM5/12/09
to
Steve Potts <nos...@all.invaliid> wrote:

> >
<http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000F9SNIW?ie=UTF8&tag=thblofke-21>
>
> Yep. That's the one. I had recommended it a few months back to someone
> and they'd not been able to source one at the time. I guess they're
> "back in stock" at Amazon then.

�215 seems an aweful lot of money for a 20" TFT. Have a look at this link
where it's only �132 for the same monitor

http://www.laptop-seller.com/category-26/W-W-SM205BW.html

Google Samsung SM205BW will show you a lot of other cheaper prices.

Cheers,

Ray D

Richard Porter

unread,
May 12, 2009, 5:36:53 PM5/12/09
to
The date being 12 May 2009, Brian Carroll <bric-...@argonet.co.uk>
decided to write:

> In article <b10ffd5...@user.minijem.plus.com>, Richard
> Porter <dontu...@address.uk.invalid> wrote:
>> I'm using a Hanns-G HU196D at 1280 x 1024. ... Light
>> greys are very washed-out so that background images and
>> shading disappear. I've tried adjusting the brightness and
>> contrast but to no avail.

> I had something similar with a Videoseven monitor some years ago.
> I found the ranges of contrast and brightness were inadequate for
> the RiscPC but were much better for a PC (for which it was no
> doubt designed and where it is still in use). A considerable
> improvement was possible on the RiscPC by using David Ruck's
> !Gamma application and on the PC by a similar application from
> Adobe.

>> Also I'm getting some very strange interference on certain
>> types of windows and on drop-down menus. ... I wonder if the
>> Vpod was tested on a 300MHz machine.

> My RiscPC uses a fan-cooled 287MHz StrongARM; is that what you
> mean?

No, It's a Kinetic RiscPC running at 300MHz. It is fan cooled.

Brian Carroll

unread,
May 31, 2009, 3:22:08 PM5/31/09
to
In article <5059c88d33...@argonet.co.uk>, Brian Carroll
<bric-...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:

[Snip]

> I was using a 10 yr old "Tiny" badged 17" CRT monitor and was


> /amazed/ that Vpod identified it properly and found a driver -
> "Optiquest 17" CRT (OQI 5734)" and displayed up to 1280 x
> 1024, C16M, 60Hz very nicely indeed. The improvement in the
> desktop and graphics responsiveness go a long way to offset
> the slow processor and hard disc on that machine (compared
> with my main RiscPC). For me, the Vpod purchase was money
> well spent.

> By using my old enhanced Acorn AKF85 MDF I was able to get up

> to 1600 x 1200, C16M, 54Hz; ... etc

During a session with the above setup I accidentally selected a
mode that my monitor was unable to display. The consequences are
fairly dire because not only is nothing visible during the ROM
boot but also during the RISC OS 6.10 boot, making it difficult
to know what is happening: just a blank screen throughout boot
and an unsynchronised unreadable display.

To recover, I connected the monitor to the normal output; booted
with Shift selected to get the green boot menu; select Desktop.
Then searched !Boot.Choices. for new stuff inserted by Vpod and
found directories Vpod and VIDC in !Boot.Choices.Users.Single.
PreDesk.WimpMode. These directories store the modes set in
Configure for the respective Display_device. On inspection it was
immediately apparent that Vpod's file was wrongly set to 1152 x
864 instead of 1024 x 768 so it was edited and saved. This fixed
the problem - back to double booting right through the sequence
to a normal desktop.

How did this happen? (From the quote above) the monitor was
recognised and fed back 5 possible display sizes to Vpod; any of
these work. However, if the 'Use MDF' box is ticked all the
possible display sizes in the VIDC MDF[1] are displayed as
options in the display selector, and it was one of these I had
accidentally set. So if your monitor is detected by Vpod just use
the display choices it provides and keep MDF selection off. You
will not then be able to select an un-displayable size.

[1] An augmented AKF85 MDF containing 14 definitions.

Chris Evans

unread,
Jun 1, 2009, 5:37:39 AM6/1/09
to
In article <506436217d...@argonet.co.uk>, Brian Carroll

<URL:mailto:bric-...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <5059c88d33...@argonet.co.uk>, Brian Carroll
> <bric-...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>
> > I was using a 10 yr old "Tiny" badged 17" CRT monitor and was
> > /amazed/ that Vpod identified it properly and found a driver -
> > "Optiquest 17" CRT (OQI 5734)" and displayed up to 1280 x
> > 1024, C16M, 60Hz very nicely indeed. The improvement in the
> > desktop and graphics responsiveness go a long way to offset
> > the slow processor and hard disc on that machine (compared
> > with my main RiscPC). For me, the Vpod purchase was money
> > well spent.
>
> > By using my old enhanced Acorn AKF85 MDF I was able to get up
> > to 1600 x 1200, C16M, 54Hz; ... etc
>
> During a session with the above setup I accidentally selected a
> mode that my monitor was unable to display. The consequences are
> fairly dire because not only is nothing visible during the ROM
> boot but also during the RISC OS 6.10 boot, making it difficult
> to know what is happening: just a blank screen throughout boot
> and an unsynchronised unreadable display.

If anyone ever gets either no display or a unuseable display try

(A)
Press F12
then typing blind:
wimpmode 31
RETURN
RETURN

If that fails with no display at all:
F12
*con. sync 0
RETURN
RETURN

If that fails:
F12
*con. moni. 1
RETURN
RETURN


If that fails: start again at (A)

n.b. vPod is a special case!

> To recover, I connected the monitor to the normal output; booted
> with Shift selected to get the green boot menu; select Desktop.
> Then searched !Boot.Choices. for new stuff inserted by Vpod and
> found directories Vpod and VIDC in !Boot.Choices.Users.Single.
> PreDesk.WimpMode. These directories store the modes set in
> Configure for the respective Display_device. On inspection it was
> immediately apparent that Vpod's file was wrongly set to 1152 x
> 864 instead of 1024 x 768 so it was edited and saved. This fixed
> the problem - back to double booting right through the sequence
> to a normal desktop.
>
> How did this happen? (From the quote above) the monitor was
> recognised and fed back 5 possible display sizes to Vpod; any of
> these work. However, if the 'Use MDF' box is ticked all the
> possible display sizes in the VIDC MDF[1] are displayed as
> options in the display selector, and it was one of these I had
> accidentally set. So if your monitor is detected by Vpod just use
> the display choices it provides and keep MDF selection off. You
> will not then be able to select an un-displayable size.
>
> [1] An augmented AKF85 MDF containing 14 definitions.
>
>
> Brian.
>

Brian Carroll

unread,
Jun 1, 2009, 8:49:11 AM6/1/09
to
In article <ant01093...@client.cjemicros.co.uk>, Chris

Evans <ch...@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <506436217d...@argonet.co.uk>, Brian
> Carroll <URL:mailto:bric-...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:

[Snip]

> > During a session with the above setup I accidentally
> > selected a mode that my monitor was unable to display. The
> > consequences are fairly dire because not only is nothing
> > visible during the ROM boot but also during the RISC OS 6.10
> > boot, making it difficult to know what is happening: just a
> > blank screen throughout boot and an unsynchronised
> > unreadable display.

> If anyone ever gets either no display or a unuseable display
> try

[Snip re-config. procedures]

> n.b. vPod is a special case!

Exactly! That was the point of my posting.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages