So long and thanks for all the fish.

23 views
Skip to first unread message

beamends

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 5:25:26 AM3/19/07
to
RISC OS - so long and thanks for all the fish.
----------------------------------------------
Well, it's a sad day indeed. Far from being a toy OS
as many will claim (never actually having used it,
of course) it should be alive and well, with two new
machines being launched in the last couple of tears or
so, and both forks of the OS (yes, that's right, TWO
forks) being updated, and one them in the process of
being open-sourced. The future should be bright, the
future should be green.

So why drop it then?
--------------------
Well, part of the reason is the clue above. Two forks
of the OS for a minority platform? It's difficult to
believe that such silliness could even start, never
mind carry on. The simmering "dispute" (for want of a
better word) between the two camps has been going on
for several years and was just a bit of a side-show
until I bought an A9Home for the business. Ok, so I
was aware the OS was "a bit beta", but I wasn't expecting
it to be unable to rememebr half of it's configuration
settings, or be lacking pre-installed printer drivers,
or crashing losing data to often for comfort. Though
those points are irritating in the extreme, well, never
mind, they can be over-come - the real killers are these
two issues.
In the eight months or so that I've had the A9, and
despite all the known bugs and problems there have been
precisely NO updates at all. That may not matter to your
average hobbyist but it is a disaster for someone wanting
to use the machine "for real".
The other issue, not un-realted, came about when I bought
the C/C++ complier, for use on the A9 and the Risc PC to
32-bit the apps I have written that use !Prophet to help
run the business, to release them, and to develop them
further. I happily installed it and..... it didn't work.
One is supposed to get personalised copy of the actual
compiler from the Iyonix site, which I did. Following
the insturctions to ready it for use it failed miserably -
the protection was still in place (set it "absolute" and
then run it do this). Never mind, at only 50ukp the money
wasted this time was not a patch on the 650ukp wasted on
the A9. I'd cpould simply go back to the old version,
couldn't I?. Except the files had been deleted from the
hard drive by the installer - including the copies in the
back-up !boot directory. Now panicking as I had no way
of keeping my software up-to-date, there followed an
exchange of e-mails the Iyonix people, which still resulted
in no working complier. I did get it to run once, but the
hard drive then died and guess which file DisckNight couldn't
recover! Not that it mattered really, in less time than it
had taken to try to sort this one issue out I had got Ubuntu
Linux, with ROX, up and running on one of the PC's - with
a working complier and Quasar accounts. More on this later.
The galling thing about this was really the fact that when
I mentioned that I intended to run the compiler on the A9,
the chap at Iyonix though it was amusing - clearly not
a problem. I wish I could treat my customers like that!
This was, of course, on top of the petty bickering and
short sightedness of thosewho have appointed themselves
as the Keepers Of The Knowledge. I know exactly what they
will say as well, the same tired arguments will get trotted
out again, and doubtless it will ever more be so until the
only audience is themselves. The problem is they are wrong -
demonstrably. Is the ROS user base increasing or decreasing?
OK, so FireFox is wonderful (though NetSurf is far sllicker),
but whether the Keepers like it or not, the vast majority of
users consider Flash, video, etc to be part of the browser -
donning teflon shoulder pads and saying "not my problem" is
simply burying you head in the sand. Trumpeting FireFox,
omittingto mentiom the lack of video etc will have a negative
ettect rather than a positive one. Can it actually do
anything that NetSurf or Fresco can't? In effect no, apart
from getting the layout nicer sometimes. Is that going to impress
someone used to another platform? Like hell. They'll try to go
to YouTube or whateve and just return to wherever they came
from. So that's the "home" market scuppered.
What ROS needs is the dull, boring, stuff to get into markets
where such things are not required, even deprecated. Accounts,
drivers for devices like the Dymo label printers, Point Of Sale
software (we had that, and very good it was too, but users have
to be able to integrate into their accounts and stock control
for it to be of real use - no one these days is going to bother
printing out end of day stuff and then re-enter it into their
accounts software - and not everyone uses bar codes in a shop).
This is where the ROS could score well, it's UI is far easier
to use than others, and the lack of video streaming etc could
be viewed as a plus in the "work" market.
The real danger to ROS from not having these things is not
their abscence per se though. As mentioned above, the compiler
and A9 debacles pushed me into actually installing Linux. I
didn't want to, but I had to - I've needed a modern multi-user
accounts system for a long time now, but I've desperetley
battled on with ROS and !Prophet for far longer than is
sensible (bear in mind we are talking *serious* use here,
use that can make or break a company, not mucking about with
something in the evening out of a sense of loyalty or seeing
if it can do this or that). The complier fiasco was the last
straw, and so the deed was done. Like, I strongly suspect,
so many other ex-ROS users, the experience was an eye opener.
It's a different world out there - just one example will
suffice to show why ROS is not now an option. My web site
generator program used to take 9 hours to generate the site.
The same code, ported to Linux, does it in roughly 50 SECONDS.
It's not just speed either. There are those who bang on about
Zap etc (I used to too) - well, I have three editors installed,
two of which do most of what Zap does, and one (part of the
Anjuta project suite) that does far more. Draw? I though there
was nothing like it, but Xara Xtreme (apart from the duff name)
does it all and more (except import Draw files, which is a bit
of a bummer). It (the Linux version) is even directly supported
by Computer Conepts now. The only application I'm missing to
date is Impression, but then I haven't really looked yet.
Even IglooFTP is very nearly as easy top use as FTPc.

So will I miss ROS?
-------------------
Yes. Big Time. It's very hard to give up something you've
supported come hell or high water for so long, but with ROX
providing (with a few very irritating exceptions) a ROS like
desktop, I'll survive.
What I won't miss is being told my future by the Keepers, who
do a very good impression of completely failing to uderstand
the difference between those who use a computer to do various
tasks because the *have* to, and those who do so because they
either want to or just see it as a hobby. Fiddling while
Rome burns and all that....

The reposses will an amalgum of:

"Developers know best....."
"You don't understand....."
"Zap can do......."
"I run my buisiness (with only half a dozen transactions a
day rather than hundreds)......."
etc etc.

which all just ignore three simple facts - you've lost
*another* user and failed to ask yourselves why, you've also
lost your most visible user to the outside world, and I
*do* understand (you might not like it, but it's true), that's
why I've been forced to move.
Not one will ask the only questions that really need to be
asked - what can we do to retain, or even gain, users? Which
market(s) can we address bearing in mind the technical
limitations of the hardware?

But that's ok, hey, who needs users when making clever
points about the semantics of someones news post is so
much mor fun!

Richard

Alan Calder

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 6:06:56 AM3/19/07
to
In article <1174296326....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,

beamends <sa...@beamends-lrspares.co.uk> wrote:
> RISC OS - so long and thanks for all the fish.

[Snip]

> Richard

Terribly sad to read your post.

Thank you for taking the time to explain what happened and how you feel.

Your comments encapsulate the whole problem - the ROS world is becoming the
MG Owners Club*, a bunch of geriatrics and youthful enthusiasts desperately
trying to keep the old machines on the road whilst insisting that the
machines are just so nuch better than this modern stuff. Like the MG
owners, most of them seem to use something else for serious stuff.

I still harbour a hope that somehow those vital bits of missing software
will appear or that someone will find a way of cloning MartinW, David P and
others so that a real avalanche of new software will appear.

Good luck and I hope that you keep some connection with the RO world.

Cheers

Alan

--
Alan Calder, Milton Keynes, UK.

Jeremy Brayshaw

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 7:33:17 AM3/19/07
to
In message <1174296326....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
"beamends" <sa...@beamends-lrspares.co.uk> wrote:

> RISC OS - so long and thanks for all the fish.

<snip>

> Richard

Sorry to lose you, Richard. As you know, you and I have had similar
views many times about RO, and, sadly, I agree with all you say.

I can't quite work out why Iyonix Ltd don't take much more of a lead
in software development - it's in their interests as they'd sell more
machines, and they own the O.S. I also can't see why Ad6 went to RO
Ltd instead of Castle for their version of the OS. They must be very
frustrated at RO Ltd's inability to complete the OS for them in
anything like a sensible time.

Is it really a bad business plan for Castle/Iyonix Ltd, Ad6, and maybe
even CJE to get more involved in serious professional software
development to sell more of their products and open up new markets?

Jeremy.

--
Jeremy Brayshaw <><

John Cartmell

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 7:06:11 AM3/19/07
to
> But that's ok, hey, who needs users when making clever points about the
> semantics of someones news post is so much mor fun!

There is much that you have said that is correct - and much that is wrong,
both general and specific. What is correct should be taken to heart and put
right and you should be fairly, but strongly, tackled on the bits that may
mislead. Sadly that will not happen. It won't happen because anyone trying to
discuss such problems honestly will be publicly villified. In fact that's the
only real problem out of the whole lot; your quibbles *could* have been put
right had honest public criticism been allowable - and publicly countered if
you included unreasonable comments. As it is most developers work shut away
from the public because working in public just isn't worth the aggravation;
and some of the few that do risk it make sure they get their retaliations in
first - and that just escalates the problems.

The answer is simple. Use Usenet properly or don't use it at all - ie scrap
all csa.groups and portals and lists. If we are going to use it then answer
all questions politely; don't make attacks on individuals; don't criticise
products because you own a rival product; appreciate that in the RISC OS
market all devlopers and suppliers can best flourish through the success of
the others.

But that only works if everyone agrees and everyone follows those rules.

I'll risk two criticisms:

ONE: I offered to help sort out one of your problems (and that may have led to
the whole being sorted). I needed a copy of your bug report but apparently
that had been limited to telephone conversations. If anyone has a critical
problem then it really is essential that they are properly documented. 1.
There is a far better chance that your problem will be sorted out and your
expense *not* wasted, and 2. It would benefit the rest of us rather than
having to wait longer for someone else to encounter the problem, report it
properly, have it identified, and get the bug sorted.

TWO: You relied on Usenet rumour to inform you of development. This isn't your
fault, but the misinformation does mean that decisions are made on bad
premises.

--
John

Mr John FO Evans

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 9:37:14 AM3/19/07
to
> with two new machines being launched in the last couple of tears or
> so,

I didn't cry! And the A9 does everything I must have - including the Castle Compiler.
I would like better printing facilities - but that can wait.


--
_ _________________________________________
/ \._._ |_ _ _ /' Orpheus Internet Services
\_/| |_)| |(/_|_|_> / 'Internet for Everyone'
_______ | ___________./ http://www.orpheusinternet.co.uk


Ams

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 10:00:28 AM3/19/07
to
On Mar 19, 9:25 am, "beamends" <s...@beamends-lrspares.co.uk> wrote:
> RISC OS - so long and thanks for all the fish.
> ----------------------------------------------

<snip>

I am sorry to see you go Richard.

> Well, part of the reason is the clue above. Two forks
> of the OS for a minority platform?

That actually, with respect, is not really the problem (look at how
many variants of Linux there are and they seem to work, also the bulk
of RISC OS users are *still* using 3.7 or earlier, then you have 4.xx
and 5.xx, within Select you'll have people who are up to date and some
who have lapsed out at earlier stages). This is something that would
have existed even if Castle had *never* released RO5.

>It's difficult to
> believe that such silliness could even start, never
> mind carry on. The simmering "dispute" (for want of a
> better word) between the two camps has been going on
> for several years and was just a bit of a side-show
> until I bought an A9Home for the business. Ok, so I
> was aware the OS was "a bit beta"

I have a simple rule that I apply to *every* machine I've ever bought,
- never buy the earliest ones - wait a year. I did that with Iyonix
and on PCs. Me a guinea pig - no thank you.

>but I wasn't expecting
> it to be unable to rememebr half of it's configuration
> settings, or be lacking pre-installed printer drivers,
> or crashing losing data to often for comfort. Though
> those points are irritating in the extreme, well, never
> mind, they can be over-come - the real killers are these
> two issues.
> In the eight months or so that I've had the A9, and
> despite all the known bugs and problems there have been
> precisely NO updates at all.

Beta means that - it's capable of release to a limited set of users
before main release. RO4.XX as on A9 was a work in progress - it's a
bit unfair (no matter how miffed you feel) to assume any particular
level of completion. Beta meant it wasn't complete some things will
and somethings wont work. As to the delay in updates that is a matter
for ROL and Ad6 - its not in their interests to delay on this (so I'd
expect things to progress overtime - albeit perhaps not rapidly enough
to keep you onboard).

>That may not matter to your
> average hobbyist but it is a disaster for someone wanting
> to use the machine "for real".

Thing is I would *not* buy a machine that I knew was incomplete, so
why did you ?

There were alternatives either (i). Upgrading an existing RPC to use
Select OR (ii). Choose an Iyonix - which pricewise is not a world
removed from the A9 and has some track record behind it.

> The other issue, not un-realted, came about when I bought
> the C/C++ complier, for use on the A9 and the Risc PC to
> 32-bit the apps I have written that use !Prophet to help
> run the business, to release them, and to develop them
> further. I happily installed it and..... it didn't work.

But thing is the problem *might* be related, The compiler has to
*work* on the OS you use. The OS is the foundation upon which all
things run. If the OS isn't working (in your opinion) then there is
little reason to assume *any* particular application (or compiler)
would run properly on it either.

<snip>

> The galling thing about this was really the fact that when
> I mentioned that I intended to run the compiler on the A9,
> the chap at Iyonix though it was amusing - clearly not
> a problem. I wish I could treat my customers like that!

Thing is if you mentioned you couldn't get Microsoft Visual C# to run
on an Apple Macintosh would you expect MS to fix it?

The guy hasn't developed the variant of RISC OS on the A9 he *can't*
possibly know what will/won't work on it. Sure you have an A9 for 8
months and you couldn't get it to work - so why should he.


> This was, of course, on top of the petty bickering and
> short sightedness of thosewho have appointed themselves
> as the Keepers Of The Knowledge.

With respect you knew A9 was beta and you still bought it. That's not
Ad6's fault, or ROL's fault. You had alternatives you ignored them.
That's your choice - but ultimately it has consequences such as the
ones you listed. Yes maybe some of the issues could have been
highlighted - perhaps some were but you perhaps ascribed them to
people with axes to grind - but ultimately you made YOUR choice and
now face the result.

If you really wanted to fix the issue i'd have (i) Not complained
publically here about the A9 (ii) Sold it and recouped some money
(iii). Bought an Iyonix and asked Castle to resend you your Compiler
keyed to that machines IP address. Then you'd have been up and running
and still on the RISC OS platform.

<snip>

> demonstrably. Is the ROS user base increasing or decreasing?
> OK, so FireFox is wonderful (though NetSurf is far sllicker),
> but whether the Keepers like it or not, the vast majority of
> users consider Flash, video, etc to be part of the browser -
> donning teflon shoulder pads and saying "not my problem" is
> simply burying you head in the sand.

For the love of Pete, some of those formats are *closed* you can
either not get them or if you attempt to use them you can get sued. If
you're prepared to pay for the development and license fees yes it's
doable - but if we can't we can't. You won't find HD on Linux either
(and if it appears it'll take some time, just like what happened with
DVD).

>Trumpeting FireFox,
> omittingto mentiom the lack of video etc will have a negative

And firefox is what - a BROWSER - it displays WEBPAGES (like this
one). It's the plug in's that do the work. They're either proprietary
or rely on GPL code which can't simply be incorporated into the core
RISC OS.

> Can it actually do
> anything that NetSurf or Fresco can't? In effect no, apart
> from getting the layout nicer sometimes. Is that going to impress
> someone used to another platform? Like hell. They'll try to go
> to YouTube or whateve and just return to wherever they came
> from. So that's the "home" market scuppered.

Again how will *your* departure help, really. What's more if going why
make such a racket. Go quietly the rest of us are trying to keep the
thing going. The sad reality is ultimately if you want content you'll
have one choice - Microsoft. And that's because the Media/Content
providers know MS will try to keep their content *safe*. Linux they're
wary off and Apple don't really have a larege enough market presence.


<snip>

> The real danger to ROS from not having these things is not
> their abscence per se though. As mentioned above, the compiler
> and A9 debacles pushed me into actually installing Linux.

You bought a machine whose OS was not complete and expect compilers
and everything to work fine on it. Is that realistic?

As to Linux, it's a fine OS and I wish you well with it.

>
> So will I miss ROS?
> -------------------
> Yes. Big Time. It's very hard to give up something you've
> supported come hell or high water for so long, but with ROX
> providing (with a few very irritating exceptions) a ROS like
> desktop, I'll survive.

Good again I wish you well.

> What I won't miss is being told my future by the Keepers, who
> do a very good impression of completely failing to uderstand
> the difference between those who use a computer to do various
> tasks because the *have* to, and those who do so because they
> either want to or just see it as a hobby. Fiddling while
> Rome burns and all that....

> The reposses will an amalgum of:
>
> "Developers know best....."

Not always

> "You don't understand....."

Yes, you don't.

> which all just ignore three simple facts - you've lost
> *another* user and failed to ask yourselves why, you've also
> lost your most visible user to the outside world, and I
> *do* understand (you might not like it, but it's true), that's
> why I've been forced to move.

We lost you because either (i) you had unrealistic expectations or
(ii) were misinformed (or a combination of the two). It's still no
less a pity

<snip>

> Richard

Regards and best of luck.

Annraoi


Rob Kendrick

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 10:43:42 AM3/19/07
to
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 07:00:28 -0700, Ams wrote:

>> Well, part of the reason is the clue above. Two forks
>> of the OS for a minority platform?
>
> That actually, with respect, is not really the problem (look at how
> many variants of Linux there are and they seem to work,

This is a gross simplification of the the problem: In the Linux
distribution world, almost all of the software packages, the kernel, and
OS infrastructure is built from identical or near-identical source code.
And where the source isn't identical, other Linux distributions can
cherry-pick from it. What you end up with is pretty much identical
software delivered arranged slightly differently. ie: completely
different to the ROL vs CTL versions of RISC OS.

<snip>

>> The galling thing about this was really the fact that when
>> I mentioned that I intended to run the compiler on the A9,
>> the chap at Iyonix though it was amusing - clearly not
>> a problem. I wish I could treat my customers like that!
>
> Thing is if you mentioned you couldn't get Microsoft Visual C# to run
> on an Apple Macintosh would you expect MS to fix it?

Mac OS is a completely different OS. This also seems to go against what
you say above in that having two branches of the OS "is not really the
problem".

B.

Message has been deleted

druck

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 2:00:02 PM3/19/07
to
On 19 Mar 2007 John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> The answer is simple. Use Usenet properly or don't use it at all

So we can expect the immediate cessation of all your off topic posts on
csa.* ? No I thought not.

---druck

--
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/

John Cartmell

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 2:30:08 PM3/19/07
to
In article <848522c6...@druck.freeuk.net>, druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com>
wrote:

> On 19 Mar 2007 John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > The answer is simple. Use Usenet properly or don't use it at all

> So we can expect the immediate cessation of all your off topic posts on
> csa.* ? No I thought not.

It's disappointing (but not surprising) that you on your own could ensure that
cooperation won't work. This is the bit you snipped:

"If we are going to use [Usenet] then answer all questions politely; don't


make attacks on individuals; don't criticise products because you own a rival

product; appreciate that in the RISC OS market all developers and suppliers


can best flourish through the success of the others.

But that only works if everyone agrees and everyone follows those rules."

--
John

Alan Wrigley

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 2:41:39 PM3/19/07
to
In message <d71cffc5...@pressxpress.co.uk>
Jeremy Brayshaw <jer...@brayshaw.org.uk> wrote:

> Is it really a bad business plan for Castle/Iyonix Ltd, Ad6, and maybe
> even CJE to get more involved in serious professional software
> development

But where would they get serious professional developers from? All the
serious developers on this platform are already working at full
stretch and there certainly isn't enough money in the market to tempt
in new blood who will be used to earning the proper market rate for
their work.

Alan

--
RISC OS - you know it makes cents

Stuart

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 1:55:02 PM3/19/07
to
In article <1174312828.3...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,

Ams <a...@globalcafe.ie> wrote:
> As to the delay in updates that is a matter
> for ROL and Ad6 - its not in their interests to delay on this (so I'd
> expect things to progress overtime - albeit perhaps not rapidly enough
> to keep you onboard).

From what Paul Middleton said to MUG on Saturday it is getting close.

--
Stuart Winsor

From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.

For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk

Ams

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 2:58:30 PM3/19/07
to
On Mar 19, 2:43 pm, Rob Kendrick <n...@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 07:00:28 -0700, Ams wrote:
> >> Well, part of the reason is the clue above. Two forks
> >> of the OS for a minority platform?
>
> > That actually, with respect, is not really the problem (look at how
> > many variants of Linux there are and they seem to work,
>
> This is a gross simplification of the the problem: In the Linux
> distribution world, almost all of the software packages, the kernel, and
> OS infrastructure is built from identical or near-identical source code.
> And where the source isn't identical, other Linux distributions can
> cherry-pick from it. What you end up with is pretty much identical
> software delivered arranged slightly differently. ie: completely
> different to the ROL vs CTL versions of RISC OS.

That's the case at the moment (and so yes I have simplified the Linux
situation somewhat (sorry..)), but as RO5.12 source *will* be
available to all (including ROL assuming whatever the licensing terms
are complied with) then the situation *in the future* may be more
analogous to Linux.

>
> <snip>
>
> >> The galling thing about this was really the fact that when
> >> I mentioned that I intended to run the compiler on the A9,
> >> the chap at Iyonix though it was amusing - clearly not
> >> a problem. I wish I could treat my customers like that!
>
> > Thing is if you mentioned you couldn't get Microsoft Visual C# to run
> > on an Apple Macintosh would you expect MS to fix it?

My point is MS's responsibility for it's compilers are limited to
users of it's OS platform. There are myriads of OS'es out there they
*can't* be expected to support them all.

>
> Mac OS is a completely different OS. This also seems to go against what
> you say above in that having two branches of the OS "is not really the
> problem".

It's not a problem in a general sense. However Rob I'd agree with you
that in this specific case it is (so yes I am partly wrong). With
limited resources can Castle be expected to support their compiler on
*all* current and previous hardware/OS combinations - especially on
hardware that they don't manufacture or support or on an OS that they
didn't write and which contributes nothing to their bottom line?

That having been said others seem to have indicated that they *have*
gotten the compiler to run on their A9's (the only problem I was aware
of was with respect to the ABC compiler - which may have "issues" with
A9's RISC OS variant). That being the case I am not sure what is
causing Richard's specific problems with the compiler and A9.

>
> B.

Regards

Annraoi

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 3:03:01 PM3/19/07
to
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:58:30 -0700, Ams wrote:

> but as RO5.12 source *will* be
> available to all (including ROL assuming whatever the licensing terms
> are complied with) then the situation *in the future* may be more
> analogous to Linux.

I like the way you highlight "will". So far, we've seen nothing but hype,
and no information that can be taken seriously about what the delay is.

<snip>

> My point is MS's responsibility for it's compilers are limited to
> users of it's OS platform. There are myriads of OS'es out there they
> *can't* be expected to support them all.

If that's you're point, it's entirely unrelated to the discussion. Why
did you bring it up? :)

B.

News poster

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 3:45:46 PM3/19/07
to
In message <4ec6254...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

It is a pity that there is nothing in this 'snipped bit' that asks
people to NOT indulge in completely off topic UK-centric discussions in
this forum (originally set up for computer support and not to bang on
endlessly about wheelie bins etc).

Or are you determined to drive remaining RISC OS users (whether resident
in the UK or not) into the comparative havens of moderated 'subscribers
only' lists?
Stan

--
http://mistymornings.net

Stuart

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 2:55:00 PM3/19/07
to
In article <pan.2007.03.19....@rjek.com>,

Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> I like the way you highlight "will". So far, we've seen nothing but
> hype, and no information that can be taken seriously about what the
> delay is.

I am surprised, Rob, that someone like yourself has no understanding of
the complexity of an operating system and the need to ensure that you
/only/ release bits of it that really are your own property.

Bearing in mind the complex history of RO I would think it quite difficult
to do the above.

There may also be bits that you /don't/ want others to get their hands on
for sound commercial reasons so careful consideration needs to be taken
about this too.

John Williams (News)

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 4:12:34 PM3/19/07
to
In article <b5332cc...@casema.nl>,
News poster <mistym...@casema.nl> wrote:

> It is a pity that there is nothing in this 'snipped bit' that asks
> people to NOT indulge in completely off topic UK-centric discussions in
> this forum (originally set up for computer support and not to bang on
> endlessly about wheelie bins etc).

Perhaps John could find space for such discussions in his magazine. Make it
a bit thicker and possibly more interesting.

John

--
John Williams, Wirral, Merseyside, UK - no attachments to these addresses!
Non-RISC OS posters change user to johnrwilliams or put 'risc' in subject
for reliable contact! Who is John Williams? http://www.picindex.info/author/

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 4:40:06 PM3/19/07
to
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:55:00 +0100, Stuart wrote:

> In article <pan.2007.03.19....@rjek.com>,
> Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
>> I like the way you highlight "will". So far, we've seen nothing but
>> hype, and no information that can be taken seriously about what the
>> delay is.
>
> I am surprised, Rob, that someone like yourself has no understanding of
> the complexity of an operating system and the need to ensure that you
> /only/ release bits of it that really are your own property.

I fully understand the complexity of the issue at hand. My problem is the
delay between the hype and the delivery, which I think everybody could
have done without, and has nothing to do with the complexity of their task.

B.

Ray Dawson

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 4:40:50 PM3/19/07
to
Stuart <SW_N...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

> In article <pan.2007.03.19....@rjek.com>,
> Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> > I like the way you highlight "will". So far, we've seen nothing but
> > hype, and no information that can be taken seriously about what the
> > delay is.
>
> I am surprised, Rob, that someone like yourself has no understanding of
> the complexity of an operating system and the need to ensure that you
> /only/ release bits of it that really are your own property.

But isn't this an admission that RISC OS is now two separate OSs and that
they are not guaranteed, or likely to be, compatible?

And that's ignoring the previous 26 bit versions of RISC OS.

> Bearing in mind the complex history of RO I would think it quite
> difficult to do the above.

One of the stated advantages of RISC OS was backward compatibility - but
now we are talking about contempraneous versions being incompatible.

If the OSs and the compilers aren't compatible, it opens up the
possibility of applications having to be version specific as well.



> There may also be bits that you /don't/ want others to get their hands
> on for sound commercial reasons so careful consideration needs to be
> taken about this too.

But in this case Castle were happy that Richard downloaded the compiler
and took his money for it. Somewhere along the line is a responsibility to
support him.

Cheers,

Ray D

Message has been deleted

cuj...@nospam.co.uk

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 7:04:08 PM3/19/07
to
In article <w7ALh.5451$267....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net>,
ChrisW <ne...@chriswhy.co.uk> wrote:

> On 19-Mar-2007, "beamends" <sa...@beamends-lrspares.co.uk> wrote:

> >
> > RISC OS - so long and thanks for all the fish.
> > ----------------------------------------------

> snip

> > In the eight months or so that I've had the A9, and
> > despite all the known bugs and problems there have been
> > precisely NO updates at all. That may not matter to your
> > average hobbyist but it is a disaster for someone wanting
> > to use the machine "for real".

> I have to agree with you about the A9, When it was annouced in
> 2005 as a public Beta, I did not buy it because I did not want an
> unfinished computer or to participate in a test program.

> When it was officially launched in 2006 at Wakefield, I bought
> one, expecting it to be largely complete and any outstanding
> issues to be fixed rapidly either a patches or new ROM images.

<snip>

My experience almost exactly mirrors yours. After waiting until
the A9home was announced as on 'general release' at Wakefield I
waited about 6 weeks afterwards before ordering. I do not have
broadband and the first thing I found out was that dial-up could
not be used as Adv6 thought that 'nobody used dial-up nowadays.'
They could not get their hands on a PPP module. Since then they
have found that a considerable number of users do not have ADSL but
they have now managed to obtain a module which will presumably be
incorporated in the next release? There was also no
SerialDeviceDriver and of course everybody knows about the USB
printer problem.

> 10 months on I am waiting for the final ROM while the
> A9 gathers dust in its box.

As does mine. Before Richard brought his problems to our attention
I thought that I must be the only one whose machine lies in the
corner and have waited patiently, soldiering on with my RiscStation
R7500.

> Maybe this year at Wakefield the GA (production) ROM will be > available.

Who knows?

> Big snip
> Chris

Still waiting...
Ken Wright

--
cuj...@nospam.co.uk

John Cartmell

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 5:55:13 PM3/19/07
to

I understood that ROOL were bounced into making an early announcement because
their web-site was noticed and announced without their agreement. I admit that
I first thought they had already dealt with the legal problems (and
congratulated them on that) as I saw that as a near impossible task.

--
John

Steve Fryatt

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 6:47:36 PM3/19/07
to
On 19 Mar, Rob Kendrick wrote in message
<pan.2007.03.19....@rjek.com>:

ISTR that the original announcement was kind of bounced out of them, as
someone stumbled over the company registration and plastered details all
over one of the news portals. Faced with that, and the subsequent
rumour-mongering, I don't think they had much option but to come clean
when they did.

As for the subsequent delay, there seems to be a suggestion that sorting
out the ownership of some parts of the OS has proved much more complex a
task than anyone expected.

--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England

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

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 7:14:45 PM3/19/07
to
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:47:36 +0000, Steve Fryatt wrote:

> ISTR that the original announcement was kind of bounced out of them, as
> someone stumbled over the company registration and plastered details all
> over one of the news portals. Faced with that, and the subsequent
> rumour-mongering, I don't think they had much option but to come clean
> when they did.

Somebody simply noticing their existence is hardly outing them. And
anyway;
a) they should have delayed registering the company name until they
actually had something to offer, and,
b) organisations such as they should be more than used to ignoring
rumors spread about by people who don't know what they're
talking about.

> As for the subsequent delay, there seems to be a suggestion that sorting
> out the ownership of some parts of the OS has proved much more complex a
> task than anyone expected.

I can't spot any official comment on this on their or Castle's website.
They should have thought about this long and hard before making any
announcement, and certainly before asking for donations!

B.

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 7:16:43 PM3/19/07
to
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:55:13 +0000, John Cartmell wrote:

> In article <pan.2007.03.19....@rjek.com>,
> Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
>> I fully understand the complexity of the issue at hand. My problem is the
>> delay between the hype and the delivery, which I think everybody could
>> have done without, and has nothing to do with the complexity of their task.
>
> I understood that ROOL were bounced into making an early announcement because
> their web-site was noticed and announced without their agreement.

Wrong - nothing to do with their website. It was a company registration,
and thus no details of what they were going to do were forced out without
their permission at all, other than that they were going to do *something*.

(I speak from a point of authority, as it was I who noticed the company's
registration, and mentioned it to Chris Williams in passing, who was the
first to talk of its existence on his excellent organ.)

B.

John Williams (News)

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 7:22:09 PM3/19/07
to

Is Chris Williams' excellent organ on topic here? Is this not more suited
to e-mail? I get a lot of those!

jl

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 4:08:54 PM3/19/07
to

What is wrong with people engaging in a bit of light hearted chat every
once in a while?

If the Acorn scene had always been populated by rule-obeying robots that
trudge through life faithfully doing whatever someone else whom they don't
know tells them to do, I for one would have left a long time ago.

Have a bit of tolerance and patience, for goodness sake.

Jochen

--

------------------------------------
Limavady and the Roe Valley
http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com

Theo Markettos

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 7:48:36 PM3/19/07
to
Ray Dawson <r...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> Stuart <SW_N...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>> I am surprised, Rob, that someone like yourself has no understanding of
>> the complexity of an operating system and the need to ensure that you
>> /only/ release bits of it that really are your own property.
>
> But isn't this an admission that RISC OS is now two separate OSs and that
> they are not guaranteed, or likely to be, compatible?

It's not really that, AFAICS. Off the top of my head, let's think of who
might have interests/copyrights in bits of the RISC OS code:

Acorn, ANT, Codemist, Univ. Berkeley, Olivetti/ARC, ARM, RISC OS Ltd, Pace,
Castle, ESP.

And there are probably loads more I can't think of. Teasing out that lot,
who owns which code and which bits are licensed under what conditions are
going to be tricky if little evidence remains. And something you're going
to have to do, because it isn't going to be pretty if (say) ANT were to turn
round and sue for releasing something publically that wasn't allowed.

Theo

diodesign

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 7:55:57 PM3/19/07
to
Hi,

On 19 Mar, 21:55, John Cartmell <j...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <pan.2007.03.19.20.40.06.239...@rjek.com>,


> Rob Kendrick <n...@rjek.com> wrote:
>
> > I fully understand the complexity of the issue at hand. My problem is the
> > delay between the hype and the delivery, which I think everybody could
> > have done without, and has nothing to do with the complexity of their task.
>
> I understood that ROOL were bounced into making an early announcement because
> their web-site was noticed and announced without their agreement.

As if you need someone's agreement to announce something :)

Chris.

diodesign

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 7:58:41 PM3/19/07
to
On 19 Mar, 22:47, Steve Fryatt <n...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> On 19 Mar, Rob Kendrick wrote in message
> <pan.2007.03.19.20.40.06.239...@rjek.com>:

>
> > On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:55:00 +0100, Stuart wrote:
>
> > > I am surprised, Rob, that someone like yourself has no understanding
> > > of the complexity of an operating system and the need to ensure that
> > > you /only/ release bits of it that really are your own property.
>
> > I fully understand the complexity of the issue at hand. My problem is
> > the delay between the hype and the delivery, which I think everybody
> > could have done without, and has nothing to do with the complexity of
> > their task.
>
> ISTR that the original announcement was kind of bounced out of them, as
> someone stumbled over the company registration and plastered details all
> over one of the news portals. Faced with that, and the subsequent
> rumour-mongering, I don't think they had much option but to come clean
> when they did.

That would have been Drobe, yes. It was a genuine newsworthy piece of
public interest.

Chris / drobe.co.uk

John Cartmell

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 7:47:48 PM3/19/07
to
In article <pan.2007.03.19....@rjek.com>, Rob Kendrick
<nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:55:13 +0000, John Cartmell wrote:

> > In article <pan.2007.03.19....@rjek.com>, Rob Kendrick
> > <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> >> I fully understand the complexity of the issue at hand. My problem is
> >> the delay between the hype and the delivery, which I think everybody
> >> could have done without, and has nothing to do with the complexity of
> >> their task.
> >
> > I understood that ROOL were bounced into making an early announcement
> > because their web-site was noticed and announced without their agreement.

> Wrong - nothing to do with their website. It was a company registration,
> and thus no details of what they were going to do were forced out without
> their permission at all, other than that they were going to do *something*.

Thanks for that clarification.

> (I speak from a point of authority, as it was I who noticed the company's
> registration, and mentioned it to Chris Williams in passing, who was the
> first to talk of its existence on his excellent organ.)

'Mentioning things in passing' to Chris Williams is equivalent to publication!

Thanks for taking the blame. ;-)

--
John

John Cartmell

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 8:13:21 PM3/19/07
to
In article <1174348557.3...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, diodesign
<diod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,

No. As if they appeared to be about to be unfairly blamed for making an
announcement that was in fact made by someone else without their agreement.

Consequencies, dear boy.

--
John

David Holden

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 3:47:20 AM3/20/07
to

On 19-Mar-2007, jl <j...@spamnet.co.uk> wrote:

> If the Acorn scene had always been populated by rule-obeying robots that
> trudge through life faithfully doing whatever someone else whom they don't
> know tells them to do, I for one would have left a long time ago.

In general I agree that people /should/ stick to the charter and not indulge
in wildly OT discussions, especially as these often seem to turn into public
brawls, which *are* offensive to almost everyone.

However.....

The number of people contributing to such threads and the number of postings
on such topics often exceeds the number of people contributing to the more
normal subjects. This would seem to indicate to me that they're not as
unpopular as some people would have us believe (until, of course, they
descend into personal abuse, when *no-one* approves). You could almost say
it's a sort of 'democracy in action'. I've never heard anyone say "I've
stopped reading the c.s.a groups because there's too much off topic stuff"
but I've heard a lot of people say "I've stopped reading the c.s.a groups
because there's too much bickering and petty argument".

A few years ago reigning in OT discussions would have been important. Then
most subscribers would have had dial-up access and the numbers of posts were
*much* larger. These days the additional bandwidth (even for those using
dial up) is probably not really important since the total number of postings
has dropped to a fraction of what it used to be. I suspect that if anyone
cared to do a comparison they'd find that OffT posting have dropped
significantly, it's just that with the huge reduction in OnT postings they
seem more significant.

I've also noticed that those who rant loudest about them don't seem to have
any problems with threads that drift OT when they drift into areas that
they're interested in ;-)

In general, I think that the OT stuff, while not a good thing and should be
discouraged is *in itself* not really detrimental to the groups. The silly
arguments that such threads often lead to certainly is, as is the equally
silly bickering which arises when the self-appointed 'net police' turn up
and admonish the participants.

I think most of the regulars around here (note use of 'most') are quite
grown up enough to police ourselves. If a thread does start to drift
seriously OT, with the current low level of traffic on these groups,
although it can be annoying, at least it lets us know that there are still
more than half a dozen people still alive out there.

--
David Holden - APDL - <http://www.apdl.co.uk>

David Pitt

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 4:59:56 AM3/20/07
to
In message <4ec622101...@dsl.pipex.com>
Stuart <SW_N...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

>In article <1174312828.3...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Ams <a...@globalcafe.ie> wrote:
>> As to the delay in updates that is a matter for ROL and Ad6 - its not
>> in their interests to delay on this (so I'd expect things to progress
>> overtime - albeit perhaps not rapidly enough to keep you onboard).
>
>From what Paul Middleton said to MUG on Saturday it is getting close.

If only!

From "News from RISCOS Ltd March 3rd 2006"

<quote>

Adjust 32 / Select 4 Progress
-----------------------------
We are now nearing the final stages of Select 4 development and the
subject to any final last minute hitches the first release will be made
in time for the Wakefield Show in May this year.

regards

Paul Middleton
RISCOS Ltd

</quote>

Wakefield 2006 that is.

I rather resent my 'wasted' Select subscriptions and see my purchase of
an A9home as a potential waste of money. My Select subscription is up
for renewal soon and presents a hard choice. One the one hand it is
obviously stupid to continue to support such a waste of space but I do
have a reluctance to finally pull the plug, I do like RISC OS and
Select. What would really make me cross is to shell out another £99 and
still get nothing, my level of expectation is such that I can believe
that of ROL.

Just what is next from ROL, is it just OS4.39 from the 32bit source,
RO6pv with printing and Viewfinder support.

Richard's original post is very sad. Had he bought an Iyonix, and not an
A9omega, it may not have had to have been written.

Sent in sorrow.
--
David Pitt.

Computing with RISC OS.

Message has been deleted

Alan Wrigley

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 6:51:22 AM3/20/07
to
In message <569hsbF...@mid.individual.net>
David Holden <black...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:

> I've also noticed that those who rant loudest about them don't seem to have
> any problems with threads that drift OT when they drift into areas that
> they're interested in ;-)

Quite.

> In general, I think that the OT stuff, while not a good thing and should be
> discouraged is *in itself* not really detrimental to the groups.

And there is the not inconsiderable argument that while it may be bad
for the charter it's good for the market. If people feel they can
occasionally let off steam or share a joke with other people who they
'know' only through these groups, they will be more likely to feel
good about the RISC OS marketplace and buy things which in the long
term benefits all of us including the charter freaks.

Theo Markettos

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 7:36:20 AM3/20/07
to
David Holden <black...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
> In general, I think that the OT stuff, while not a good thing and should be
> discouraged is *in itself* not really detrimental to the groups. The silly
> arguments that such threads often lead to certainly is, as is the equally
> silly bickering which arises when the self-appointed 'net police' turn up
> and admonish the participants.

Thanks, that's a sensible approach. Over on cam.misc there's a fairly
similar relaxed attitude - apart from the few deranged spammers (easily
killfiled) it's more "misc, for anyone who has even a tenuous connection
with Cambridge" and it seems to work.

> I think most of the regulars around here (note use of 'most') are quite
> grown up enough to police ourselves. If a thread does start to drift
> seriously OT, with the current low level of traffic on these groups,
> although it can be annoying, at least it lets us know that there are still
> more than half a dozen people still alive out there.

Indeed. What's much more annoying than OT drift is the few people who have
a political cause to promote and post huge numbers of irrelevant 'news'
stories to push their cause. Often they're hard to killfile, which makes
the group much less workable. (see uk.local.*, sci.geo.*, some of talk.*
etc)

I should add that it's much easier to get newsgroups created/renamed now, so
if we wanted to adjust the groups we have that shouldn't be a problem.

Theo

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 9:22:26 AM3/20/07
to
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 00:13:21 +0000, John Cartmell wrote:

>> > I understood that ROOL were bounced into making an early announcement
>> > because their web-site was noticed and announced without their agreement.
>
>> As if you need someone's agreement to announce something :)
>
> No. As if they appeared to be about to be unfairly blamed for making an
> announcement that was in fact made by someone else without their agreement.

As far as I can tell, nobody pre-announced what they were going to be
doing, dear.

B.

Jess

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 9:29:17 AM3/20/07
to
In message <gemini.jf64420...@magray.freeserve.co.uk>
Ray Dawson <r...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

> But isn't this an admission that RISC OS is now two separate OSs and that
> they are not guaranteed, or likely to be, compatible?

You mean like the situation with the Windows 9x family and the windows
NT family, which coexisted for a good 7 or 8 years?

(Though the difference is far smaller in the case of RISC OS)

--
Jess Iyonix
contact http://jess.itworkshop-nexus.net
Hotmail is my spam trap - don't email
valid - mailto:nos...@jess.itworkshop-nexus.net

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 9:38:25 AM3/20/07
to
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:29:17 +0000, Jess wrote:

> In message <gemini.jf64420...@magray.freeserve.co.uk>
> Ray Dawson <r...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> But isn't this an admission that RISC OS is now two separate OSs and that
>> they are not guaranteed, or likely to be, compatible?
>
> You mean like the situation with the Windows 9x family and the windows
> NT family, which coexisted for a good 7 or 8 years?

The difference is that NT/2000 were targeted at very different markets
than 9x/ME, so hardly anybody noticed. (And I'd suggest the API
differences were similar in ratio to that of the two strands of RISC OS.)

B.

VinceH

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 9:50:01 AM3/20/07
to
On 19 Mar 2007, Ray Dawson wrote:
> Stuart <SW_N...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

[...]

> > I am surprised, Rob, that someone like yourself has no
> > understanding of the complexity of an operating system and the
> > need to ensure that you /only/ release bits of it that really
> > are your own property.

> But isn't this an admission that RISC OS is now two separate OSs
> and that they are not guaranteed, or likely to be, compatible?

No, it's a reference to the fact that some parts of what we see as
"RISC OS" are licenced from other sources.

Castle and RISC OS Open Ltd have to be very careful that what they
release in source form doesn't contain code contributed under
licences that preclude its release in that way - where "be[ing]
very careful" can include taking steps to negotiate a licence that
does allow it and a number of other possibilities.

> And that's ignoring the previous 26 bit versions of RISC OS.

> > Bearing in mind the complex history of RO I would think it
> > quite difficult to do the above.
>
> One of the stated advantages of RISC OS was backward
> compatibility - but now we are talking about contempraneous
> versions being incompatible.

I'm failing to see what licencing complexities have to do with
backwards compatibility.


> If the OSs and the compilers aren't compatible, it opens up the
> possibility of applications having to be version specific as
> well.

That's always going to be a possibility, even without there being
two distinct OS developers - simply by token of newer versions of
the OS having newer features.

In reality, it's not that much of an issue.



> > There may also be bits that you /don't/ want others to get
> > their hands on for sound commercial reasons so careful
> > consideration needs to be taken about this too.

> But in this case Castle were happy that Richard downloaded the
> compiler and took his money for it. Somewhere along the line is
> a responsibility to support him.

ISTR there being a discussion about the compiler and how to make
it work on an A9Home on comp.sys.acorn.programmer - I'm assuming
the problem Richard had was the same one that led to that
discussion, because I wasn't entirely clear from his description
what the actual nature of the problem he encountered was.

That said, it would have been nice if whoever he spoke to (by
phone and by email) was aware of the problem and solution and was
able to talk him through it.

Jess Hampshire

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 10:28:51 AM3/20/07
to

In message <pan.2007.03.20....@rjek.com>
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:

I'd agree with the second point, but the first? Anyone who wanted a
halway decent system would choose NT 4 rather than windows 98 and the
only real problem was games. (And cutting out games cut out a large
number of pre-internet problems on PCs, anyway)


--
Jess mailto:je...@itworkshop-nexus.net
sip:815...@draytel.org
icq: 91353267 msn: phant...@hotmail.com sms: 07891070734
http://jess.itworkshop-nexus.net Using RISC OS 5.11

Alan Calder

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 10:36:04 AM3/20/07
to
In article <c50593c...@itworkshop.invalid>, Jess Hampshire
<je...@itworkshop-nexus.net> wrote:

> In message <pan.2007.03.20....@rjek.com> Rob Kendrick
> <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:

> > On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:29:17 +0000, Jess wrote:
> >
> >> In message <gemini.jf64420...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> Ray
> >> Dawson <r...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

[Snip]

> >>
> >> You mean like the situation with the Windows 9x family and the
> >> windows NT family, which coexisted for a good 7 or 8 years?
> >
> > The difference is that NT/2000 were targeted at very different markets
> > than 9x/ME, so hardly anybody noticed. (And I'd suggest the API
> > differences were similar in ratio to that of the two strands of RISC
> > OS.)

> I'd agree with the second point, but the first? Anyone who wanted a
> halway decent system would choose NT 4 rather than windows 98 and the
> only real problem was games. (And cutting out games cut out a large
> number of pre-internet problems on PCs, anyway)

Unreal. There were good reasons to choose NT4 in the corporate market for
heavy duty stuff but it cost which is why most businesses for their office
staff and probably 99.99% of private users chose 98/ME. Strangely enough,
those private users actually liked games!

Cheers

Alan

--
Alan Calder, Milton Keynes, UK.

Chris Wraight

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 10:46:03 AM3/20/07
to
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 08:59:56 GMT, David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk>
wrote:

>I rather resent my 'wasted' Select subscriptions and see my purchase of
>an A9home as a potential waste of money. My Select subscription is up
>for renewal soon and presents a hard choice. One the one hand it is
>obviously stupid to continue to support such a waste of space but I do
>have a reluctance to finally pull the plug, I do like RISC OS and
>Select. What would really make me cross is to shell out another £99 and
>still get nothing, my level of expectation is such that I can believe
>that of ROL.

If you've bought an A9home and Select, you've essentially bought your
OS twice (assuming a portion of the price of the hardware supported RO
4.42 development). I'm amazed that so many Select subscribers are
still sticking with the scheme - it's an absolute disgrace that so
much money has been taken for so little development. If I were you,
I'd be hopping mad, and would certainly not give any more money to ROL
until they've established some kind of track record for reliable
releases.

>Just what is next from ROL, is it just OS4.39 from the 32bit source,
>RO6pv with printing and Viewfinder support.
>
>Richard's original post is very sad. Had he bought an Iyonix, and not an
>A9omega, it may not have had to have been written.

My hopes are pinned on RISC OS Open, and hopefully a port to the A9.
This may be a pipedream too, but at least they're not taking money off
anyone...

Chris

--
Chris Wraight

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 10:47:58 AM3/20/07
to
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:36:04 +0000, Alan Calder wrote:

> Unreal. There were good reasons to choose NT4 in the corporate market for
> heavy duty stuff but it cost which is why most businesses for their office
> staff and probably 99.99% of private users chose 98/ME. Strangely enough,
> those private users actually liked games!

The thing with Windows ME is that it serves no purpose. It doesn't allow
you to run any software that wouldn't run on Windows 98, and was massively
unstable and slow in return.

NT4/Windows 2000 are amongst the best versions of Windows Microsoft has
ever produced - it was all uphill before and it's all downhill after.

B.

Alan Calder

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 10:54:27 AM3/20/07
to
In article <pan.2007.03.20....@rjek.com>, Rob Kendrick

<nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:36:04 +0000, Alan Calder wrote:

> > Unreal. There were good reasons to choose NT4 in the corporate market
> > for heavy duty stuff but it cost which is why most businesses for
> > their office staff and probably 99.99% of private users chose 98/ME.
> > Strangely enough, those private users actually liked games!

> The thing with Windows ME is that it serves no purpose. It doesn't
> allow you to run any software that wouldn't run on Windows 98, and was
> massively unstable and slow in return.


Fully agree. Most private didn't get the choice when it bacame the MS
'standard' for home use. Business users were able to specify 98.

> NT4/Windows 2000 are amongst the best versions of Windows Microsoft has
> ever produced - it was all uphill before and it's all downhill after.

True about the before but not sure about the after. Is XP really that bad?

Jess

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 11:10:54 AM3/20/07
to
In message <4ec693aee1...@orpheusmail.co.uk>
Alan Calder <alan_...@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <c50593c...@itworkshop.invalid>, Jess Hampshire

>> I'd agree with the second point, but the first? Anyone who wanted a


>> halway decent system would choose NT 4 rather than windows 98 and the
>> only real problem was games. (And cutting out games cut out a large
>> number of pre-internet problems on PCs, anyway)
>
> Unreal. There were good reasons to choose NT4 in the corporate market for
> heavy duty stuff but it cost which is why most businesses for their office
> staff and probably 99.99% of private users chose 98/ME. Strangely enough,
> those private users actually liked games!

Then I guess my customers must've been atypical then.

Jess

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 11:33:46 AM3/20/07
to
In message <pan.2007.03.20....@rjek.com>
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:

> The thing with Windows ME is that it serves no purpose. It doesn't allow
> you to run any software that wouldn't run on Windows 98, and was massively
> unstable and slow in return.
>
> NT4/Windows 2000 are amongst the best versions of Windows Microsoft has
> ever produced - it was all uphill before and it's all downhill after.

I agree, though each version change (NT 3.51 > 4 > 5 ) seemed to be
two steps forward and one step back. (XP being two steps back and one
forward)

Jess

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 11:39:31 AM3/20/07
to
In message <4ec6955dfb...@orpheusmail.co.uk>
Alan Calder <alan_...@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote:

> True about the before but not sure about the after. Is XP really that bad?

It's vile. Though the fully patched versions now seem to work. (Just
in time for it to be dropped)

Chris Joseph

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 11:42:10 AM3/20/07
to
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 00:13:21 +0000, John Cartmell wrote:
[please, don't snip attribution lines, folks!]

>>> > I understood that ROOL were bounced into making an early announcement
>>> > because their web-site was noticed and announced without their agreement.
>>
>>> As if you need someone's agreement to announce something :)
>>
>> No. As if they appeared to be about to be unfairly blamed for making an
>> announcement that was in fact made by someone else without their agreement.
>
>As far as I can tell, nobody pre-announced what they were going to be
>doing, dear.

No-one announced what they were going to be doing. But someone noticed
that "RISC OS Open Ltd" had been registered as a company and there was
a lot of speculation about what was going to happen. Presumably Steve
et al. decided that the speculation was more damaging than having some
definite accurate information around while they waited on the lawyers.

Chris.

Ams

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 11:44:30 AM3/20/07
to
On Mar 20, 2:46 pm, Chris Wraight <cdwrai...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 08:59:56 GMT, David Pitt <n...@pittdj.co.uk>
> wrote:

<snip>

> >Richard's original post is very sad. Had he bought an Iyonix, and not an
> >A9omega, it may not have had to have been written.
>
> My hopes are pinned on RISC OS Open, and hopefully a port to the A9.
> This may be a pipedream too, but at least they're not taking money off
> anyone...

Well physically it might (eventually) be possible to port the open
sourced RISC OS 5.1X to A9 it should be borne in mind that what you'd
wind up with is *the same OS* as on an Iyonix (albeit with different
drivers having to be written to handle the A9's somewhat different
video display hardware and sound system etc., and PCI support being
dropped). The point is that that all wipes out A9's one of the claimed
advantages A9 has over Iyonix it's ability to run Select.

In which case why not trade the A9 in for an Iyonix surely (the gap in
price is not that large - and you don't even have to wait on ROOL
releasing the source - it's binary version is available *now*
[RO5.13] ;-)

>
> Chris
>
> --
> Chris Wraight


Regards


Annraoi

John Cartmell

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 11:08:54 AM3/20/07
to
In article <pan.2007.03.20....@rjek.com>, Rob Kendrick
<nn...@rjek.com> wrote:

It doesn't work when you get both the fact and the reference wrong! ;-)

--
John Cartmell jo...@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

John Cartmell

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 11:31:04 AM3/20/07
to
In article <gemini.jf7frd0...@softrock.co.uk>,

VinceH <sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
> That said, it would have been nice if whoever he spoke to (by
> phone and by email) was aware of the problem and solution and was
> able to talk him through it.

As I understand, from e-mail, and discussion on lists & newsgroups, Richard
didn't commit the problem to an explanation in writing and it was complicated
by his own software, modifications within !Boot, use of programming software
from a third party (and designed pre-A9), and expectations of error handling
based on a completely different machine - eg something that stopped a RiscPC
didn't (as expected and required) stop an A9.

I don't think it's the sort of thing that can be 'talked through' on the
phone.

After that Richard appeared to have multiple problems that have never happened
on my A9. A simple (I'll accept simplistic) explanation is that he had added
something as part of his programming that caused those additional problems. He
also reported problems with Aemulor - though I don't know whether he
documented his problems with the author of that application.

I still think that his problems could have been properly addressed and solved
if reported in detail so that problems could be repeated by the programmers.
On behalf of end-users I'd urge anyone finding problems with any hardware or
software to do just that: programmers won't be able to correct faults if they
cannot repeat the problem, and faults that appear when you add your own
home-made software, using a third-party programming package with known
problems, whilst expecting responses learnt on different hardware with a
different OS - are likely to be rather tough to trace!

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 12:07:04 PM3/20/07
to
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:42:10 +0000, Chris Joseph wrote:

>>As far as I can tell, nobody pre-announced what they were going to be
>>doing, dear.
>
> No-one announced what they were going to be doing. But someone noticed
> that "RISC OS Open Ltd" had been registered as a company and there was
> a lot of speculation about what was going to happen.

And somehow putting the knowledge of their existence into the public
domain isn't their fault?

B.

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 12:20:08 PM3/20/07
to
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:08:54 +0000, John Cartmell wrote:

> It doesn't work when you get both the fact and the reference wrong! ;-)

I'm trying to discover some content in this posting of yours, but so far
it has escaped me.

Tell me, is your rag as full as ill-researched, badly thought-out
irrelevant and patronising dross as your usenet postings are?

B.

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 12:22:33 PM3/20/07
to
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:20:08 +0000, Rob Kendrick wrote:

> Tell me, is your rag as full as ill-researched, badly thought-out
> irrelevant and patronising dross as your usenet postings are?

On second thoughts, I already know the answer to this - you once sent me a
sample copy on the understanding that I'd subscribe if it wasn't awful.

I distinctly recall not subscribing, and feeling entirely honest and just
in not doing so.

B.

John Cartmell

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 12:57:18 PM3/20/07
to
In article <pan.2007.03.20....@rjek.com>,
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:08:54 +0000, John Cartmell wrote:
>
> > It doesn't work when you get both the fact and the reference wrong! ;-)

> I'm trying to discover some content in this posting of yours, but so far
> it has escaped me.

There is content, an appropriate reference of historical significance to a
budding journalist (like the person the reply was made to), and a total
absence of insults.
Try the style for yourself.

Steve Potts

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 3:12:10 PM3/19/07
to
In message <1174312828.3...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
"Ams" <a...@globalcafe.ie> wrote:

[snip]


> As to the delay in updates that is a matter for ROL and Ad6 - its not in
> their interests to delay on this (so I'd expect things to progress overtime
> - albeit perhaps not rapidly enough to keep you onboard).

Obviously not speaking officially for anyone, but it is clear to me that some
things are progressing behind the scenes but I also appreciate that this
means that to most people it appears that nothing is happening.

RISCOS Ltd. showed some important improvements at the recent South West show
and it is clear that things are still progressing from conversations I had,
but with the market resources such as they are, things don't always get the
priorities that others want.

I for one am hanging around for a while yet. Wakefield will hopefully be
quite interesting (no I don't have any inside knowledge about a product
release at Wakefield or anything, but one can only hope).

[snip]

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

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Steve Potts

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 3:17:53 PM3/19/07
to
In message <1174330710.1...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
"Ams" <a...@globalcafe.ie> wrote:

[snip]
> It's not a problem in a general sense. However Rob I'd agree with you
> that in this specific case it is (so yes I am partly wrong). With
> limited resources can Castle be expected to support their compiler on
> *all* current and previous hardware/OS combinations - especially on
> hardware that they don't manufacture or support or on an OS that they
> didn't write and which contributes nothing to their bottom line?

Does that mean you expect to see ROL release a compiler for software to run
on the RISC OS 6 systems? Is that what you're saying or have I
misunderstood?

But then again, the Castle stuff is aimed at Risc PCs too - running RISC OS
4.39 etc. I don't understand what you're trying to say above. I R Confused.

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 1:29:10 PM3/20/07
to
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:57:18 +0000, John Cartmell wrote:

> In article <pan.2007.03.20....@rjek.com>,
> Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:08:54 +0000, John Cartmell wrote:
>>
>> > It doesn't work when you get both the fact and the reference wrong! ;-)
>
>> I'm trying to discover some content in this posting of yours, but so far
>> it has escaped me.
>
> There is content, an appropriate reference of historical significance to a
> budding journalist (like the person the reply was made to),

This I find difficult to believe, unless you made a special edition just
for me.

> and a total
> absence of insults.
> Try the style for yourself.

I'll give it a whirl if you do.

B.

Steve Fryatt

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 2:21:06 PM3/20/07
to
On 20 Mar, Rob Kendrick wrote in message
<pan.2007.03.20....@rjek.com>:

Putting details into the public domain tends to be an unavoidable
consequence of setting up a company.

--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England

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

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 2:44:52 PM3/20/07
to

I refer to their timing exclusively. Given they've said they're doing all
of this in their spare time, one assumes they didn't actually require a
company registration as early as they acquired one, thus starting the
speculation.

B.

Dave Symes

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 3:15:45 PM3/20/07
to
In article <4b7e99c...@itworkshop.invalid>,

Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In message <4ec6955dfb...@orpheusmail.co.uk>
> Alan Calder <alan_...@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote:

> > True about the before but not sure about the after. Is XP really that
> > bad?

> It's vile. Though the fully patched versions now seem to work. (Just
> in time for it to be dropped)

Well that your particular view, and of course you are quite entitled to
have it.

My view OTOH is the opposite, I've been at the MS-Win trough since 3.11,
through 95, 98, 98SE, XP and now Vista.

I've found XP to be the best of the lot so far, and if you think XP is
Vile, wait until you get Vista... I can't think of a suitable pejorative
for it, but there you go, some people are besotted by the floaty windows,
the resource sucking stuff going on behind the scenes, and the awful nanny
MS stuff that prevents you from doing this that and the other.

Best of all.
If you purchase a machine with it pre installed, you do not get a system
disk, or a recovery disk.

During the install, Vista pinches and hides a bit of your HD and puts the
install files in that hidden partition.

So, if Vista throws a wobbly, the maintenance and repair engine can dip
into that partition and do a repair.

Erm! But what if the HD goes belly up and you have to put in a new one...
Your only copy of the Vista installer is on the dead HD...
Oh dear, apparently MS haven't thought about that one... Whoops!

Dave S

--

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 3:23:43 PM3/20/07
to
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:15:45 +0000, Dave Symes wrote:

> My view OTOH is the opposite, I've been at the MS-Win trough since 3.11,
> through 95, 98, 98SE, XP and now Vista.
>
> I've found XP to be the best of the lot so far

So, you've not use 2000 then? It's my favorite - it's NT except with
features, and it's all tastefully done. It doesn't patronise you with
wizards that don't let you set stuff up the way you want, either.

B.

Message has been deleted

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 3:45:50 PM3/20/07