How big is the market?
Garry
users there actually are, and what software/hardware sales are like.
We all know that this is a small market, but I don't think that in
itself prevents software development, not knowing *how* small does, as
in any business, one must reduce the number of unknowns to a minimum.
We have a very rough idea of how many Iyonixes (?) are selling, and
how many they expect to sell, but this is clearly going to be hindered
by people waiting for the Omega, we also know roughly how RISC OS 4
has sold. We hear order numbers for the Omega like 4600+ but I don't
believe for a second that this represents the number of orders they
have had. And of course, someone who bought a RiscPC very recently
must be considered a fairly active user, even if he/she does not buy
either of these machines.
This may be a contentious subject, and maybe certain developers may be
find low sales embarassing (on the contrary, sticking with the
platform despite low sales shows great commitment), but I think it's
important that we know. You never know, maybe there are *more* RISC OS
users than we think.
Comments?
Garry
Fred
bandits...@yahoo.co.uk (Garry) wrote:
> I've always been a bit curious as to how many active Acorn/RISC OS
> users there actually are,
[snip]
<Sigh> OK, I guess it's time to own up. The RISC OS user base consists of
you, me and my 'Eliza for Usenet' software.
Didn't want to tell you before 'cos I was lonely.
--
Fred Bambrough
Stuart Halliday
Fred <fr...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> In message <b5652016.03012...@posting.google.com>
> bandits...@yahoo.co.uk (Garry) wrote:
>
> > I've always been a bit curious as to how many active Acorn/RISC OS
> > users there actually are,
1500-2000 active users. ie buying stuff?
I get around 5000 people viewing my web site otherwise.
So say around 10,000 at a guessimate.
> <Sigh> OK, I guess it's time to own up. The RISC OS user base consists of
> you, me and my 'Eliza for Usenet' software.
>
> Didn't want to tell you before 'cos I was lonely.
This has got to be the USENET joke of the year!
Well done Fred. ;-))
--
Stuart Halliday
The Acorn Cybervillage
http://acorn.cybervillage.co.uk/
Support us - http://www.cafepress.com/AcornCV/
Remove 'takeoutthisbit' to reply to my mail.
Stuart Tyrrell
> In message <688bf4b...@ypical.demon.co.uk>
> Fred <fr...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> > In message <b5652016.03012...@posting.google.com>
> > bandits...@yahoo.co.uk (Garry) wrote:
> >
> > > I've always been a bit curious as to how many active Acorn/RISC OS
> > > users there actually are,
>
> 1500-2000 active users. ie buying stuff?
>
> I get around 5000 people viewing my web site otherwise.
>
> So say around 10,000 at a guessimate.
I think these are the order of magnitude of numbers used internally by
developers / dealers.
At a recent presentation at WACG, I asked how many people had
PS2MouseMini, and about 25% of people had. There have been 2,000 units
sold over the last 20 months. Although it's a reasonably low-cost
mainstream item, I'd suggest that the audience would have a
disproportionate number of users who would buy such a gadget.
I'd estimate actual market penetration of a device like PS2MouseMini
within "active" users (albeit perhaps not high spending users) of
10-15%, perhaps with a similar number of non-spending users. Based on
15%, this makes (low) active=13K, non-active=25K, estimate high-active
users (spending more than UKP100/year) of 2-4K out of the total 13K
active users.
My margin for error is probably approaching 100% ;-)
Stuart.
Pierpaolo Scaini
stu...@stdevel.com (Stuart Tyrrell) wrote:
> At a recent presentation at WACG, I asked how many people had
> PS2MouseMini, and about 25% of people had. There have been 2,000 units
> sold over the last 20 months.
Well, I've tried to obtain several of these for over a year in the past
but, despite having supplied all details of ccard and a lot of email/faxes
of request, never obtained one. I already have my optical mice sleeping
in a drawer and supplied my customers with original Castle ones.
No explanation of why they don't want to supply them to us.
So, if PS2MouseMini sells have to be taken as a parameter for the
estimate of the user base, one have to take in account the number of
request (I know I'm not the only one) never satisfied.
This seems to be a common problem with RISC OS market: more then once I
have been in a position to start a good business with potential customers
but had to give up to the lack of support from english developers.
As a further example, this days I'm requested to put down a project for a
quite big customer who'd like to bin almost all of his 1000 PCs in favour of
light network clients and the RISC OS ones seems to be his preferred choice.
I've asked some questions to the known developers of these devices but,
despite the great numbers involved in the business, no answer arrived yet.
I think any RISC OS machine sold, of any kind, even old ones, are a step
forward the survival and the evolution of our beloved platform.
I'm trying to support RISC OS as much as I can, but the work is becoming
harder every day and we always risk to loose credibility. How can I offer
to a customer something that exists but the produces ignores who wants to
buy it? Why someone have to spend money to put advertisements on magazines
and then refuses to sell his products?
All this without telling about products that are "coming soon" that I've
already sold over a year ago and not yet delivered...
Sorry for the long and, maybe, OT mail but it is just to let all of you
out there the frustration of being a RISC OS dealer and developer overseas.
Please, all you English producer, put a ear even to the request coming
from foreign customers: maybe good business exist even outside UK.
We always pay in advance, after all.
Regards
Pierpaolo Scaini
Axes Computer Solutions
ITALY
Phil
wrote:
> > At a recent presentation at WACG, I asked how many people had
> > PS2MouseMini, and about 25% of people had. There have been 2,000 units
> > sold over the last 20 months.
> Well, I've tried to obtain several of these for over a year in the past
> but, despite having supplied all details of ccard and a lot of
> email/faxes of request, never obtained one. I already have my optical
> mice sleeping in a drawer and supplied my customers with original Castle
> ones. No explanation of why they don't want to supply them to us.
Phil: One thought (apart from the problems/restrictions of being a small
business) is that maybe the emails are not being received/detected amongst
the mass of spam:
I have potential work in Denmark, but my former Danish colleague's emails
to me, and mine to him, get 'lost' in the ether - but 3rd party checks
show the addresses are correct.
(We can only get in touch by mobile!)
Might I suggest that, in the absence of 'modern' communication success,
you revert to the old traditional (and legally binding in uk law) FAX or
snail mail.
We have frequently found that it is the 'protection systems' of IP
providers / companies which reject emails for various reasons.
Eg Argonet's do some kind of reverse lookup and this blocked emails from
my wife's work for months until her company changed their system.
(Everyone always blames someone else)
--
Phil Spiegelhalter: Ph...@fillin.co.uk
==== Technical Training for Broadcasters =====
*RE CUE Mobile DV Multi-Camera Production and Non-Linear Editing*
Pierpaolo Scaini
> In article <bab03eb9...@axes.it>, Pierpaolo Scaini <psc...@axes.it>
> wrote:
> > Well, I've tried to obtain several of these for over a year in the past
> > but, despite having supplied all details of ccard and a lot of
> > email/faxes of request, never obtained one. I already have my optical
> > mice sleeping in a drawer and supplied my customers with original Castle
> > ones. No explanation of why they don't want to supply them to us.
>
> Phil: One thought (apart from the problems/restrictions of being a small
> business) is that maybe the emails are not being received/detected amongst
> the mass of spam:
<snip>
> Might I suggest that, in the absence of 'modern' communication success,
> you revert to the old traditional (and legally binding in uk law) FAX or
> snail mail.
I agree this could be a problem, but the same appear to happen even if
I send faxes to them. Never tried by snailmail, really, not in 2003!
Anyway, I do not think the problem exposed are of "tecnical" nature, but
rather of "commercial" one - see the old Acorn behaviour!
<snip>
Anyway, thanks for your comment/suggestion
Regards
Pierpaolo.
Garry
> At a recent presentation at WACG, I asked how many people had
> PS2MouseMini, and about 25% of people had. There have been 2,000 units
> sold over the last 20 months. Although it's a reasonably low-cost
> mainstream item, I'd suggest that the audience would have a
> disproportionate number of users who would buy such a gadget.
>
> I'd estimate actual market penetration of a device like PS2MouseMini
> within "active" users (albeit perhaps not high spending users) of
> 10-15%, perhaps with a similar number of non-spending users. Based on
> 15%, this makes (low) active=13K, non-active=25K, estimate high-active
> users (spending more than UKP100/year) of 2-4K out of the total 13K
> active users.
>
> My margin for error is probably approaching 100% ;-)
>
>
>
> Stuart.
Those sales are pretty encouraging, and it's great you're open about
letting us know. Another part of the puzzle however is this: If these
users are generally home users, who are the companies that are buying
RISC OS boxes? Jack Lillingston (at Guildford show) stated that a
great deal of their sales come from outside the enthusiast market.
If we knew who they were, then developers could write apps for them,
and not just enthusiasts, companies have deeper pockets after all.
Garry
Garry
I hear that! When I was buying my 3rd RiscPC a few months back, I
contacted maybe 5 dealers, one actually got back to me. By that time
(about a week later), I had already bought a RiscPC from eBay. Now, I
can kind of understand how dealers may not be interested in selling
one manky S/H RiscPC, but to ignore enquiries about 1000 machines is
absurd! (On that note, have you tried www.precedence.co.uk?).
I would back uo what has been said above, about using more traditional
methods of communication, often dealers are one-man bands and can't
find the time or inclination to check email very often.
If this client of yours is serious about buying 1000 NCs, then I'm
quite sure Cumana, Castle, and Precedence would love to hear from you,
and would'nt mind getting a phone call.
Garry
Dave Wisnia
> Fred <fr...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> In message <b5652016.03012...@posting.google.com>
>> bandits...@yahoo.co.uk (Garry) wrote:
>>
>> > I've always been a bit curious as to how many active Acorn/RISC OS
>> > users there actually are,
>
>1500-2000 active users. ie buying stuff?
>
>I get around 5000 people viewing my web site otherwise.
>
>So say around 10,000 at a guessimate.
>
>> <Sigh> OK, I guess it's time to own up. The RISC OS user base consists of
>> you, me and my 'Eliza for Usenet' software.
>>
>> Didn't want to tell you before 'cos I was lonely.
>
>This has got to be the USENET joke of the year!
>
>Well done Fred. ;-))
>
>--
>Stuart Halliday
I've got 250 users here.
--
Dave Wisnia
Stuart Halliday
Pierpaolo Scaini <psc...@axes.it> wrote:
> Please, all you English producer, put a ear even to the request coming
> from foreign customers: maybe good business exist even outside UK.
> We always pay in advance, after all.
Hope you don't really mean just the English.
What about the rest of Britain? :-)
TIP:
You don't say 'English' if you really mean the whole of the United Kingdom
or Britain.
Britain is made up of many different countries.
Ray Dawson
Stuart Halliday <stu...@stuarthalliday.takeoutthisbit.com.invalid>
wrote:
> You don't say 'English' if you really mean the whole of the United
> Kingdom or Britain.
> Britain is made up of many different countries.
All attached to England :-)
Cheers,
Ray D
--
Ray Dawson
r...@magray.freeserve.co.uk
MagRay - the audio & braille specialists
Ian Lowry
Ray Dawson <R...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <7ab779b9...@stuarthalliday.takeoutthisbit.com.invalid>,
> Stuart Halliday <stu...@stuarthalliday.takeoutthisbit.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> > You don't say 'English' if you really mean the whole of the United
> > Kingdom or Britain.
>
> > Britain is made up of many different countries.
>
> All attached to England :-)
Not by choice!
Hwyl fawr
Ian
--
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell
Alan Wrigley
> In article <7ab779b9...@stuarthalliday.takeoutthisbit.com.invalid>,
> Stuart Halliday <stu...@stuarthalliday.takeoutthisbit.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> > You don't say 'English' if you really mean the whole of the United
> > Kingdom or Britain.
>
> > Britain is made up of many different countries.
>
> All attached to England :-)
Since when was Northern Ireland attached to England?
Alan
--
RISC OS - you know it makes cents
Ian Lowry
Alan Wrigley <spam...@keepyourfilthyspamtoyourself.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> > > Britain is made up of many different countries.
> >
> > All attached to England :-)
>
> Since when was Northern Ireland attached to England?
>
> Alan
>
Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain.
Hwyl
Ian
--
When all else fails, read the instructions.
Michael J. Schülke
> In message <4bb9c7...@raydawson.com>
> Ray Dawson <R...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <7ab779b9...@stuarthalliday.takeoutthisbit.com.invalid>,
> > Stuart Halliday <stu...@stuarthalliday.takeoutthisbit.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> > > You don't say 'English' if you really mean the whole of the United
> > > Kingdom or Britain.
> >
> > > Britain is made up of many different countries.
> >
> > All attached to England :-)
>
> Not by choice!
>
SCNR,
Michael
--
From-address is valid, but used as spam trap. Use the reply-to address,
substituting the current year and month if necessary.
Michael J. Schülke
the *United* Kingdom of Great Britain *and* Northern Ireland?)
James Sargent
> Since when was Northern Ireland attached to England?
I wonder if Ireland is still an island, after the recent EEC directive
about such places?
James
Alan Wrigley
Ian Lowry <i...@lowrys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <f46cd2b94b...@keepyourfilthyspamtoyourself.co.uk>
> Alan Wrigley <spam...@keepyourfilthyspamtoyourself.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> > > > Britain is made up of many different countries.
> > >
> > > All attached to England :-)
> >
> > Since when was Northern Ireland attached to England?
> >
> > Alan
> >
> Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain.
Er yes, you're right. My brain was in another gear this morning.
Martin Wuerthner
Michael J. Schülke <MJSch...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Alan Wrigley wrote:
> > Since when was Northern Ireland attached to England?
> >
> Since when was Northern Ireland a part of Britain? (Or: Why is it called
> the *United* Kingdom of Great Britain *and* Northern Ireland?)
Oh, no! I always thought it was safe to put "Großbritannien" (Great
Britain) as the destination country on letters to the UK. The trouble is
that the terms "United Kingdom", "UK" or its German equivalent
"Vereinigtes Königreich" are not very well known here - the person in the
post office once asked me whether this was Uganda!
So, to avoid any problems with Northern Ireland/Wales/Scotland, I used
"Großbritannien" for everyone. It seems I have to rethink this strategy.
Well, apart from Northern Ireland it seems to work OK.
Martin
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Wuerthner MW Software mar...@invalidMW-software.com
remove "invalid" to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthias Seifert
> In message <MPG.189b5754c...@news.t-online.de>
> Michael J. Schülke <MJSch...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Alan Wrigley wrote:
> > > Since when was Northern Ireland attached to England?
> > >
> > Since when was Northern Ireland a part of Britain? (Or: Why is it
> > called the *United* Kingdom of Great Britain *and* Northern Ireland?)
> Oh, no! I always thought it was safe to put "Großbritannien" (Great
> Britain) as the destination country on letters to the UK. The trouble is
> that the terms "United Kingdom", "UK" or its German equivalent
> "Vereinigtes Königreich" are not very well known here
Indeed. Well, except those who regularly watch the "Grand Prix de la
Chanson" maybe... ;-)
> - the person in the post office once asked me whether this was Uganda!
LOL!
> So, to avoid any problems with Northern Ireland/Wales/Scotland, I used
> "Großbritannien" for everyone. It seems I have to rethink this strategy.
> Well, apart from Northern Ireland it seems to work OK.
Well, you could use "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"
of course... given that the letter is big enough. ;-)
Or maybe "UKOGBANI"? Hmmm, but then probably even more would ask whether
that is a state in Africa... :-)
--
_ _ | Acorn RiscPC, StrongARM @ 287 MHz,
| | | _, _|__|_ |) ' _, , | 258 MB RAM, >100 GB HD, RISC OS 4.02
| | | / | | | |/\ | / | / \ | ------------------------------------
| | |_/\/|_/|_/|_/| |/|/\/|_/ \/ | http://www.software-evolutions.de
Terry Blunt
> In article <7ab779b9...@stuarthalliday.takeoutthisbit.com.invalid>,
> Stuart Halliday <stu...@stuarthalliday.takeoutthisbit.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> > You don't say 'English' if you really mean the whole of the United
> > Kingdom or Britain.
>
> > Britain is made up of many different countries.
>
> All attached to England :-)
>
Held apart by the borders.
--
Terry Blunt <te...@langri.demon.co.uk>
The good thing about jumping in the deep end is
you are unlikely to bang your head on the bottom.
Stuart Halliday
Alan Wrigley <spam...@keepyourfilthyspamtoyourself.co.uk> wrote:
Falkland Islands?
Isle of Man, Isle of Wight, Outer Hebrides, Shetland isles, Channel
Islands, British Antarctica, Gibraltar?
United Kingdom, British Isles, Great Britain.
So many names. Any one got an idea what they each mean technically?
I guess UK means including the commonwealth countries by default?
Rosie Wilson
Seifert" <M.Se...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Or maybe "UKOGBANI"? Hmmm, but then probably even more would ask whether
> that is a state in Africa... :-)
Brilliant! ROFL. I had a real chuckle over this one.
Keith Wilson
John Cartmell
Stuart Halliday <stu...@stuarthalliday.takeoutthisbit.com.invalid>
wrote:
[Snip]
> Falkland Islands?
> Isle of Man, Isle of Wight, Outer Hebrides, Shetland isles, Channel
> Islands, British Antarctica, Gibraltar?
> United Kingdom, British Isles, Great Britain.
> So many names. Any one got an idea what they each mean technically?
> I guess UK means including the commonwealth countries by default?
England is (probably and technically) the correct name for England and
Wales. But don't tell the Welsh.
Great Britain is Scotland and England (with Wales) and whilst the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland no longer exists the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland does.
Ireland is (possibly technically) the island of Ireland. But don't tell the
Irish north or south of the border. Republic of Ireland is the bigger bit
of that island.
When we mentioned Scotland we included most of the islands off its coast
but off England the islands are more complex.
The Isle of Man is more or less on its own but all its foreign affairs are
in the hands of the UK government. The Channel Islands are independent
under the Crown.
United Kingdom and Colonies used to be a very expansive affair but now adds
just Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands (I think) and it's worth noting
that Gibraltar is now part of one of the UK West Midlands constituencies
for European Elections (from memory - details could be wrong).
Law causes confusion because there are two national laws in Great Britain
English (including Wales) and Scottish. Northern Ireland also has different
(but essentially mostly similar) laws as England.
Britain is a loose term for someone who wants to be hazy. It's not a
political term and may include the whole of the island of
England/Wales/Scotland - or more or less. British Isles is a geographic
term meaning the whole set of islands including Ireland (but don't tell the
Irish).
Of course the British Empire (Victoria the first Empress - of India)
changed into the British Commonwealth which no longer exists. There is now
a Commonwealth of Nations (no reference to Britain) which includes ex
members of the British Commonwealth plus places like Mozambique which never
was British but liked us so much they asked to join our club.
OBEs, MBEs &c are anachronisms as awards about nothing that exists.
Historical note:
Of course all the above is historically based but you should note that
Wales has only ever been a nation for a dozen years or so a very long time
ago. Wales was finally fully incorporated into England by means of conquest
- and it was a technically Welsh King that took over so tell the Welsh to
stop grumbling. Of course that doesn't matter because Scotland was
incorporated into England/Wales after a Scottish King took over the whole
lot - and then the Germans were invited in (and that's the present lot!).
So will all those of you (Welsh/Scottish and foreign) who complain about
what the UK does but say "It's those bloody English" please go and take
your complaints elsewhere. we aren't responsible. ;-)
Next question?
--
John Cartmell jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Acorn Publisher magazine & http://www.acornpublisher.com
Fleur Designs (boardgames)
Philip Ludlam
<a1420cba...@stuarthalliday.takeoutthisbit.com.invalid>
Stuart Halliday <stu...@stuarthalliday.takeoutthisbit.com.invalid> wrote:
>In message <7c6ee0b94b...@keepyourfilthyspamtoyourself.co.uk>
> Alan Wrigley <spam...@keepyourfilthyspamtoyourself.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <286bd3b...@ian.lowrys.demon.co.uk>
>> Ian Lowry <i...@lowrys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > In message <f46cd2b94b...@keepyourfilthyspamtoyourself.co.uk>
>> > Alan Wrigley <spam...@keepyourfilthyspamtoyourself.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> > > > > Britain is made up of many different countries.
>> > > >
>> > > > All attached to England :-)
>> > >
>> > > Since when was Northern Ireland attached to England?
>> > >
>> > Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain.
>>
>> Er yes, you're right. My brain was in another gear this morning.
>
>Falkland Islands?
>
>Isle of Man, Isle of Wight, Outer Hebrides, Shetland isles, Channel
>Islands, British Antarctica, Gibraltar?
>
>United Kingdom, British Isles, Great Britain.
How far do you guys want to go?
You know that part of Portsmouth (the better part :-) ) is on an island
and is surrounded by water.
Yours,
Phil L.
--
http://www.philipnet.com
Martin Dann
Philip Ludlam <ne...@philipnet.com> wrote:
> How far do you guys want to go?
> You know that part of Portsmouth (the better part :-) ) is on an island
> and is surrounded by water.
according to current EU rumors, the Isle of White is no longer an island.
Martin.
--
According to the human genome project, humans are 50-60% bananas.
Ian Lowry
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> Historical note:
> Of course all the above is historically based but you should note that
> Wales has only ever been a nation for a dozen years or so a very long time
> ago. Wales was finally fully incorporated into England by means of conquest
> - and it was a technically Welsh King that took over so tell the Welsh to
> stop grumbling. Of course that doesn't matter because Scotland was
> incorporated into England/Wales after a Scottish King took over the whole
> lot - and then the Germans were invited in (and that's the present lot!).
>
> So will all those of you (Welsh/Scottish and foreign) who complain about
> what the UK does but say "It's those bloody English" please go and take
> your complaints elsewhere. we aren't responsible. ;-)
>
> Next question?
>
Such a typically English view of history.
We are the true Britons; the English are nothing but flaming foreign
invaders!
Iechyd da i bob Cymro, Iechyd drwg i bob ...
Hwyl fawr
Ian
--
All true wisdom can be found on T-shirts
Robert Seago
<URL:mailto:i...@lowrys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Iechyd da i bob Cymro, Iechyd drwg i bob ...
>
> Hwyl fawr
> Ian
>
I didn't say a word
Bob
Regards from : Using a : Remove the j from the address
Robert Seago : Risc PC : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago/
--
Robert Seago
<URL:mailto:jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip of GB UK etc.>
>
> So will all those of you (Welsh/Scottish and foreign) who complain about
> what the UK does but say "It's those bloody English" please go and take
> your complaints elsewhere. we aren't responsible. ;-)
>
> Next question?
>
lot who think we are the lost tribe of Mannasseh, and others the
descendants of Ashkenaz. :-)
Dave Symes
Ian Lowry <i...@lowrys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <f46cd2b94b...@keepyourfilthyspamtoyourself.co.uk>
> Alan Wrigley <spam...@keepyourfilthyspamtoyourself.co.uk> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > Britain is made up of many different countries.
> > >
> > > All attached to England :-)
> >
> > Since when was Northern Ireland attached to England?
> >
> > Alan
> >
> Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain.
> Hwyl
> Ian
And many of us have sincere wishes it damnwell wasn't.
Dave S
--
Dave Symes
> Alan
Purse strings attachment.
For all the years Mainland UK taxpayers have been leeched upon by the open
lunatic asylum called Northern Ireland to keep the inmates apart.
Grumpy
--
Stephen Courtney
Martin Dann <Mar...@f451.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <1f0212ba...@philipnet.com>
> Philip Ludlam <ne...@philipnet.com> wrote:
> > How far do you guys want to go? You know that part of Portsmouth
> > (the better part :-) ) is on an island and is surrounded by water.
> according to current EU rumors, the Isle of White is no longer an
^^^^^ - Wight!
> island.
There are times when I wish that were the case - I've just been
informed that my replacement monitor won't be returned until next
wednesday (but the couriers didn't tell the monitor people - who
asked for yesterday - Friday) due to it being a long way away. I've a
suspicion that the monitor is only coming from Poole anyway :|
Stephen
--
_______________________________
Home: http://www.steve-c.co.uk/
Annraoi
I could verify it by leaving my house and going to the coast, then
proceeding 3,000 miles round the Irish coastline - trouble with that
(knowing the EEC) is they'd probably change the definition of what an
island is and I'd be back to square one !!!!
Regards
Annraoi
Mark Rowan
Well of course you'd be back to square one if you went round the
coastline. It's an island! :-)
--
Support striking Air Traffic Controllers.... And ugly ones too.
||Mark Rowan|| Acorn RiscPC 233(T)+586, 80+1MB, RO 4.02, ADFS 8GB, DeskFM
http://www.tamias.co.uk | mark (at) tamias co uk | ICQ 30759398
Mech
Robert Seago <rse...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4bba133...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>, John Cartmell
> <URL:mailto:jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> <snip of GB UK etc.>
> > So will all those of you (Welsh/Scottish and foreign) who complain about
> > what the UK does but say "It's those bloody English" please go and take
> > your complaints elsewhere. we aren't responsible. ;-)
> > Next question?
> Can you tell us where we <Brits> came from. I have heard at least one
> lot who think we are the lost tribe of Mannasseh, and others the
> descendants of Ashkenaz. :-)
Well I don't think I properly know the answer, but I don't think it
has anything to do with Isrealites.
This is all as I understand it, and probably simplistic, or quite
possibly completely wrong:
The earliest known historical (as opposed to prehistoric) inhabitants
of the British Isles were the Celts. Britain is named after Britan,
a Celtic cheiftain. His people spoke 'Briton', which now survives
only as Breton and possibly Cornish Gaelic (if that is still spoken).
There were other Gaelic languages too, of course, which survive today
as Welsh, Manx and Irish gaelic.
Then the Romans came and converted them all to christianity.
Then when the romans left, the Britons fell under attack from Celts
from the north: Scots and Picts. They made a deal with the Germanic
norse tribes from across the North Sea (Saxons, Angles, Jutes) to
protect them, but the Saxons etc allied with the Picts instead and
drove the Celts out of most of England and into Wales and the West
Country. Some fled to Gaul (Brittany!). Some ended up in Ireland,
converting it to christainity.
England is named after the Angles, and their language eventually
became English. They weren't christian, but the christian Celts
didn't convert them, missionaries of the Catholic church did,
eventually.
Then Danes/Vikings invaded and settled in Scotland and the
north-eastern half of England. King Alfred then reunited
England and apart from the Normans, that's pretty much all of
relevance AFAIK.
So... If you draw a diagonal line across England (approximately
through Manchester, Birmingham and London), anyone whose ancestors
came from north of the line are likely to have Viking blood, south
of the line are Anglo-Saxon except for Wales and the South West
which might still have some Celt in them. That's my summary.
Cheers,
Dan.
--
__ _______ ______ __
/ |/ / __/ ___/ /_/ / # Dan Maloney.
/ /|_/ / _// /__/ __ / # Disclaimer: Not my fault.
/_/ /_/___/\___/_/ /_/ # mailto:me...@toth.org.uk
Phillip Marsden
Ian Lowry <i...@lowrys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Who did the Celts push out to occupy the island called Britain? How far
do you want to go back with this petty attitude?
It would be better for all of us on this island if we were to dispense
with the names England, Scotland, and Wales and just use the name
Britain. We all have different things to contribute to the British
nation.
Harping back to some mythical golden age (over 700 years ago) when
Llewellyn ruled benignly over his well-treated serfs (I don't think)
like a King Arthur of Wales does us no good at all and fosters hatred.
--
Regards, Phillip Marsden.
Ian Lowry
Phillip Marsden <phillip...@btinternet.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Who did the Celts push out to occupy the island called Britain? How far
> do you want to go back with this petty attitude?
>
> It would be better for all of us on this island if we were to dispense
> with the names England, Scotland, and Wales and just use the name
> Britain. We all have different things to contribute to the British
> nation.
>
> Harping back to some mythical golden age (over 700 years ago) when
> Llewellyn ruled benignly over his well-treated serfs (I don't think)
> like a King Arthur of Wales does us no good at all and fosters hatred.
>
But Arthur was British/Welsh!
Ian
--
I'm not afraid of flying. I'm afraid of crashing
David Jackson
Phillip Marsden <phillip...@btinternet.com> typed:
> Who did the Celts push out to occupy the island called Britain? How far
> do you want to go back with this petty attitude?
Quite. It's also worth remembering that in many cases it was other Celts who
were pushed out. It's not as if the 'British Celts', were an homogenous
people who all lived in peace and harmony with one another. The same could
be said for the 'Anglo Saxons' of course.
--
David Jackson in the Roman auxiliary fort of Condate
Now known as Northwich Cheshire
http://www.condate.freeserve.co.uk
Liz
> How far do you guys want to go?
> You know that part of Portsmouth (the better part :-) ) is on an island
> and is surrounded by water.
>
*Not* an island as is about to be redfined by the EU.
Liz
--
Virtual Liz at http://www.v-liz.co.uk
Safaris (Kenya and Tanzania); India; Seychelles; image-manipulation
"I speak of Africa and golden joys"
Liz
a...@globalcafe.ie (Annraoi) wrote:
They are in the process of so doing, though I think Ireland still qualifies.
Some of the Scottish islands won't, though.
Liz
>
> It would be better for all of us on this island if we were to dispense
> with the names England, Scotland, and Wales and just use the name
> Britain. We all have different things to contribute to the British
> nation.
I don't agree, but it's a valid viewpoint.
In Kiswahili, there isn't a word for Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
When we're asked Unatoki wapi? (where are you from?) we have to answer
Tunatoka uingereza (we're from Britain), but since uingereza is the word
for Britain *and* England, we always seem to resort to saying in English,
"But we're really from Scotland" since in Kenya, as well as many other
countries, there's a different perception of the Scots than of the English.
Mind you, it's much more useful to be able to say, "I'm not American"!
David Jackson
Liz <l...@v-liz.co.uk> typed:
> In message <dab3e751.03012...@posting.google.com>
> a...@globalcafe.ie (Annraoi) wrote:
>
>> James Sargent <ro...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>> news:<3E313E67...@127.0.0.1>...
>>> Alan Wrigley wrote:
>>>> Since when was Northern Ireland attached to England?
>>>
>>> I wonder if Ireland is still an island, after the recent EEC directive
>>> about such places?
>>>
>>
>> I could verify it by leaving my house and going to the coast, then
>> proceeding 3,000 miles round the Irish coastline - trouble with that
>> (knowing the EEC) is they'd probably change the definition of what an
>> island is and I'd be back to square one !!!!
>
> They are in the process of so doing, though I think Ireland still
> qualifies.
No, Ireland will not qualify. As I understand it, nothing can be an island
if it contains an EU country capital city.
nico ter haar
Stuart Halliday <stu...@stuarthalliday.takeoutthisbit.com.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
> > > > > > Britain is made up of many different countries.
> > > > >
> > > > > All attached to England :-)
> > > >
> > > > Since when was Northern Ireland attached to England?
> > > >
> > > > Alan
> > > >
> > > Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain.
> >
> > Er yes, you're right. My brain was in another gear this morning.
>
> Falkland Islands?
>
> Isle of Man, Isle of Wight, Outer Hebrides, Shetland isles, Channel
> Islands, British Antarctica, Gibraltar?
>
>
> United Kingdom, British Isles, Great Britain.
>
> So many names. Any one got an idea what they each mean technically?
>
> I guess UK means including the commonwealth countries by default?
>
If you natives don't know where you live how on earth are we foreigners
ever gonna get the addresses right :-)
--
RiscPC Mk1 - RISCOS 4.33 - StrongARM 202 system
visit http://www.neptune.demon.nl/ for info on ...
WebThumbs : the webpage generator for image galleries
AppsSetup / CCWSetup /MDFSetup : the RISCOS Select Configure plugins
Mark
> England is (probably and technically) the correct name for England and
> Wales. But don't tell the Welsh.
opposed to Saxonland. Angleland is infact just the lower right hand
corner of 'Pritain' the Norman French did not know that they were
getting a two for the price of one when they took over the Danelaw
(Angle/Saxon) countries!
Pritain was the original combined kingdoms which were all Celtic and
included 'Wales' (means foriegn in Angle/Saxon) (both north Cymru/Wales
and South Kernow/Cornwall)
BTW Monmouth has a claim to seperate status as well cf pre 1950's Acts
of Parliment for England Wales and Monmouth!!!
--
Mark Foweraker
Robin May
Yes, all us English types should leave because we weren't here first.
And while we're at it we should take those nasty blacks and asians with
us too.
--
message by Robin May, living the life of an international loverman
My previous .sig died quickly of natural causes.
The sinister truth: I killed it with a frying pan handle.
David H Wild
> > about such places?
> >
> I could verify it by leaving my house and going to the coast, then
> proceeding 3,000 miles round the Irish coastline - trouble with that
> (knowing the EEC) is they'd probably change the definition of what an
> island is and I'd be back to square one !!!!
There is a letter in the paper today about this "redefinition", and it
points out that it is only for certain statistical purposes - it does not
change any law or benefit received, just which actual islands are in a
certain category.
This, for instance, accounts for moving Skye out of the statistical group
of islands now that the bridge has opened. Certain of the problems of
living on an island have disappeared - along with some of the benefits.
--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | / Acorn StrongArm Risc_PC
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
___________________________/ dhw...@argonet.co.uk
Sandy Morton
Liz <l...@v-liz.co.uk> wrote:
> They are in the process of so doing, though I think Ireland still qualifies.
> Some of the Scottish islands won't, though.
TTBOMK Cumbrae will still be an island but Bute, which is very much
bigger, won't!
--
A T (Sandy) Morton
on the Bicycle Island
In the Global Village
Liz
David H Wild <dhw...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <dab3e751.03012...@posting.google.com>,
> Annraoi <a...@globalcafe.ie> wrote:
> > > I wonder if Ireland is still an island, after the recent EEC directive
> > > about such places?
> > >
>
> > I could verify it by leaving my house and going to the coast, then
> > proceeding 3,000 miles round the Irish coastline - trouble with that
> > (knowing the EEC) is they'd probably change the definition of what an
> > island is and I'd be back to square one !!!!
>
> There is a letter in the paper today about this "redefinition", and it
> points out that it is only for certain statistical purposes - it does not
> change any law or benefit received, just which actual islands are in a
> certain category.
I'm sure that BBC Scotland said that it would affect benefits.
John Cartmell
Mark <ma...@foweraker.com> wrote:
> <Snip>
> > England is (probably and technically) the correct name for England and
> > Wales. But don't tell the Welsh.
[Snip]
> BTW Monmouth has a claim to seperate status as well cf pre 1950's Acts
> of Parliment for England Wales and Monmouth!!!
That's because the Welsh couldn't believe it belonged to them! ;-)
BTW Do you realise how long Wales has had a Capital City?
John Cartmell
<rse...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4bba133...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>, John Cartmell
> <URL:mailto:jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote: <snip of GB UK etc.>
> >
> > So will all those of you (Welsh/Scottish and foreign) who complain
> > about what the UK does but say "It's those bloody English" please go
> > and take your complaints elsewhere. we aren't responsible. ;-)
> >
> > Next question?
> >
> Can you tell us where we <Brits> came from. I have heard at least one
> lot who think we are the lost tribe of Mannasseh, and others the
> descendants of Ashkenaz. :-)
We're a load of mongrels - just like most people. ;-)
John Campbell Rees
in message <e9c63db...@ian.lowrys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Such a typically English view of history.
>
> We are the true Britons; the English are nothing but flaming foreign
> invaders!
And Wales is derived from the Anglo Saxon word Gwaelas, which means
"Land of the Foreigners". Pretty rich coming from the foreign invaders.
Although the Welsh for England is Lloegr, which literally means the
"lost/stolen lands".
--
"Like shooting flies with a laser cannon, the aims a bit tricky, but
it certainly deals with the flies." - Lord Miles Vorkosigan.
From "Komarr" by Lois McMaster Bujold
Daniel Ellis
> In message <1f0212ba...@philipnet.com>
> Philip Ludlam <ne...@philipnet.com> wrote:
>
>
> > How far do you guys want to go?
> > You know that part of Portsmouth (the better part :-) ) is on an island
> > and is surrounded by water.
>
Absurd EU scaremongering again. As a letter in the Guardian today from the
European commission pointed out today: this was just a definition used by
some statisticians in a study investigating the socio-economic handicaps
European islands face.
--
Dan Ellis
mailto:d...@pod51.demon.co.uk
Brian Bailey
nico ter haar <ni...@neptune.demon.nl> wrote:
[snip]
> If you natives don't know where you live how on earth are we foreigners
> ever gonna get the addresses right :-)
Quite right and proper too! From a native of the Kingdom of Mercia 8-)
--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | /
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
___________________________/ bba...@argonet.co.uk
Ian Lowry
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <c0c581ba4b%Ma...@foweraker.foweraker.freeuk.com>,
> Mark <ma...@foweraker.com> wrote:
> > <Snip>
> > > England is (probably and technically) the correct name for England and
> > > Wales. But don't tell the Welsh.
>
> [Snip]
>
> > BTW Monmouth has a claim to seperate status as well cf pre 1950's Acts
> > of Parliment for England Wales and Monmouth!!!
>
> That's because the Welsh couldn't believe it belonged to them! ;-)
>
> BTW Do you realise how long Wales has had a Capital City?
>
Around 52 years. Of course the true capital is still Machynlleth.
Hwyl
Ian
--
"Bother", said Pooh, as he accidentally deleted his message base.
charles.hope
but then it became Gwent and part of Wales.
John Cartmell
<i...@lowrys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <4bba8e3...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> John Cartmell
> <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <c0c581ba4b%Ma...@foweraker.foweraker.freeuk.com>, Mark
> > <ma...@foweraker.com> wrote:
> > > <Snip>
> > > > England is (probably and technically) the correct name for England
> > > > and Wales. But don't tell the Welsh.
> >
> > [Snip]
> >
> > > BTW Monmouth has a claim to seperate status as well cf pre 1950's
> > > Acts of Parliment for England Wales and Monmouth!!!
> >
> > That's because the Welsh couldn't believe it belonged to them! ;-)
> >
> > BTW Do you realise how long Wales has had a Capital City?
> >
> Around 52 years. Of course the true capital is still Machynlleth.
Sorry. That's in myth only. ;-)
Cardiff? Since the 1950s and the only capital Wales has ever had; not a
true country, really ...
.. [I do hope there are no Welsh reading this ...] ;-)
Bob Hartley
> In article <7ab779b9...@stuarthalliday.takeoutthisbit.com.invalid>,
> Stuart Halliday <stu...@stuarthalliday.takeoutthisbit.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> > You don't say 'English' if you really mean the whole of the United
> > Kingdom or Britain.
>
> > Britain is made up of many different countries.
>
> All attached to England :-)
Only to make them feel loved. :-)
Mind you Switzerland is attached to more. That makes them REALLY cool.
cheers
bob, on the dark side
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ray D
Bryn Evans
David H Wild <dhw...@argonet.co.uk> doodled :
>
> This, for instance, accounts for moving Skye out of the statistical group
> of islands now that the bridge has opened. Certain of the problems of
> living on an island have disappeared - along with some of the benefits.
>
Quick ! Fill in the Channel Tunnel !
--
|) [ - br...@home.caladan.co.uk
|)ryn [vans - br...@bryork.com
- ICQ 29644429
http://www.bryork.com
Patrick Bean
Ray Dawson <R...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> All attached to England :-)
Shame about that. :-(
ćć
--
____ ___ ____ ____ ___ ____
| _ \|_ _/ ___| / ___| / _ \/ ___| /| Patrick Bean, My site is at
| |_) || |\___ \| | | | | \___ \ / | www.btinternet.com/~pdbean/
| _ < | | ___) | |___ | |_| |___) | /__|__ Using Risc OS4 on a Windows free
|_| \_\___|____/ \____| \___/|____/ | System. See www.riscos.org/
Elaine Jones
posted on 26 Jan 2003 by John Cartmell
I would like to add:
> In article <ba14cbb...@ian.lowrys.demon.co.uk>, Ian Lowry
> <i...@lowrys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In message <4bba8e3...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> John Cartmell
> > <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > In article <c0c581ba4b%Ma...@foweraker.foweraker.freeuk.com>, Mark
> > > <ma...@foweraker.com> wrote:
> > > > <Snip>
> > > > > England is (probably and technically) the correct name for England
> > > > > and Wales. But don't tell the Welsh.
> > >
> > > [Snip]
> > >
> > > > BTW Monmouth has a claim to seperate status as well cf pre 1950's
> > > > Acts of Parliment for England Wales and Monmouth!!!
> > >
> > > That's because the Welsh couldn't believe it belonged to them! ;-)
> > >
> > > BTW Do you realise how long Wales has had a Capital City?
> > >
> > Around 52 years. Of course the true capital is still Machynlleth.
>
> Sorry. That's in myth only. ;-)
> Cardiff? Since the 1950s and the only capital Wales has ever had; not a
> true country, really ...
According to that Edward bloke Caernarfon was the first town of Wales.
> .. [I do hope there are no Welsh reading this ...] ;-)
Twt lol, mae'na ychydig ohonynt 'dw i'n meddwl.
--
...ElaineJ... Visit Jones' Pages at http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/ejones
...Kinetic... Corwen, North Wales; Steam Traction, with feature on Fodens;
..StrongArm.. Textures/Backdrops; Spring Graphics
...RISC PC... CMMGB with pics of pre- WW 1 Dawson & Yukon Volunteers.
Tim
<URL:mailto:bandits...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> <snip>
> > I'd estimate actual market penetration of a device like PS2MouseMini
> > within "active" users (albeit perhaps not high spending users) of
> > 10-15%, perhaps with a similar number of non-spending users. Based on
> > 15%, this makes (low) active=13K, non-active=25K, estimate high-active
> > users (spending more than UKP100/year) of 2-4K out of the total 13K
> > active users.
[SNIP]
>
> Those sales are pretty encouraging, and it's great you're open about
> letting us know. Another part of the puzzle however is this: If these
> users are generally home users, who are the companies that are buying
> RISC OS boxes? Jack Lillingston (at Guildford show) stated that a
> great deal of their sales come from outside the enthusiast market.
[SNIP]In article <b5652016.03012...@posting.google.com>, Garry
<URL:mailto:bandits...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> <snip>
>> SNIP
> > I'd estimate actual market penetration of a device like PS2MouseMini
> > within "active" users (albeit perhaps not high spending users) of
> > 10-15%, perhaps with a similar number of non-spending users. Based on
> > 15%, this makes (low) active=13K, non-active=25K, estimate high-active
> > users (spending more than UKP100/year) of 2-4K out of the total 13K
> > active users.
> >
> > My margin for error is probably approaching 100% ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> > Stuart.
>
> Those sales are pretty encouraging, and it's great you're open about
> letting us know. Another part of the puzzle however is this: If these
> users are generally home users, who are the companies that are buying
> RISC OS boxes? Jack Lillingston (at Guildford show) stated that a
> great deal of their sales come from outside the enthusiast market.
>
> If we knew who they were, then developers could write apps for them,
> and not just enthusiasts, companies have deeper pockets after all.
>
Its interesting that someone else should ask the same question - essentially
- as I asked in my posting "An article that caught me eye", with a typo
that has irritated me ever since.
It is also interesting to me that my thread decomposed into a moan about
!Photodesk and this one has become even more quickly a thread about Nations
in/of the UK etc
In both cases two things are clear:
1) people who read these ngs are not really interested in answering or
indeed debating the business user of Risc OS machines
2) or don't have the info we asked about in which case their predicitions
and protestations about what various companies are/not doing are made in
ignorance
and
3) business users of Risc OS machines don't bother with these ngs - which
means that most of what is said here about the politics of Risc OS (as
opposed to the techinical info which I have benefited from and am grateful
for) is irrelevant.
But I don't imagine that the ngs addicts will agree with me
--
Tim
David H Wild
Liz <l...@v-liz.co.uk> wrote:
> > There is a letter in the paper today about this "redefinition", and it
> > points out that it is only for certain statistical purposes - it does
> > not change any law or benefit received, just which actual islands are
> > in a certain category.
> I'm sure that BBC Scotland said that it would affect benefits.
I think it did; that's why the letter was written - to point out that
benefits were **not** affected.
David H Wild
Bryn Evans <st...@ease.invalid> wrote:
> > This, for instance, accounts for moving Skye out of the statistical
> > group of islands now that the bridge has opened. Certain of the
> > problems of living on an island have disappeared - along with some of
> > the benefits.
> >
> Quick ! Fill in the Channel Tunnel !
Not before we have been to the south of France in May. :-))
John Cartmell
<ela...@cae-coed.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Quoting from message <4bbad13...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> posted on 26
> Jan 2003 by John Cartmell I would like to add:
[Snip about the Capital City of Wales]
> >
> > Sorry. That's in myth only. ;-) Cardiff? Since the 1950s and the
> > only capital Wales has ever had; not a true country, really ...
> According to that Edward bloke Caernarfon was the first town of Wales.
but a Capital City is more than a promised First Town - and I doubt if
you'd trust that gentleman to give as much as promised ;-)
> > .. [I do hope there are no Welsh reading this ...] ;-)
> Twt lol, mae'na ychydig ohonynt 'dw i'n meddwl.
I just knew you'd be lurking somewhere! ;-)
Phillip Marsden
Tim <T...@lynndene.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> Its interesting that someone else should ask the same question - essentially
> - as I asked in my posting "An article that caught me eye", with a typo
> that has irritated me ever since.
>
> It is also interesting to me that my thread decomposed into a moan about
> !Photodesk and this one has become even more quickly a thread about Nations
> in/of the UK etc
>
> In both cases two things are clear:
>
> 1) people who read these ngs are not really interested in answering or
> indeed debating the business user of Risc OS machines
>
> 2) or don't have the info we asked about in which case their predicitions
> and protestations about what various companies are/not doing are made in
> ignorance
>
> and
>
> 3) business users of Risc OS machines don't bother with these ngs - which
> means that most of what is said here about the politics of Risc OS (as
> opposed to the techinical info which I have benefited from and am grateful
> for) is irrelevant.
>
> But I don't imagine that the ngs addicts will agree with me
>
>
I too have noticed that, as in real life conversations, those who do not
wish to answer the question in hand make some little, often snide,
comment which side-tracks the main subject.
To respond to your points, I would have to say that many of the "ngs
addicts" have no desire to sensibly discuss any point. The main
impression that I get from the past few years of using csa is that the
RISC OS diehards simply want to slag off Microsoft. A second notable
theme is to deny any faults in the operating system, whether in the GUI
or non-GUI portions. A third theme is to insult those people who do not
agree that EVERYTHING about RISC OS is wonderful.
With regard to business users, it seems that the majority of people in
the RISC OS world are not interested. The enthusiast is the only person
of interest to these people, who want software for nothing, and hardware
for just a little bit more. There are of course those people who will
attempt to justify the high price of the hardware :o)
Any business user chancing upon the csa newsgroups would probably just
turn away from the whole area of RISC OS immediately. They are not a
good showcase for attracting new users, whether of business or domestic
users.
--
Regards, Phillip Marsden.
markee
[snip]
> Any business user chancing upon the csa newsgroups would probably just
> turn away from the whole area of RISC OS immediately. They are not a
> good showcase for attracting new users, whether of business or domestic
> users.
But is that true of any/most newsgroups or particular to the RISC OS ones?
MArk
Phillip Marsden
"markee" <mark.s...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
The only other newsgroups I have in-depth experience of is the Linux
newsgroups/mailing lists. To be honest, they are more vitriolic
in nature than our hard-line RISC OSsers. The command-line loonies would
make the Taliban extremists look like pussy-cats. This does not of
course excuse the attitude of some of the posters on CSA.
One can only assume that any business people thinking of using Linux are
looking at the magazines which, after an initial childish mode of
presentation, seem to have settled into a more mature style. Perhaps the
business people buying Linux simply go through a familiar vendor who now
dispenses Unix/Linux in a business-like manner.
It is to be hoped that there are people like Castle quietly working away
to introduce businesses to RISC OS computing, whether in desktop
computer or embedded control form. Perhaps Si-Plan are still in there
using RISC OS in their test equipment, although I notice from their
website that they also mention Windows software. Now, THEY always looked
business-like in their suits when they came to the shows. Just the type
of people to attract other business people. They always dressed properly
in suits, not a scruffy sweatshirt with Iron Maiden on the back! :o)
--
Regards, Phillip Marsden.
Garry Taylor
I for one, could not agree more. There is a 'freedom of speech' issue
in the RISC OS scene, to deny RISC OS is perfect is inviting the wrath
of the die-hards and results in counter-productive slanging matches.
How is RISC OS Ltd supposed to improve the OS if no-one admit that it
has faults.
I'm very interested in business users, they've got deep pockets and
the more we have using RISC OS, the more money is pumped into the
platform.
Maybe we should have a new c.s.a.* newsgroup for professional users
and/or rational debate?
The last point above about turning away business users is right, the
very low cost of PCs is a problem enough for alternative computers,
without the infantile name calling and 'I know more ARM instructions
than you' kind of arguments.
Garry
John Cartmell
Garry Taylor <gta...@lowebroadway.com> wrote:
> Maybe we should have a new c.s.a.* newsgroup for professional users
> and/or rational debate?
Harriet Bazley
John Cartmell wrote:
> In article <ant25085...@R.zetnet.co.uk>, Robert Seago
> <rse...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > Can you tell us where we <Brits> came from. I have heard at least one
> > lot who think we are the lost tribe of Mannasseh, and others the
> > descendants of Ashkenaz. :-)
>
> We're a load of mongrels - just like most people. ;-)
>
More so than most - there used to be a 'saying' that no-one could be a
true Englishman unless he had a healthy dollop of something foreign
in his family tree. My grandmother was an Irishwoman, so I'm all right
then. :-)
--
Harriet Bazley == Loyaulte me lie ==
Strategic withdrawal - running away with dignity!
Lionel Smith
Philip Ludlam <ne...@philipnet.com> wrote:
> How far do you guys want to go?
> You know that part of Portsmouth (the better part :-) ) is on an island
> and is surrounded by water.
Would that be Whale Island by any chance? ;-)
Lionel
--
___ ______
/ / / ___/ 4 children | Sea Vixen for pugnacity
/ / ionel A.| \ mith 7 grandchildren, | Hunter for elegance
/ /____ __\ | no wonder life is a breeze | Phantom for clout
/_______/ /_____/ http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/lionels | ZFC B+4+2
Get a better OutLook on life - use something else. ;-)
Lionel Smith
Michael J. Schülke <MJSch...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> .....................(Or: Why is it called
> the *United* Kingdom of Great Britain *and* Northern Ireland?)
Michael Moore had an answer for that one in 'Stupid White Men'.
Good read if you are not a Bushbaby. Or a Democrat for that matter.
Rosie Wilson
<l...@v-liz.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <94916dba4...@btinternet.com>
> Phillip Marsden <phillip...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> It would be better for all of us on this island if we were to dispense
>> with the names England, Scotland, and Wales and just use the name
>> Britain. We all have different things to contribute to the British
>> nation.
>
> I don't agree, but it's a valid viewpoint.
>
> In Kiswahili, there isn't a word for Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
> When we're asked Unatoki wapi? (where are you from?) we have to answer
> Tunatoka uingereza (we're from Britain), but since uingereza is the word
> for Britain *and* England, we always seem to resort to saying in English,
> "But we're really from Scotland" since in Kenya, as well as many other
> countries, there's a different perception of the Scots than of the English.
> Mind you, it's much more useful to be able to say, "I'm not American"!
I still vote for Matthias' UKOGBANI; it sounds Kiswahili enough for me.
Keith Wilson
Rosie Wilson
Cartmell" <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <f0fd5987.03012...@posting.google.com>,
> Garry Taylor <gta...@lowebroadway.com> wrote:
>> Maybe we should have a new c.s.a.* newsgroup for professional users
>> and/or rational debate?
> So who's going to moderate it?
Look out guys! You're getting this thread almost back on topic. That will
never do.
Keith Wilson
druck
> With regard to business users, it seems that the majority of people in
> the RISC OS world are not interested.
Which is true. RISC OS machines have long ago disappeared from general
desktop use in businesses due inevitability to the lack of a full MS
compatible office suite. Desktop use is limited to a few sole traders or very
small buisnesses that can cope with the lack of software in certain areas,
and don't have to worry about training employees to use a non-MS system.
The vast majority of RISC OS machines used by buisness are running bespoke
applications and not desktops. In many cases the machines are embedded and
are not even recognisable. The people using them will not have heard of RISC
OS, and highly unlikely to ever come to a newsgroup, as all support issues
are handled by the supplier.
Its only a handfull of use that have actually programmed such bespoke systems
that know about them, and they are usually of little interest to the majority
of RISC OS enthusiasts. As for how many systems there are out there, its
never likely to be known, only Acorn had comprehensive figures for machines
shipped, and as I contarctor I either don't know how many of the systems I
have worked on are still in use, or am bound by commercial confidentiality.
---druck
--
The ARM Club * http://www.armclub.org.uk/
Andreas Dehmel
Phillip Marsden <phillip...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> In message <pan.2003.01.27....@ukonline.co.uk>
> "markee" <mark.s...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
> It is to be hoped that there are people like Castle quietly working away
> to introduce businesses to RISC OS computing, whether in desktop
> computer or embedded control form. Perhaps Si-Plan are still in there
> using RISC OS in their test equipment, although I notice from their
> website that they also mention Windows software. Now, THEY always looked
> business-like in their suits when they came to the shows. Just the type
> of people to attract other business people. They always dressed properly
> in suits, not a scruffy sweatshirt with Iron Maiden on the back! :o)
Bah, up the Irons!
:-)
Andreas
--
Dr. Andreas Dehmel Ceterum censeo
zar...@t-online.de Microsoft esse delendam
http://home.t-online.de/~zarquon (Cato the Much Younger)
David H Wild
Phillip Marsden <phillip...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> To respond to your points, I would have to say that many of the "ngs
> addicts" have no desire to sensibly discuss any point. The main
> impression that I get from the past few years of using csa is that the
> RISC OS diehards simply want to slag off Microsoft. A second notable
> theme is to deny any faults in the operating system, whether in the GUI
> or non-GUI portions. A third theme is to insult those people who do not
> agree that EVERYTHING about RISC OS is wonderful.
Phillip,
I would point out that most of what I know about problems with Microsoft
programs and operating systems comes from people who have never heard of
RISC OS.
> With regard to business users, it seems that the majority of people in
> the RISC OS world are not interested. The enthusiast is the only person
> of interest to these people, who want software for nothing, and hardware
> for just a little bit more. There are of course those people who will
> attempt to justify the high price of the hardware :o)
> Any business user chancing upon the csa newsgroups would probably just
> turn away from the whole area of RISC OS immediately. They are not a
> good showcase for attracting new users, whether of business or domestic
> users.
I think that you will find that this is true of almost all newsgroups. I
would not make a business decision based on the contents of a newsgroup,
even though it might give me some indication of where problems might lie.
David H Wild
> in the RISC OS scene, to deny RISC OS is perfect is inviting the wrath
> of the die-hards and results in counter-productive slanging matches.
> How is RISC OS Ltd supposed to improve the OS if no-one admit that it
> has faults.
To counterbalance that, there are people like Phillip Marsden and Ray
Dawson who don't seem to see anything but the faults.
Steven Pampling
Phillip Marsden <phillip...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Perhaps the
> business people buying Linux simply go through a familiar vendor who now
> dispenses Unix/Linux in a business-like manner.
RH 7.2 acting as an interface engine between Automated Lab Instruments and
an IBM (AIX) box.
Platform(s) of choice for a hospital pathology system.
The GUI on RH is about as much use as the GUI on the Solaris boxes, one of
which houses the finance system where the users can't see it because they
are 3 miles away.
Why Linux on the interfaces?
It runs on a simple (cheap) PC and it works without eating it's own setup
at intervals (ala Windows).
Is the GUI any good? :-
Who cares, the monitor is normally switched off anyway.
Hospital firewall, another Linux variant :- as ever sits in a dark room and
works 24/7
Horses for courses, but probably better to keep the Windows horse away from
the server course.
Ray Dawson
David H Wild <dhw...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <f0fd5987.03012...@posting.google.com>,
> Garry Taylor <gta...@lowebroadway.com> wrote:
> > I for one, could not agree more. There is a 'freedom of speech' issue
> > in the RISC OS scene, to deny RISC OS is perfect is inviting the wrath
> > of the die-hards and results in counter-productive slanging matches.
> > How is RISC OS Ltd supposed to improve the OS if no-one admit that it
> > has faults.
> To counterbalance that, there are people like Phillip Marsden and Ray
> Dawson who don't seem to see anything but the faults.
I don't only see faults - I use RISC OS every day as part of running my
business.
But at the same time I acknowledge its faults. I find RISC OS to be even
more flaky now that I run Select and get filecore errors I never got with
earlier versions. They started to appear with RISC OS 4.02 and were
unheard of here with RISC OS 3.7 and before. They are more prevalent with
Select.
On the other hand, Windows XP on my two PCs is extremely stable. My
laptop came with it from new, but the desktop has been upgraded to XP Pro
from various earlier versions of Windows over the years. Like the Risc
PC, the PC has had numerous hardware and OS upgrades. The PC has
benefitted. The Risc PC hasn't. I've done all the hardware timing mods.
I use Ovation Pro, Zap and Pluto on the Risc PC. On the PC I use
Omnipage, Cubase, Internet Explorer and quite a lot of other apps that
are better than anything I have on the Risc PC. I also use Word, but
because I have to rather than from choice. I don't find it that bad
though. I do prefer to use Ovation Pro.
My PC never crashes. Omnipage can be a bit flaky, but always expires
gracefully on XP and I can reboot it and recover what I was working on
before. Windows itself stays working. My Risc PC on the other hand
crashes frequently. Oregano is a big offender and may be the reason for
some of the filecore errors. They often happen when saving downloads to
disc. On the other hand, an OS should have a filing system that is not
temperamental and doesn't freeze.
I try to be honest and objective in reporting my findings and don't
resort to knocking a system or product for the sake of it - unlike some
on these newsgroups.
Yes, RISC OS is useful to me in my business. But, no it isn't the be all
and end all. I like my combination of Risc PC and PCs (networked
together), but wish that RISC OS was as stable as Windows XP.
Cheers,
Ray D
--
Ray Dawson
r...@magray.freeserve.co.uk
MagRay - the audio & braille specialists
John Cartmell
Ray Dawson <R...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> But at the same time I acknowledge its faults. I find RISC OS to be even
> more flaky now that I run Select and get filecore errors I never got with
> earlier versions. They started to appear with RISC OS 4.02 and were
> unheard of here with RISC OS 3.7 and before. They are more prevalent with
> Select.
!
Garry
> > Any business user chancing upon the csa newsgroups would probably just
> > turn away from the whole area of RISC OS immediately. They are not a
> > good showcase for attracting new users, whether of business or domestic
> > users.
>
> I think that you will find that this is true of almost all newsgroups. I
> would not make a business decision based on the contents of a newsgroup,
> even though it might give me some indication of where problems might lie.
I go on quite a lot of newsgroups, outside of RISC OS. the c.s.a.*
groups are by far the worst I have been on for pointless arguments,
snide comments, pedantic correction of grammar and spelling,and just
general unpleasantness.
As for:
> Maybe we should have a new c.s.a.* newsgroup for professional users
> and/or rational debate?
So who's going to moderate it?
I don't like the idea of moderation, but maybe if a thread went wildy
OT (fancy that!), or it degenerated into tit-for-tat arguments, it
could be in the groups's charter that it should be taken elsewhere. I
for one am very interested in RISC OS outside of the usual areas of
education and enthusiasts, so an area for business/professional users
might be very enlightening. Also, if developers could see what sort of
thing people were using RISC OS for, then it would help when
developing new products for different markets.
Cheers
Garry
Phillip Marsden
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <f0fd5987.03012...@posting.google.com>,
> Garry Taylor <gta...@lowebroadway.com> wrote:
> > Maybe we should have a new c.s.a.* newsgroup for professional users
> > and/or rational debate?
> So who's going to moderate it?
>
Is that the modern version of "who is to bell the cat?" ?
--
Regards, Phillip Marsden.
Phillip Marsden
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4bbb9c...@raydawson.com>,
> Ray Dawson <R...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > But at the same time I acknowledge its faults. I find RISC OS to be even
> > more flaky now that I run Select and get filecore errors I never got with
> > earlier versions. They started to appear with RISC OS 4.02 and were
> > unheard of here with RISC OS 3.7 and before. They are more prevalent with
> > Select.
> And others report them to be more stable (and that's how it appears here).
>
> !
>
Therein is the nub of the problem. There are many reports like this.
Some people have problems, where other people with apparently identical
systems have no problems. Will some people admit to this? Not really.
But if a similar type of problem arises within Windows then all hell and
scorn are let loose.
Surely it should not be possible for this situation to arise, when RISC
OS is small as it is, is administered by only one company, with
supposedly very strict rules on how things mesh together, and
furthermore runs on a very restricted set of hardware?
If it cannot be achieved under RISC OS, then it is no wonder that
Windows, a far more complex system, is not perfect. By the same measure,
Linux is, by comparison, a perfect system. It is after all a far more
complex system and, does not fall over if you look at it in the wrong
way. :o)
--
Regards, Phillip Marsden.
Phillip Marsden
David H Wild <dhw...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <f0fd5987.03012...@posting.google.com>,
> Garry Taylor <gta...@lowebroadway.com> wrote:
> > I for one, could not agree more. There is a 'freedom of speech' issue
> > in the RISC OS scene, to deny RISC OS is perfect is inviting the wrath
> > of the die-hards and results in counter-productive slanging matches.
> > How is RISC OS Ltd supposed to improve the OS if no-one admit that it
> > has faults.
>
> To counterbalance that, there are people like Phillip Marsden and Ray
> Dawson who don't seem to see anything but the faults.
>
If that is what you read into my postings then you should take a course
in English comprehension.
--
Regards, Phillip Marsden.
Brian Carroll
Annraoi <a...@globalcafe.ie> wrote:
[Snip]
> I could verify it by leaving my house and going to the coast,
> then proceeding 3,000 miles round the Irish coastline ....
Wouldn't prove a thing! You might be travelling round a large
lake - well, more like an inland sea.
Brian.
--
______________________________________________________________
Brian Carroll, Ripon, North Yorkshire, UK br...@argonet.co.uk
______________________________________________________________
Robin May
>
> In article <dab3e751.03012...@posting.google.com>,
> Annraoi <a...@globalcafe.ie> wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>
> > I could verify it by leaving my house and going to the coast,
> > then proceeding 3,000 miles round the Irish coastline ....
>
> Wouldn't prove a thing! You might be travelling round a large
> lake - well, more like an inland sea.
But the water would be on the wrong side for it be a sea.
--
message by Robin May, living the life of an international loverman
My previous .sig died quickly of natural causes.
The sinister truth: I killed it with a frying pan handle.
Phillip Marsden
druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
It is interesting to know that you (and others) are working on (or have
worked upon) bespoke systems based upon Acorn/RISC OS systems. It would
be nice to know how much this sort of work is keeping the RISC OS market
alive.
I have often wondered how the manufacturers, dealers, developers
etc earn a living from RISC OS, as the average enthusiast seems to be
tight-fisted when it comes to paying for software. I know, from my
limited contact with developers at shows, that more than one company
earns their living mainly from writing software for Windows.
It would be interesting to know how much the enthusiast market (the
visible part of the RISC OS community) contributes to the survival of
RISC OS. I suspect that, although the enthusiast market is the most
vocal sector, the "hidden" business market actually keeps RISC OS
alive.
All power to your elbow, and to those that employ you on these projects.
Let us hope that this market grows and carries the enthusiast market
with it.
--
Regards, Phillip Marsden.
Pierpaolo Scaini
bandits...@yahoo.co.uk (Garry) wrote:
<snip>
> So who's going to moderate it?
>
> I don't like the idea of moderation, but maybe if a thread went wildy
> OT (fancy that!), or it degenerated into tit-for-tat arguments, it
> could be in the groups's charter that it should be taken elsewhere. I
> for one am very interested in RISC OS outside of the usual areas of
> education and enthusiasts, so an area for business/professional users
> might be very enlightening. Also, if developers could see what sort of
> thing people were using RISC OS for, then it would help when
> developing new products for different markets.
Cannot agree more!
And this is more important for us foreign (from UK p.o.v.) dealers and
developers, pushing RISC OS on different professional markets!
Such a place (I don't know at this point if it should be opened to all
or just a "closed" group, as this could avoid moderation) could be a
factory for new ideas and good business opportunities.
I'm ready to subscribe NOW!
Pierpaolo.
Mark Rowan
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4bbb9c...@raydawson.com>, Ray Dawson
> <R...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > But at the same time I acknowledge its faults. I find RISC OS to be
> > even more flaky now that I run Select and get filecore errors I never
> > got with earlier versions. They started to appear with RISC OS 4.02
> > and were unheard of here with RISC OS 3.7 and before. They are more
> > prevalent with Select.
I had FileCore errors with an old A5000 quite often!
> And others report them to be more stable (and that's how it appears
> here).
In which case the only other thing which can possibly have degraded with
time is the compter itself... not the software. It is now a 9-year old
design after all.
As an aside, I've noticed the good old A-series machines have tended to
be more reliable than the RiscPC series, but that's another issue - the
A-series haven't been pushed as far performance-wise as the RPC for one
thing.
As I've posted before, this RiscPC is horribly unstable, crashing almost
every day and experiencing memory corrutpion. Yet the RiscPC upstairs,
almost identical in spec., has been up over 9 days now with no problems
(it's been two weeks before, but my dad pulled the plug!).
The moral of the story: Before people blame the software or OS on these
aging machines, perhaps they should look to the hardware? The age alone
dictates that Ray's PC should be more stable than his RiscPC, leaving
aside the fact that M$ have a development budget a few billion times
larger than ROL's so we should *expect* better performance from their
products... :-)
--
Help! I'm being held prisoner in a tagline factory.
||Mark Rowan|| Acorn RiscPC 233(T)+586, 80+1MB, RO 4.02, ADFS 8GB, DeskFM
http://www.tamias.co.uk | mark (at) tamias co uk | ICQ 30759398
Ian Molton
Mark Rowan <sp...@tamias.co.uk> wrote:
> As an aside, I've noticed the good old A-series machines have tended
> to be more reliable than the RiscPC series, but that's another issue -
> the A-series haven't been pushed as far performance-wise as the RPC
> for one thing.
You're kidding right?
the A series had got as far as 36MHz (and a few overclocked to 40) by
the time it was finally knocked on the head.
given the original design was for an 8MHz CPU, thats a 4.5 times
improvement (at 36MHz).
The Risc PC was designed for a maximum of a 50MHz ARM8, using far newer
technology, and hit an absolute maximum of 300MHz, 6x the original
design limit.
So, the A series hit 4.5x its original design, and the RPC 6x, albeit
with FAR less stability.
Hardly a 'massive improvement, IMO.
Besides, I dont know exactly what the big fuss is about. both the
Axxx[x] and RPC machines were asynchronous as regards the bus and CPU
speed, so in theory, you could put a 400,005THz QuantumARM in there and
it'd still run just as stably.
(I bet it'd still only use 0.00005femto-watts and people would STILL
complain that it doesnt have a port of RO5...)
Vic Shears
> filecore errors I never got with earlier versions. They started to
> appear with RISC OS 4.02 and were unheard of here with RISC OS 3.7 and
> before. They are more prevalent with Select.
Whereas I have never had a filecore error under Select and have found my
machine to be more stable under RISC OS 4.02 (well with the 2nd set of
ROM's anyway) and Select than it was under RISC OS 3.7?.
Odd is it not?.
Cheers Vic
--
... Where you stand depends on where you sit.
VIC SHEARS, Maidstone, Kent. Tel 01622 686019
vsh...@blueyonder.co.uk Mobile 07860 544403
ICQ Number 19839176
David H Wild
Phillip Marsden <phillip...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > To counterbalance that, there are people like Phillip Marsden and Ray
> > Dawson who don't seem to see anything but the faults.
> >
> If that is what you read into my postings then you should take a course
> in English comprehension.
Thank you for the insult.
David H Wild
> > Dawson who don't seem to see anything but the faults.
> I don't only see faults - I use RISC OS every day as part of running my
> business.
> But at the same time I acknowledge its faults. I find RISC OS to be even
> more flaky now that I run Select and get filecore errors I never got with
> earlier versions. They started to appear with RISC OS 4.02 and were
> unheard of here with RISC OS 3.7 and before. They are more prevalent with
> Select.
This sounds like a problem with your machine. I haven't had a filecore
error for more than three years and I have used 4.02, 4.29 and 4.33. Like
you, I do a fair amount of downloading.
Dave Wisnia
> Ray Dawson <R...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> I find RISC OS to be even more flaky now that I run Select and get
>> filecore errors I never got with earlier versions. They started to
>> appear with RISC OS 4.02 and were unheard of here with RISC OS 3.7 and
>> before. They are more prevalent with Select.
>
>Whereas I have never had a filecore error under Select and have found my
>machine to be more stable under RISC OS 4.02 (well with the 2nd set of
>ROM's anyway) and Select than it was under RISC OS 3.7?.
>
>Odd is it not?.
>
>Cheers Vic
>
applications. The 11 RISCOS machines in my school are similarly
reliable. If only the PCs were!
--
Dave Wisnia
Tim
<URL:mailto:ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 27 Jan 2003 Phillip Marsden <phillip...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > With regard to business users, it seems that the majority of people in
> > the RISC OS world are not interested.
>
> Which is true. RISC OS machines have long ago disappeared from general
> desktop use in businesses due inevitability to the lack of a full MS
> compatible office suite.
That may be true. But if so it begs the questions to whom and for what
purpose were Castle selling the majority of their machines (pre Iyonix)? The
answer apprently was to business users.
Tim
--
VinceH (use reply-to)
That isn't mutually exclusive with what Druck said -
businesses use the machines in other ways than
"general desktop use". They run applications written
for a specific purpose - and in some cases, that app
is run from boot, single tasks, and the desktop and
other applications are never seen.
VinceH
--
VinceH can be found in the vicinity of http://www.vinceh.com
Soft Rock Software can be found around http://www.softrock.co.uk
WebChange2 for RISC OS & Windows is at http://www.webchange.co.uk
Ray Dawson
VinceH (use reply-to) <spa...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <ant29005...@lynndene.demon.co.uk>,
> Tim <T...@lynndene.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <d5b57dbb...@druck.freeuk.net>, druck
> > <URL:mailto:ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> > > > With regard to business users, it seems that the majority
> > > > of people in the RISC OS world are not interested.
> > > Which is true. RISC OS machines have long ago disappeared
> > > from general desktop use in businesses due inevitability to
> > > the lack of a full MS compatible office suite.
> > That may be true. But if so it begs the questions to whom and
> > for what purpose were Castle selling the majority of their
> > machines (pre Iyonix)? The answer apprently was to business
> > users.
> That isn't mutually exclusive with what Druck said -
> businesses use the machines in other ways than
> "general desktop use". They run applications written
> for a specific purpose - and in some cases, that app
> is run from boot, single tasks, and the desktop and
> other applications are never seen.
Which is hardly using RISC OS, is it? One of the main quoted benefits of
using RISC OS is the GUI, so if you don't use that, then there isn't a
lot of point in using a computer that is designed to run it.
VinceH (use reply-to)
Ray Dawson <R...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4bbc503d...@softrock.co.uk>,
> VinceH (use reply-to) <spa...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <ant29005...@lynndene.demon.co.uk>,
> > Tim <T...@lynndene.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > Which is true. RISC OS machines have long ago
> > > > disappeared from general desktop use
> > > Castle selling the majority of their machines (pre
> > > Iyonix)? The answer apprently was to business users.
> > That isn't mutually exclusive with what Druck said -
> > businesses use the machines in other ways than
> > "general desktop use".
> Which is hardly using RISC OS, is it? One of the main quoted
> benefits of using RISC OS is the GUI,
There is more to RISC OS than just the GUI - unless
such software as described completely ignores the
gamut of OS facilities made available to them, and
reinvents not only the wheel, but also the club.
Many of my ancient little freely available programs
(and my old games, for that matter) for example,
single tasked - but if you took RISC OS out of the
box, even if you could do that and still leave BASIC
in, they would fail utterly and completely to do
anything. Even though they didn't use the GUI, they
used - and needed - the operating system.
And also note that in the part of my text that I
snipped, where I did mention single tasking, I did
say "some cases" - ie not all. In other cases, guess
what benefit of RISC OS remains a benefit.
> so if you don't use that, then there isn't a lot of point in
> using a computer that is designed to run it.
There is if the software you want to use runs on it
- irrespective of whether or not the GUI plays a
part.
As to why they use such software on such boxes - it
boils down to being tried and tested. This is very
much why Castle were still selling RISC OS 3.x
machines, even when RISC OS 4 was supposed to be
the current flavour; the type of customers we are
talking about wanted that version of the OS that
is, for their purposes and their software, proven.
Anything else puts an unknown into the equation.