RPCemu vs. VRPC

52 views
Skip to first unread message

David R Lane

unread,
Nov 18, 2008, 5:36:43 PM11/18/08
to
Hi comrades in ARMs,

I am still recovering from a brilliant display of installing first
RPCemu and then RISC OS on an eePC running Linux. Keith Dunlop,
who by his own admission knows almost nothing about Linux, managed
in the space of the ROUGOL meeting to demonstrate how to run RISC OS
on the eePC following the instructions on the riscos.info website.

Keith first installed RPCemu and then RISC OS. At the moment that
the RISC OS desktop appeared, the audience broke out into spontaneous
applause and again later when a website was accessed from the RISC OS
side.

This must surely be a major breakthrough rather putting VRPC in the
shade. In fact there was a much bigger attendance at this meeting
than in the previous month's meeting at which VRPC (Virtual RiscPC)
was demonstrated. For all of us who dislike Microsoft Windows, and
that must surely be most of us, we need not bother with VRPC (if we
ever did) relying as it does on MS Windows, and take up with RPCemu.

A few errors in the instructions on the riscos.info site were
pointed out by Bryan Hogan who occasionally prompted Keith.
Corrections will be put up on the ROUGOL website.

This encourages me and I am sure many others to buy an eePC or
other computer running a suitable version of Linux and install
RPCemu and then RISC OS.

So we don't need to bother with VRPC with all those worries about
viruses and insecurities that come with Microsoft Windows and
having to pay the Bill Gates tax into the bargain, we can fly with
RPCemu on Linux. Plus, it's all free.

Cheers,
Dave Lane

--
The shattered tower which now forms Vista from his Windows. --Sir W. Scott.
[1913 Webster] -- a prophet for our time?

Message has been deleted

Theo Markettos

unread,
Nov 18, 2008, 6:40:55 PM11/18/08
to
David R Lane <D_L...@lakeview.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I am still recovering from a brilliant display of installing first
> RPCemu and then RISC OS on an eePC running Linux. Keith Dunlop,
> who by his own admission knows almost nothing about Linux, managed
> in the space of the ROUGOL meeting to demonstrate how to run RISC OS
> on the eePC following the instructions on the riscos.info website.

Thanks Keith for this demo (I wasn't there). I think RPCEmu deserves a
higher profile than it currently has, and has slowly but surely become a
serious contender. Anything that raises interest in it, and stimulates
development (especially now Tom has understandably stepped down as
maintainer), is to be welcomed.

> A few errors in the instructions on the riscos.info site were
> pointed out by Bryan Hogan who occasionally prompted Keith.
> Corrections will be put up on the ROUGOL website.

You don't fancy putting them straight into the wiki article? If you don't
want to, I can always poach them :) (if you don't mind!)

Theo

Steve Fryatt

unread,
Nov 18, 2008, 6:53:18 PM11/18/08
to
On 18 Nov, David R Lane wrote in message
<50c65f00...@lakeview.demon.co.uk>:

> I am still recovering from a brilliant display of installing first
> RPCemu and then RISC OS on an eePC running Linux. Keith Dunlop, who by
> his own admission knows almost nothing about Linux, managed in the
> space of the ROUGOL meeting to demonstrate how to run RISC OS on the
> eePC following the instructions on the riscos.info website.
>
> Keith first installed RPCemu and then RISC OS. At the moment that the
> RISC OS desktop appeared, the audience broke out into spontaneous
> applause and again later when a website was accessed from the RISC OS
> side.
>
> This must surely be a major breakthrough rather putting VRPC in the
> shade. In fact there was a much bigger attendance at this meeting than
> in the previous month's meeting at which VRPC (Virtual RiscPC) was
> demonstrated. For all of us who dislike Microsoft Windows, and that
> must surely be most of us, we need not bother with VRPC (if we ever
> did) relying as it does on MS Windows, and take up with RPCemu.

Indeed. Since I don't use Windows enough to make it convenient, RPCemu
will be the way I'll have to go when I need RISC OS on portable equipment.
I would like to support Aaron, but he seems uninterested in selling to
Linux users.



> A few errors in the instructions on the riscos.info site were pointed
> out by Bryan Hogan who occasionally prompted Keith. Corrections will be
> put up on the ROUGOL website.

Why not correct the RISC OS.info site? It's a Wiki precisely so that that
it can be edited collaboratively.

> This encourages me and I am sure many others to buy an eePC or other
> computer running a suitable version of Linux and install RPCemu and
> then RISC OS.
>
> So we don't need to bother with VRPC with all those worries about
> viruses and insecurities that come with Microsoft Windows and having to
> pay the Bill Gates tax into the bargain, we can fly with RPCemu on
> Linux. Plus, it's all free.

Apart from the RISC OS license, unless RISC OS 5 becomes available.

--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England

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

Tim Powys-Lybbe

unread,
Nov 18, 2008, 6:56:00 PM11/18/08
to
In message of 18 Nov, David R Lane <D_L...@Lakeview.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> I am still recovering from a brilliant display of installing first
> RPCemu and then RISC OS on an eePC running Linux. Keith Dunlop,
> who by his own admission knows almost nothing about Linux, managed
> in the space of the ROUGOL meeting to demonstrate how to run RISC OS
> on the eePC following the instructions on the riscos.info website.
>
> Keith first installed RPCemu and then RISC OS. At the moment that
> the RISC OS desktop appeared, the audience broke out into spontaneous
> applause and again later when a website was accessed from the RISC OS
> side.

Thoroughly agreed and I shared the enthusiasm.

And today I followed his steps and stumbled towards getting RISC OS
running on a Ubuntu virtual machine on my Mac. The only complete
failure was with internet access where the Configure tool did not show
the interface at all. (Can anyone help? And how do I get into the
RPCemu mailing list - I have now subscribed twice but with no result
either time.)

> This must surely be a major breakthrough rather putting VRPC in the
> shade. In fact there was a much bigger attendance at this meeting
> than in the previous month's meeting at which VRPC (Virtual RiscPC)
> was demonstrated. For all of us who dislike Microsoft Windows, and
> that must surely be most of us, we need not bother with VRPC (if we
> ever did) relying as it does on MS Windows, and take up with RPCemu.
>
> A few errors in the instructions on the riscos.info site were
> pointed out by Bryan Hogan who occasionally prompted Keith.
> Corrections will be put up on the ROUGOL website.

I look forward to that, though many of my problems were because I had
not read the instructions carefully enough.

> This encourages me and I am sure many others to buy an eePC or
> other computer running a suitable version of Linux and install
> RPCemu and then RISC OS.
>
> So we don't need to bother with VRPC with all those worries about
> viruses and insecurities that come with Microsoft Windows and
> having to pay the Bill Gates tax into the bargain, we can fly with
> RPCemu on Linux. Plus, it's all free.

VARPC also runs on a Mac. What was interesting was when I ran the
Desk-Bogo program. It showed a figure of 460 odd for VARPC and 97 for
RPCemu; so on the face of it that RPCemu is nearly a fifth of the spped
of VARPC. However my feeling while using RPCemu was that it was a bit
more responsive than that. I have no idea how valid Desk-Bogo is as a
speed testing program.

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

druck

unread,
Nov 18, 2008, 7:27:45 PM11/18/08
to
On 18 Nov 2008 Paul Vigay <invali...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <50c65f00...@lakeview.demon.co.uk>,


> David R Lane <D_L...@Lakeview.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>> So we don't need to bother with VRPC with all those worries about
>> viruses and insecurities that come with Microsoft Windows and having to
>> pay the Bill Gates tax into the bargain, we can fly with RPCemu on
>> Linux. Plus, it's all free.

> Hear hear!

> There's definitely no reason to get VRPC now. I've not tried putting it on
> the Eee yet, but it runs quite nicely on my Ubuntu laptop.

I did keep telling Aaron that if refused to support Linux, it wouldn't
be long before alternative emulators started gaining traction.

Virtual Acorn have sat back over the last few years waiting for
increasing x86 processor speeds to take the emulator over the level of
performance of the Risc PC, but the progress has slowed considerably
as it can't take any real advantage of multicore chips. There is
plenty of scope for an emulator, especially and open source one
running an open source RISC OS on top of an open source host OS, to
take emulation much further than under VRPC.

---druck

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

Ben Shimmin

unread,
Nov 18, 2008, 7:53:51 PM11/18/08
to
Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org>:

> And today I followed his steps and stumbled towards getting RISC OS
> running on a Ubuntu virtual machine on my Mac.

[...]

> VARPC also runs on a Mac. What was interesting was when I ran the
> Desk-Bogo program. It showed a figure of 460 odd for VARPC and 97 for
> RPCemu; so on the face of it that RPCemu is nearly a fifth of the spped
> of VARPC. However my feeling while using RPCemu was that it was a bit
> more responsive than that. I have no idea how valid Desk-Bogo is as a
> speed testing program.

Was that result from RPCemu running in an Ubuntu virtual machine on
your Mac versus VARPC running `natively' on your Mac?

b.

--
<b...@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
`The Americans advise matching socks to your pants, the Italians seem to
contrast with both shoes and pants. The English, always the eccentrics,
wear maroon socks with everything!' -- thesartorialist.blogspot.com

Bryan Hogan

unread,
Nov 18, 2008, 9:21:02 PM11/18/08
to
In message <lFz*Hs...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>> A few errors in the instructions on the riscos.info site were
>> pointed out by Bryan Hogan who occasionally prompted Keith.
>> Corrections will be put up on the ROUGOL website.

> You don't fancy putting them straight into the wiki article? If you don't
> want to, I can always poach them :) (if you don't mind!)

A misuderstanding on Dave's part - I will be putting them in the wiki.
I did try on the night but it wasn't working. In fact I've just looked
and the whole riscos.info site is down at the moment.

The main problem was that on a standard Ubuntu install an additional
package was needed, libc6-dev, to get the C compiler going. Plus the
"sudo echo ..." commands in the networking section can't possibly work
(the redirection happens before the sudo command, hence no permissions
to write to the files).

Bryan.

Message has been deleted

David Pitt

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 2:21:25 AM11/19/08
to
Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:

[snip]



> VARPC also runs on a Mac. What was interesting was when I ran the
> Desk-Bogo program. It showed a figure of 460 odd for VARPC and 97 for
> RPCemu; so on the face of it that RPCemu is nearly a fifth of the spped of
> VARPC. However my feeling while using RPCemu was that it was a bit more
> responsive than that. I have no idea how valid Desk-Bogo is as a speed
> testing program.

I have seen that order of difference between VRPC and rpcemu as measured by
Desk_Bogo. On trying to compare VRPC with real hardware Desk_Bogo would show
the Iyonix as faster than VRPC but that was not reflected in real world
tasks where VRPC was faster than the Iyonix. Desk_Bogo was more relevant
when comparing like with like such as my three native RISC OS machines, the
results did reflect reality. Overall performance is defined by more that
just processing speeds.

I will be having another look at rpcemu on Linux.

--
David Pitt

Tim Powys-Lybbe

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 3:20:14 AM11/19/08
to
In message of 19 Nov, Ben Shimmin <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote:

> Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org>:
> > And today I followed his steps and stumbled towards getting RISC OS
> > running on a Ubuntu virtual machine on my Mac.
>
> [...]
>
> > VARPC also runs on a Mac. What was interesting was when I ran the
> > Desk-Bogo program. It showed a figure of 460 odd for VARPC and 97 for
> > RPCemu; so on the face of it that RPCemu is nearly a fifth of the spped
> > of VARPC. However my feeling while using RPCemu was that it was a bit
> > more responsive than that. I have no idea how valid Desk-Bogo is as a
> > speed testing program.
>
> Was that result from RPCemu running in an Ubuntu virtual machine on
> your Mac versus VARPC running `natively' on your Mac?

Yes.

I am using VMWare Fusion as the virtual machine system and I know it
gives a performance hit. But I have it set for only one processor in
512 Mbytes of RAM and can up both of those with a max of four processors
and Gbytes of RAM. I'll try later today and see what happens.

I also tried RPCemu on Intrepid Ibex, Ubuntu 8.10, and I could not get
it to run. Hardy Heron, which I have had to use, is Ubuntu 8.04.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 3:28:37 AM11/19/08
to
In message of 19 Nov, Paul Vigay <invali...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <slrn.2008-11...@cunegonde.bas.me.uk>,


> Ben Shimmin <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote:
>
> > Was that result from RPCemu running in an Ubuntu virtual machine on your
> > Mac versus VARPC running `natively' on your Mac?
>

> Ubuntu runs at a pretty impressive speed on an Intel Mac. I've only tried
> it running under VMWare, but I'd say it's speed is comparable to running
> Ubuntu natively.

I agree. Certainly Firefox on Ubuntu feels a bit faster than Firefox
directly on the mac.

Richard Travers

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 4:01:32 AM11/19/08
to

> For all of us who dislike Microsoft Windows, and
> that must surely be most of us, we need not bother with VRPC (if we
> ever did) relying as it does on MS Windows, and take up with RPCemu.

Hmm. Lots of assumptions there, the main one being that RPCemu on an EeePC
(note the three e's - it is pronounced 'easy') will do all the things that
VRPC will do on a windows machine. Will it?

R.

--

Richard Travers
rich...@uwclub.net

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Tim Powys-Lybbe

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 4:11:55 AM11/19/08
to
In message of 19 Nov, druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:

> Virtual Acorn have sat back over the last few years waiting for
> increasing x86 processor speeds to take the emulator over the level of
> performance of the Risc PC, but the progress has slowed considerably
> as it can't take any real advantage of multicore chips. There is
> plenty of scope for an emulator, especially and open source one
> running an open source RISC OS on top of an open source host OS, to
> take emulation much further than under VRPC.

Well I have just changed the Ubuntu environment to run 4 processors (of
8) instead of 1 and to be in 1600 MBytes instead of 512. The Desk-Bogo
test showed no improvement in RPCemu speed. As before I don't know what
this means!

Message has been deleted

Tim Powys-Lybbe

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 4:44:27 AM11/19/08
to
In message of 19 Nov, Bryan Hogan <sp...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

<On the Wiki RPCemu installation guide>

> A misuderstanding on Dave's part - I will be putting them in the wiki.

Many thanks for this.

> I did try on the night but it wasn't working. In fact I've just looked
> and the whole riscos.info site is down at the moment.

It has been down since roughly midday Sunday. Luckily I had taken a
copy early on.

> The main problem was that on a standard Ubuntu install an additional
> package was needed, libc6-dev, to get the C compiler going. Plus the
> "sudo echo ..." commands in the networking section can't possibly work
> (the redirection happens before the sudo command, hence no permissions
> to write to the files).

I hesitate before thinking of amending a Wiki myself, but the following
might help other non-Unix enthusiasts:

1. Use a Terminal program for all these instructions.

2. Edit text files by double clicking on them. (Other methods work but
it took me a while to realise this was by far the easiest!)

3. When unzipping the bootimage file, include a simple method of
'extracting the archive to the rpcemu directory'. I got somewhat lost
about where files had got to at this stage.

4. Following this extract, explain where the two directories 'hostfs'
and 'poduleroms' are to be placed.

5. 'Start the emulator in your X11 environment' means type: ./rpcemu

6. Where to find Hform after downloading it and where to put it.

7. I could only issue the disc formatting commands from the command line
(F12); the keyboard stopped if I just ran the !HForm application.

8. On the second attempt I formatted the disc for 2016 Mbytes, parking
cylinder at 2015 and LFAU of 8192. While this works, I am not sure it
is right and in any case would eventually like to format somewhere
nearer 50 GBytes. Possible? How?

9. Again a bit more clarity is needed (for the likes of me) on
downloading and installing SparkPlug.

10. While CDROM works here, it aborts after copying a number of files; I
must try a different (RISC OS) CDROM.

11. I look forward to the masterclass on installing networking.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 4:47:49 AM11/19/08
to
In message of 19 Nov, Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:

> In message of 19 Nov, Ben Shimmin <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote:
>
> > Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org>:
> > > And today I followed his steps and stumbled towards getting RISC OS
> > > running on a Ubuntu virtual machine on my Mac.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > VARPC also runs on a Mac. What was interesting was when I ran the
> > > Desk-Bogo program. It showed a figure of 460 odd for VARPC and 97 for
> > > RPCemu; so on the face of it that RPCemu is nearly a fifth of the spped
> > > of VARPC. However my feeling while using RPCemu was that it was a bit
> > > more responsive than that. I have no idea how valid Desk-Bogo is as a
> > > speed testing program.
> >
> > Was that result from RPCemu running in an Ubuntu virtual machine on
> > your Mac versus VARPC running `natively' on your Mac?
>
> Yes.
>
> I am using VMWare Fusion as the virtual machine system and I know it
> gives a performance hit. But I have it set for only one processor in
> 512 Mbytes of RAM and can up both of those with a max of four processors
> and Gbytes of RAM. I'll try later today and see what happens.

If you missed it elsewhere, it made no difference when I upped the
Ubuntu machine to 4 processors and 1600 MBytes.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 5:02:03 AM11/19/08
to
In message of 19 Nov, Richard Travers <rich...@uwclub.net> wrote:

<chomp>

> Hmm. Lots of assumptions there, the main one being that RPCemu on an

> EeePC will do all the things that VRPC will do on a windows machine.
> Will it?

I can't say about VARPC on Windows but can on a Mac. This has clear
limitations, the greatest being the stiffing of the machine several
times a day when using any form of text editor. But so much of what I
do depends on networking so I can say no more until some usable
instructions appear.

Jess

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 5:12:21 AM11/19/08
to
In message <50ffff7ca8i...@invalid-domain.co.uk>
Paul Vigay <invali...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <50c65f00...@lakeview.demon.co.uk>,
> David R Lane <D_L...@Lakeview.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>

>> So we don't need to bother with VRPC with all those worries about
>> viruses and insecurities that come with Microsoft Windows and having to
>> pay the Bill Gates tax into the bargain, we can fly with RPCemu on
>> Linux. Plus, it's all free.
>

> Hear hear!
>
> There's definitely no reason to get VRPC now. I've not tried putting it on
> the Eee yet, but it runs quite nicely on my Ubuntu laptop.

The reason I've not purchased VRPC is the hardware locking. I don't
own a PC suitable to run it, but normally have access to one, but
never the same one. (I stuck with VA5000, because I could move it as I
like)

It also runs on a Mac, but I have only just got a G4 and it is below
the recommended speed.

Were it not for the hardware lock, I would most likely have bought a
copy to play with.

Since the reason given for the lack of a linux version was too many
varieties to support, I would think support for just the EeePC would
be an option for them to concider.


--
Jess Iyonix
Hotmail is my spam trap use this for reply:
mailto:nos...@jess.itworkshop-nexus.net or
http://jess.itworkshop-nexus.net

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 5:21:22 AM11/19/08
to
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 08:20:14 GMT
Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:

> I also tried RPCemu on Intrepid Ibex, Ubuntu 8.10, and I could not get
> it to run. Hardy Heron, which I have had to use, is Ubuntu 8.04.

Would it be useful if a Debian package were made, so Ubuntu and Debian
users can just download a file and couple-click on it to install it?

B.

Ned Abell

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 5:26:45 AM11/19/08
to
In article <5832950...@southfarm.plus.com>,

Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
> In message of 19 Nov, Ben Shimmin <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote:

> > Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org>:

[Snip]

> I also tried RPCemu on Intrepid Ibex, Ubuntu 8.10, and I
> could not get it to run. Hardy Heron, which I have had to
> use, is Ubuntu 8.04.

Tim its running here fine on Ibex

--
besters
Ned

(this email address is unused)

Ned Abell

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 5:45:09 AM11/19/08
to
In article
<20081119102...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>,

That would be ideal as a starting point and then as it covers
the allegro and other library dependancies. and would make it
very easy for those coming to grips with Linux.

Richard Travers

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 5:52:44 AM11/19/08
to
In article <50ffff7d60i...@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
Paul Vigay <invali...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <500098fa3...@uwclub.net>,
> Richard Travers <rich...@uwclub.net> wrote:

> > Hmm. Lots of assumptions there, the main one being that RPCemu on an
> > EeePC (note the three e's - it is pronounced 'easy') will do all the
> > things that VRPC will do on a windows machine. Will it?

> Probably not. For starters, my Eee has never crashed, so it won't do that!
> :-)

Really? Mine has (only once, I admit).

> Seriously though, I would say it does more - and certainly costs less. One
> of the arguments people use for having VRPC on Windows is that you can use
> Windows software for stuff that RISC OS doesn't do. This is also true of
> Linux, except the big difference being it's all free. Open Office, Skype,
> media players, Flash, webcams, video editing, etc etc are all free for the
> Eee.

Most are also free for Windows, too. The same programs (I use Open Office,
Skype, Scribus, Gimp etc etc on both PC and Eee). Personally I would do
neither photo-editing nor video-editing on the Eee - the small screen (I
have the 7") is a huge disadvantage.

The Linux printer drivers (at least for my printer) are not yet up to the PC
standards, either.

But my question was a serious one. VRPC runs seamlessly on my PC and allows
me to run my favourite RISC OS applications as if (but faster) I were
working on my now-defunct RPC. Is RPCemu up to that standard of performance
yet?

Nobody has actually answered that one yet.

> However, the biggest benefit is that of having a much more secure, and
> virus free foundation on which to run RISC OS. For this reason, I don't
> object to people running RISC OS on Linux (although I'd still prefer a
> native hardware solution).

Actually, I don't think it is up to you to object or not object - that is
down to people's personal choice. :-)

R

Theo Markettos

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 5:49:20 AM11/19/08
to
Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
> Well I have just changed the Ubuntu environment to run 4 processors (of
> 8) instead of 1 and to be in 1600 MBytes instead of 512. The Desk-Bogo
> test showed no improvement in RPCemu speed. As before I don't know what
> this means!

I'm slightly confused... do you actually have 4 or 8 hardware cores in
there, or is that a VMWare emulation? VMWare emulating N cores on one will
most likely be slower than the one original core.

But anyway, RPCEmu has the /potential/ to use multicores. It doesn't at the
moment. So there's no speedup today. The point being that some hardware
devices could in future be palmed off to another core (emulation of chips
like IOMD or the network controller, IDE bus, and perhaps the MMU). If
there are developers to do this work, of course.

Theo

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Theo Markettos

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 6:40:07 AM11/19/08
to
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> Would it be useful if a Debian package were made, so Ubuntu and Debian
> users can just download a file and couple-click on it to install it?

I did a bit of work towards that, but my patch seems to have slipped through
the cracks. I've just prodded the list about it.

Theo

David Pitt

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 6:56:45 AM11/19/08
to
Richard Travers <rich...@uwclub.net> wrote:

[snip]



> But my question was a serious one. VRPC runs seamlessly on my PC and
> allows me to run my favourite RISC OS applications as if (but faster) I
> were working on my now-defunct RPC. Is RPCemu up to that standard of
> performance yet?
>
> Nobody has actually answered that one yet.

I expect the answer will not be that clear cut, both options have both
strong points and foibles.

In general VRPC on Windows is faster than rpcemu on Ubuntu on the same
machine. !Desk_Bogo has VRPC at 3.5 times faster than rpcemu on my older
laptop, as said earlier !Desk_Bogo may not be representative of real
performance on real tasks but certainly rpcemu is the slower.

Today's rpcemu foibles are the failure to run 32K colour modes with OS4.39,
OS4.04 is OK. Apparently "stuck down" keys when using the recompiler build,
the interpreter variant seems OK.

On the other hand rpcemu handles mouse pointer transitions very much better
than the mess VPRC makes of it.

Another snaglet is that Ubuntu runs more slowly than Vista on my newer
laptop, I need to sort that out before trying rpcemu on that machine. Ubuntu
is slightly faster than XP on the older laptop, but only slightly.

I am not that sold on Linux, Vista is preferred here, but I do want a viable
RISC OS platform somewhere. rpcemu will get get a better work out once I
have it networking.

--
David Pitt

diodesign

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 7:04:16 AM11/19/08
to
Hi,

On 19 Nov, 10:52, Richard Travers <richtn...@uwclub.net> wrote:

> VRPC runs seamlessly on my PC and allows me to run my
> favourite RISC OS applications as if (but faster) I were
> working on my now-defunct RPC. Is RPCemu up to that
> standard of performance yet?
>
> Nobody has actually answered that one yet.

At ROUGOL on Monday night, RPCEmu on a 1.6GHz eeePC managed 40MIPS,
which is roughly ARM710 speed. The desktop seemed usable. Faster Intel
machines will obviously ramp up the emulation speed. The software
translates blocks of ARM code into Intel x86 instructions on the fly
and caches these, which affords a boost in performance. AIUI
VirtualRiscPC employs similar techniques.

Discussion from Monday night: http://www.drobe.co.uk/article.php?id=2343
ROUGOL page:
http://rougol.jellybaby.net/meetings/2008/nov.html
RPCEmu Dynarec doc: http://tinyurl.com/5fm6k7

According to the documentation, on an Athlon X2 4200+ PC, RPCEmu runs
the desktop at 184% the speed of a StrongARM machine. I'm not going to
claim RPCEmu is bomb-proof or suitable for every user, but that a
freely available and capable open source machine emulator is available
for people to contribute to is a boon for the platform. And as Paul
pointed out, it costs nothing to try it out.

C.

Richard Travers

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 8:11:01 AM11/19/08
to
In article <mpro.kakx6l00...@pittdj.co.uk>,

David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> Richard Travers <rich...@uwclub.net> wrote:

> [snip]
>
> > But my question was a serious one. VRPC runs seamlessly on my PC and
> > allows me to run my favourite RISC OS applications as if (but faster) I
> > were working on my now-defunct RPC. Is RPCemu up to that standard of
> > performance yet?
> >
> > Nobody has actually answered that one yet.

> I expect the answer will not be that clear cut, both options have both
> strong points and foibles.

[snip useful info]

Thanks David. That was helpful.

Richard Travers

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 8:11:58 AM11/19/08
to
In article
<ebc2b40c-d197-4a08...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
diodesign <diod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,

Thanks for that. Interesting!

R.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 9:20:04 AM11/19/08
to
In message of 19 Nov, Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 08:20:14 GMT
> Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
>
> > I also tried RPCemu on Intrepid Ibex, Ubuntu 8.10, and I could not get
> > it to run. Hardy Heron, which I have had to use, is Ubuntu 8.04.

I now realise that I had been trying to load RPCemu on the 64-bit
version of 8.10. I must give it a thrash on the 32-bit one - or perhaps
wait for Bryan's new instructions to give them a thrash at the same
time.



> Would it be useful if a Debian package were made, so Ubuntu and Debian
> users can just download a file and couple-click on it to install it?

Now you're talking. Yes, please! (As I cannot see myself using much
other than an Ubuntu-like object on Linux, I am bound to think this
way.)

I wonder, once RPCemu becomes stable on Debian, whether Canonical (or
whoever runs such things) would be persuaded to add it to the Ubuntu
distribution?

Tim Powys-Lybbe

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 9:22:13 AM11/19/08
to
In message of 19 Nov, Ned Abell <ne...@weatherpost.org.uk> wrote:

> In article <5832950...@southfarm.plus.com>,
> Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
> > In message of 19 Nov, Ben Shimmin <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote:
>
> > > Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org>:
>
> [Snip]
>
> > I also tried RPCemu on Intrepid Ibex, Ubuntu 8.10, and I
> > could not get it to run. Hardy Heron, which I have had to
> > use, is Ubuntu 8.04.
>
> Tim its running here fine on Ibex

On the 32-bit one? (See my other note re 64-bit.)

I'll be giving 32-bit a go shortly.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 9:28:47 AM11/19/08
to
In message of 19 Nov, Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
> > Well I have just changed the Ubuntu environment to run 4 processors (of
> > 8) instead of 1 and to be in 1600 MBytes instead of 512. The Desk-Bogo
> > test showed no improvement in RPCemu speed. As before I don't know what
> > this means!
>
> I'm slightly confused... do you actually have 4 or 8 hardware cores in
> there, or is that a VMWare emulation? VMWare emulating N cores on one will
> most likely be slower than the one original core.

My Mac has 8 cores. I run VMWare Fusion and it can use up to 4 of
those 8 cores for Ubuntu. I do not think VMWare is emulating the Mac
cores, rather that it is using them. So I would expect extra cores to
lead to extra performance, if the client could participate that is.

> But anyway, RPCEmu has the /potential/ to use multicores. It doesn't at the
> moment. So there's no speedup today. The point being that some hardware
> devices could in future be palmed off to another core (emulation of chips
> like IOMD or the network controller, IDE bus, and perhaps the MMU). If
> there are developers to do this work, of course.

I am no developer but would be delighted to do testing for any such
Master of Operating Systems.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 9:35:41 AM11/19/08
to
In message of 19 Nov, Richard Travers <rich...@uwclub.net> wrote:

<chomp>

> But my question was a serious one. VRPC runs seamlessly on my PC and allows


> me to run my favourite RISC OS applications as if (but faster) I were
> working on my now-defunct RPC. Is RPCemu up to that standard of performance
> yet?
>
> Nobody has actually answered that one yet.

Please, a small chance. All that is needed is some detailed
instructions on how, actually, to get networking going on RPCemu and
will then be able to give it a much bigger test on a wide range of
RISC OS applications.

If it does not crash, I may migrate to it as my core RISC OS platform as
the crashes and keyboard stiffings of VARPC (on Mac) are beginning to
give me the willies!

Dr Alan Leighton

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 10:18:08 AM11/19/08
to
In message <50ffff7daai...@invalid-domain.co.uk>
Paul Vigay <invali...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
snip

> I agree. I can object to whatever I like to object to, as can other people.
> Whether or not people take any notice of my objections is another thing
> altogether. :-)

> However, I often get asked for help and support for RISC OS enquiries, and
> whereas I'd be happy to help wherever possible with RPCemu queries and
> advice. I can't say the same for VRPC.

Wow I have been in the USA for the last 16 days and missed the posts
on this. Has anyone done an idiots guide to this all this? I use a PC
Laptop running XP plus VA. I am keen to know all I can,

Cheers

Alan

--

Tim Powys-Lybbe

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 5:18:31 PM11/19/08
to
In message of 19 Nov, Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:

> In message of 19 Nov, Ned Abell <ne...@weatherpost.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <5832950...@southfarm.plus.com>,
> > Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
> > > In message of 19 Nov, Ben Shimmin <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org>:
> >
> > [Snip]
> >
> > > I also tried RPCemu on Intrepid Ibex, Ubuntu 8.10, and I
> > > could not get it to run. Hardy Heron, which I have had to
> > > use, is Ubuntu 8.04.
> >
> > Tim its running here fine on Ibex
>
> On the 32-bit one? (See my other note re 64-bit.)
>
> I'll be giving 32-bit a go shortly.

Gosh, I'm exhausted after that one!

Try as I might I could not get the hostfs to stay in place after
formatting the disc. Probably something I did wrong but I tried three
completely fresh builds and all failed.

Eventually I had the bright idea of copying across the enlarged disc
from the 8.04 H Haron installation. This worked. But:

1. I could not format the disc for more than 4 Gbytes. These days I
need at least 80 Gbytes for all the floss and jetsam.

2. I could not see how to add discs 5 and 6 to the configuration as this
might have solved some of problem 1.

3. I still cannot get networking, not even ShareFS to work on RPCemu.
On neither installation (8.4 and 8.10) does the interface show
up for it to be configured. This inhibits copying any applications
across so I shall lie low until a fix is found. (While one can
copy using HostFS, it is a bit cumbersome.)

If someone could advertise when they have networking instructions
available, I would be very grateful.

Bryan Hogan

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 9:24:31 PM11/19/08
to
In message <63e89c0...@southfarm.plus.com>
Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:

> In message of 19 Nov, Bryan Hogan <sp...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

> <On the Wiki RPCemu installation guide>

>> A misuderstanding on Dave's part - I will be putting them in the wiki.

> Many thanks for this.

Just realised I don't know who wrote this guide! A big thank you to
them.


>> I did try on the night but it wasn't working. In fact I've just looked
>> and the whole riscos.info site is down at the moment.

> It has been down since roughly midday Sunday. Luckily I had taken a
> copy early on.

Lucky the guide was still up Monday evening as I don't think any of us
had thought to take a copy.

<snip wiki improvements>

> 5. 'Start the emulator in your X11 environment' means type: ./rpcemu

:-)


> 6. Where to find Hform after downloading it and where to put it.

> 7. I could only issue the disc formatting commands from the command line
> (F12); the keyboard stopped if I just ran the !HForm application.

> 8. On the second attempt I formatted the disc for 2016 Mbytes, parking
> cylinder at 2015 and LFAU of 8192. While this works, I am not sure it
> is right and in any case would eventually like to format somewhere
> nearer 50 GBytes. Possible? How?

I think that whole hard disc section needs to be moved out of the main
instructions into an "optional enhancements" section, as it is all
rather complicated and completely unnecessary for most users. Stick
with the 50MB hard disc image for !Boot and apps, and stick all your
data in hostfs. Easy.

> 10. While CDROM works here, it aborts after copying a number of files; I
> must try a different (RISC OS) CDROM.

We didn't try this, as the EeePC doesn't have a CD drive!

> 11. I look forward to the masterclass on installing networking.

As noted, those bits are slightly wrong in the wiki. It does need to
be a bit clearer about picking the correct network interface - we got
that wrong during the demo.

I'm hoping that all this discussion and interest in rpcemu will
inspire some of the programmers out there to take up the challenge of
making it even better. And ROOL to get the RISC OS 5 ROM image for it.

Bryan.

David Pitt

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 4:26:57 AM11/20/08
to
David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:

> Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
>
> [snip]


>
> > VARPC also runs on a Mac. What was interesting was when I ran the
> > Desk-Bogo program. It showed a figure of 460 odd for VARPC and 97 for
> > RPCemu; so on the face of it that RPCemu is nearly a fifth of the spped
> > of VARPC. However my feeling while using RPCemu was that it was a bit
> > more responsive than that. I have no idea how valid Desk-Bogo is as a
> > speed testing program.
>

> I have seen that order of difference between VRPC and rpcemu as measured
> by Desk_Bogo. On trying to compare VRPC with real hardware Desk_Bogo would
> show the Iyonix as faster than VRPC but that was not reflected in real
> world tasks where VRPC was faster than the Iyonix. Desk_Bogo was more
> relevant when comparing like with like such as my three native RISC OS
> machines, the results did reflect reality. Overall performance is defined
> by more that just processing speeds.
>
> I will be having another look at rpcemu on Linux.

riscos.info is back again, this is what we have all been waiting for :-

http://www.riscos.info/index.php/RPCEmu_Linux_Guide

I have been attempting to persuade rpcemu to network. This has not been
entirely successful.

The subject is more appropriate to csa.networking, I will start a thread
soon.

--
David Pitt

David Pitt

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 4:49:49 AM11/20/08
to
David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:

It is now, I have Google on rpcemu.


>
> The subject is more appropriate to csa.networking, I will start a thread
> soon.
>

I will post something there.

--
David Pitt

Tim Powys-Lybbe

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 5:32:04 AM11/20/08
to
In message of 20 Nov, Bryan Hogan <sp...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

> In message <63e89c0...@southfarm.plus.com>
> Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
>
> > In message of 19 Nov, Bryan Hogan <sp...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
> > <On the Wiki RPCemu installation guide>

> <snip wiki improvements>

> > 5. 'Start the emulator in your X11 environment' means type: ./rpcemu
>
> :-)

Later I realised that the correct way was to double click on RPCemu
within the RPCemu directory within Ubuntu. Much simpler.

> > 8. On the second attempt I formatted the disc for 2016 Mbytes, parking
> > cylinder at 2015 and LFAU of 8192. While this works, I am not sure it
> > is right and in any case would eventually like to format somewhere
> > nearer 50 GBytes. Possible? How?
>
> I think that whole hard disc section needs to be moved out of the main
> instructions into an "optional enhancements" section, as it is all
> rather complicated and completely unnecessary for most users. Stick
> with the 50MB hard disc image for !Boot and apps, and stick all your
> data in hostfs. Easy.

I like the thought.

However I also note that with all the Choices and browser junk and scrap
the !Boot on my VARPC has crept up to 77 MB. So the hard disc on RPCemu
possibly needs to be as much as 200 MB. That said, with shifting things
to HostFS, !Boot is currently at 10 MB.

> > 10. While CDROM works here, it aborts after copying a number of files; I
> > must try a different (RISC OS) CDROM.
>
> We didn't try this, as the EeePC doesn't have a CD drive!

Just tried to copy from (another) CDROM again and it bombed out at
around 14 MB.

> > 11. I look forward to the masterclass on installing networking.
>
> As noted, those bits are slightly wrong in the wiki. It does need to
> be a bit clearer about picking the correct network interface - we got
> that wrong during the demo.

Remarkably I have managed late last night to get the Interface to appear
within Configure. The result of this is that '*icconfig -a' now gives
the right response. But both PING and the last four commands to
establish communication over the gateway do not work though I recall
that this was where things came to a bit of a half on Monday night as
well.

> I'm hoping that all this discussion and interest in rpcemu will
> inspire some of the programmers out there to take up the challenge of
> making it even better. And ROOL to get the RISC OS 5 ROM image for it.

Thoroughly agreed. There seems to be lots of potential here, not to
mention also for getting it on the standard Ubuntu distribution which
could lead to very interesting results.

Has anyone seen the releases on putting Ubuntu on the latest ARM chips?

http://www.ubuntu.com/news/arm-linux

Tim Powys-Lybbe

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 5:36:35 AM11/20/08
to
In message of 20 Nov, David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:

> riscos.info is back again, this is what we have all been waiting for :-
>
> http://www.riscos.info/index.php/RPCEmu_Linux_Guide

And what I am waiting for is the informed update of this.

> I have been attempting to persuade rpcemu to network. This has not been
> entirely successful.
>
> The subject is more appropriate to csa.networking, I will start a thread
> soon.

The later news that you are up and running has me drooling. Please post
yesterday!

David Pitt

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 6:30:21 AM11/20/08
to
Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:

> In message of 20 Nov, David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > riscos.info is back again, this is what we have all been waiting for :-
> >
> > http://www.riscos.info/index.php/RPCEmu_Linux_Guide
>
> And what I am waiting for is the informed update of this.

The updates are just to install C libraries, libc6-dev. I had gcc organised
here before I started on rpcemu, a simple compile of a "Hello World" proves
GCC.

The other matter is the two 'sudo echo's that "can't possibly work", well
they didn't! I now find myself also in need of that informed update.

> > I have been attempting to persuade rpcemu to network. This has not been
> > entirely successful.
> >
> > The subject is more appropriate to csa.networking, I will start a thread
> > soon.
>
> The later news that you are up and running has me drooling. Please post
> yesterday!
>

One minute its up and running next minute its not. The setup did not survive
a restart, the port forwarding part went into reverse.

--
David Pitt

Theo Markettos

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 6:25:47 AM11/20/08
to
Bryan Hogan <sp...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> Just realised I don't know who wrote this guide! A big thank you to
> them.

Wiki user Dtanis, aka 'Gillian Seed'. mrseed@gmail if you want to give
feedback.

> Lucky the guide was still up Monday evening as I don't think any of us
> had thought to take a copy.

It's back up, though there are some other problems with riscos.info that
I've mailed Peter about (mail being one of them, wiki editing being
another). Peter, post here if you're reading this and don't get my email.

> > 6. Where to find Hform after downloading it and where to put it.

That will depend on what browser you use to download it. In Firefox clones
it's best to right click and 'Save link as...' so you know where it's going.
Perhaps the instructions could be simplified by using 'wget' so you know
where it goes, but you'd have to have that installed first.

> > 11. I look forward to the masterclass on installing networking.
>
> As noted, those bits are slightly wrong in the wiki. It does need to
> be a bit clearer about picking the correct network interface - we got
> that wrong during the demo.

That'll depend on your hardware and distro so it's difficult to generalise.
Some more explanation might help though.

> I'm hoping that all this discussion and interest in rpcemu will
> inspire some of the programmers out there to take up the challenge of
> making it even better. And ROOL to get the RISC OS 5 ROM image for it.

I think the minimal-work starter option would be a RISC OS 3.8 ROM image.
Most of the code for RPCs is there in riscosopen CVS, it's 'just' a case of
patching together various CVS tags to make a full build tree. And seeing
whether it works, of course!

Theo

Andrew Hodgkinson

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 6:47:37 AM11/20/08
to
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:

> I can't say about VARPC on Windows but can on a Mac. This has clear
> limitations, the greatest being the stiffing of the machine several
> times a day when using any form of text editor.

I use the Mac VirtualRPC with StrongARM emulation selected and it has its
problems, but the crashing you describe is not something I have ever
experienced on my installation. The implication is some kind of problem
with your machine or installation, e.g. a clashing piece of software
installed on the OS X side, faulty software actually installed within the
RISC OS VM, or perhaps hardware variations in your particular model which
give the emulator difficulties. It could even be a specific (modifier)
key sequence.

It may be worth trying Aaron for tech support. IMHO you should not assume
that this is just a "feature" of Mac version. For reference, I'm running
VRPC Adjust (OS 4.39) on a 2006 15" Macbook Pro.

--
TTFN, Andrew Hodgkinson
Find some electronic music at: Photos, wallpaper, software and more:
http://pond.org.uk/music.html http://pond.org.uk/

Tim Powys-Lybbe

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 9:40:17 AM11/20/08
to
In message of 20 Nov, Andrew Hodgkinson <ahod...@rowing.org.uk> wrote:

> Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
>
> > I can't say about VARPC on Windows but can on a Mac. This has clear
> > limitations, the greatest being the stiffing of the machine several
> > times a day when using any form of text editor.
>
> I use the Mac VirtualRPC with StrongARM emulation selected and it has its
> problems, but the crashing you describe is not something I have ever
> experienced on my installation.

Delighted to hear this as it gives me some hope that it can be conquered.

> The implication is some kind of problem with your machine or
> installation, e.g. a clashing piece of software installed on the OS X
> side, faulty software actually installed within the RISC OS VM, or
> perhaps hardware variations in your particular model which give the
> emulator difficulties.

Agreed. For these sort of reasons I have long since disabled all the
little pieces of nifty utilities that I had been using. None of this
made any difference. (Perhaps this is why all utilities fail as they
all get deleted at some stage when bottoming out some intermittent
problem.)

> It could even be a specific (modifier) key sequence.

Not when it stiffed the keyboard as I started the first version of this
response.

The keyboard can be stiffed while using any of StrongEd, Messenger's
internal editor, TechWrite or OPro. Curiously the mouse keeps working
so enabling a save and shut-down and then restart. Sometimes the whole
VARPC machine freezes, but this may be some other cause.

> It may be worth trying Aaron for tech support.

Quite but if he can't reproduce it, he cannot solve the problem which I
have reported twice now.

> IMHO you should not assume that this is just a "feature" of Mac
> version. For reference, I'm running VRPC Adjust (OS 4.39) on a 2006
> 15" Macbook Pro.

Same VARPC Adjust and the Mac Pro is on OS 10.5.5 on Intel processors.

Timothy Baldwin

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 1:34:40 PM11/20/08
to
In message <mpro.kamqml00...@pittdj.co.uk>, David Pitt
<ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:

> The other matter is the two 'sudo echo's that "can't possibly work", well
> they didn't! I now find myself also in need of that informed update.

sudo sh -c "echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward"
sudo sh -c "echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_dynaddr"

would do what is intended.

www.riscos.info gives me database errors if I try to edit it.

Message has been deleted

Dave Symes

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 2:28:49 PM11/20/08
to
In article <50ffff7ca8i...@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
Paul Vigay <invali...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <50c65f00...@lakeview.demon.co.uk>,
> David R Lane <D_L...@Lakeview.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> > So we don't need to bother with VRPC with all those worries about
> > viruses and insecurities that come with Microsoft Windows and having to
> > pay the Bill Gates tax into the bargain, we can fly with RPCemu on
> > Linux. Plus, it's all free.

> Hear hear!

> There's definitely no reason to get VRPC now. I've not tried putting it
> on the Eee yet, but it runs quite nicely on my Ubuntu laptop.

Mmnn!
As a user of RO native on a SARPC, MS-Windows and VRPC on a Laptop, I've
been attempting to follow this thread but have some difficulty with two
things.

1) Putting aside the personal prejudice that many of you have about
Gatesware, what is so great about Linux?

2) Reading this thread, and the shenanigans required to install RPCemu,
which sometimes works and often doesn't, or so it appears, what is so
alluring about this painful process?

It's not like you can shove a CD in the machine and install the thing
complete easy peasy... More like a banging your head on the wall exercise.

I can understand if you like 'messin' about with computers a lot, it could
be interesting, but if you just want to switch the damn thing on, and get
on with a mountain of work, what is so wrong with VRPC?

Aside from one particular thing, VRPC works very well.

Dave S

--

Ste (news)

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 3:39:57 PM11/20/08
to
In article <5001563...@triffid.co.uk>,

Dave Symes <da...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
> It's not like you can shove a CD in the machine and install the thing
> complete easy peasy... More like a banging your head on the wall exercise.
>
> I can understand if you like 'messin' about with computers a lot, it could
> be interesting, but if you just want to switch the damn thing on, and get
> on with a mountain of work, what is so wrong with VRPC?
>
> Aside from one particular thing, VRPC works very well.

This heightened interest is only a good thing for RPCemu - the more people
who get involved in using it and improving it, the more likely we will be to
have a full Debian package containing the whole shebang. Then, you'd just
need to type one command on the command line to install it (or do it using
the GUI package manager).

Ideally, we'd have a load of third party applications pre-installed on the
hard disc image (like NetSurf to name but one) and a reasonably up-to-date
version of the OS, too.

Given time, someone might actually be able to do this.

And if people try RPCemu and like the idea but find it isn't sufficiently
stable, it may at least whet their appetite to buy a copy of VirtualAcorn
(or, shock of shocks, contribute to improving RPCemu).

Steve

--
Steve Revill @ Home
Note: All opinions expressed herein are my own.

Theo Markettos

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 3:51:15 PM11/20/08
to
Paul Vigay <invali...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm now getting an additional error part way through the .configure
> process, in that it aborts with an error saying the C compiler is unable to
> create executables. This is a new one on me, as it compiled ok when I tried
> it previously.

Can you post a snippet of the output here?

Is this from a fresh copy, or one you tried to compile before?

Theo

Theo Markettos

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 3:49:37 PM11/20/08
to
Dave Symes <da...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
> 2) Reading this thread, and the shenanigans required to install RPCemu,
> which sometimes works and often doesn't, or so it appears, what is so
> alluring about this painful process?
>
> It's not like you can shove a CD in the machine and install the thing
> complete easy peasy... More like a banging your head on the wall exercise.

Bear in mind it's still under development. To use a bad car analogy, it's a
bit like Ford releasing their latest concept car to enthusiasts to play with
on the track. They're more interested in tweaking the fuel injection
timings - they're not going to complain that there's no radio.

But unlike Ford there's no money behind it, so for it to become a polished
model in the showroom the enthusiasts have to put the work in. You wouldn't
buy one of these for popping to the shops until it's polished, and you
aren't expected to.

> I can understand if you like 'messin' about with computers a lot, it could
> be interesting, but if you just want to switch the damn thing on, and get
> on with a mountain of work, what is so wrong with VRPC?

a) it costs
(just think of the guy on the newsgroups the other day who was interested in
RISC OS but put off by the cost for what he was told was a 'dying' OS)
b) it doesn't run on OSs other than Windows or Mac
c) it has annoying mouse and keyboard troubles (see my VRPC forsale thread)
d) you can't extend it or fix bugs. I reported bugs to VA 3 or 4 years ago
and AFAIK they still haven't been fixed.

> Aside from one particular thing, VRPC works very well.

Fair enough, it sounds like it does what you want. For me it's unusable.
Each to their own.

Theo

Paul Stewart

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 4:16:19 PM11/20/08
to
In message <jFz*yn...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> d) you can't extend it or fix bugs. I reported bugs to VA 3 or 4 years ago
> and AFAIK they still haven't been fixed.

Have you followed up these bugs with Virtual Acorn?

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

RISC OS Midlands Show 6th of December. Be there and be seen!
http://mug.riscos.org/show08/index.htm

Dave Symes

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 3:58:47 PM11/20/08
to
In article <50015cc...@revi11.plus.com>,

Ste (news) <st...@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
> In article <5001563...@triffid.co.uk>,
> Dave Symes <da...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:

[Snip a couple of questions]

> This heightened interest is only a good thing for RPCemu - the more
> people who get involved in using it and improving it, the more likely we
> will be to have a full Debian package containing the whole shebang.
> Then, you'd just need to type one command on the command line to install
> it (or do it using the GUI package manager).

> Ideally, we'd have a load of third party applications pre-installed on
> the hard disc image (like NetSurf to name but one) and a reasonably
> up-to-date version of the OS, too.

> Given time, someone might actually be able to do this.

> And if people try RPCemu and like the idea but find it isn't
> sufficiently stable, it may at least whet their appetite to buy a copy
> of VirtualAcorn (or, shock of shocks, contribute to improving RPCemu).

> Steve

Excellent, that sounds more like it.

Cheers
Dave S

--

Dave Symes

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 4:20:33 PM11/20/08
to
In article <jFz*yn...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,

Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Dave Symes <da...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:

[Snip questions]

> Bear in mind it's still under development. To use a bad car analogy,
> it's a bit like Ford releasing their latest concept car to enthusiasts
> to play with on the track. They're more interested in tweaking the fuel
> injection timings - they're not going to complain that there's no radio.

> But unlike Ford there's no money behind it, so for it to become a
> polished model in the showroom the enthusiasts have to put the work in.
> You wouldn't buy one of these for popping to the shops until it's
> polished, and you aren't expected to.

> > I can understand if you like 'messin' about with computers a lot, it
> > could be interesting, but if you just want to switch the damn thing
> > on, and get on with a mountain of work, what is so wrong with VRPC?

> a) it costs (just think of the guy on the newsgroups the other day who
> was interested in RISC OS but put off by the cost for what he was told
> was a 'dying' OS)

TANSTAAFL
It cost someone, whoever is the developer of RPCemu, his time.

If we believed half of the stuff that circulates about RISC OS, very few
of use would be here now.
Which reminds, I've just had my Select Sub renewal notice, and with the
downturn in business, can we afford to renew?

> b) it doesn't run on OSs other than Windows or Mac

Which again begs the question, what is so super-duper about Linux?

> c) it has annoying mouse and keyboard troubles (see my VRPC forsale
> thread)

Granted that is a legit bummer, and even annoys me.

> d) you can't extend it or fix bugs. I reported bugs to VA 3 or 4 years
> ago and AFAIK they still haven't been fixed.

Woukdn't know about that...

> > Aside from one particular thing, VRPC works very well.

> Fair enough, it sounds like it does what you want. For me it's
> unusable. Each to their own.

> Theo

Indeedy, quite so.
I just wanted a facsimile/clone of RO that worked on my Laptop when I'm
out and about, I don't have the time a present to play setting things up,
or have the install fail.

That said, I don't have a Linux computer either, as the few I've seen
among my computing enthusiast friends has left me unimpressed.

However, I guess it's good that the old Acorn development experiment
spirit still exist somewhere.

Cheers
Dave S

--

Chris Hughes

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 5:08:55 PM11/20/08
to
In message <50015e7...@triffid.co.uk>
Dave Symes <da...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:

>> Steve

And kills what's left of the commercial RISC OS market.

Please don't tell me it will expand the market because it will not. I
have been pushed more and more away from RISC OS over the past 18
months and it will not take much more to push me completely away.

--
Chris Hughes

Tim Powys-Lybbe

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 5:09:26 PM11/20/08
to
In message of 20 Nov, Timothy Baldwin
<T.E.Ba...@members.leeds.ac.uk> wrote:

> In message <mpro.kamqml00...@pittdj.co.uk>, David Pitt
> <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > The other matter is the two 'sudo echo's that "can't possibly work",
> > well they didn't! I now find myself also in need of that informed
> > update.
>
> sudo sh -c "echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward"
> sudo sh -c "echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_dynaddr"
>
> would do what is intended.

Thanks for that.

I have now done these commands in my Ubuntu virtual machine (under
VMWare on my Mac) and regrettably they do not lead to an internet link.
While I can ping 172.31.0.2, which is the RPCemu itself, Ping just bombs
out on 172.31.0.1 which should be the Ubuntu machine itself. Similarly
no contact via NetSurf.

The Ubuntu machine (32 bit version 8.10) can raise the internet and
Firefox works well on it.

druck

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 7:02:02 PM11/19/08
to
On 19 Nov 2008 Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:

> In message of 19 Nov, druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:

>> Virtual Acorn have sat back over the last few years waiting for
>> increasing x86 processor speeds to take the emulator over the level of
>> performance of the Risc PC, but the progress has slowed considerably
>> as it can't take any real advantage of multicore chips. There is
>> plenty of scope for an emulator, especially and open source one
>> running an open source RISC OS on top of an open source host OS, to
>> take emulation much further than under VRPC.

> Well I have just changed the Ubuntu environment to run 4 processors (of
> 8) instead of 1 and to be in 1600 MBytes instead of 512. The Desk-Bogo
> test showed no improvement in RPCemu speed. As before I don't know what
> this means!

As RISC OS is a single threaded operating system, any emulation will
be doing most of the work on a single core. The other cores can be
utilised to some extent on operations that can run in parallel, such
as I/O and graphics operations. But you can't just wait for the GHz
these days, you've got to be cleverer and make more use of native
code.

---druck

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

druck

unread,
Nov 19, 2008, 7:04:42 PM11/19/08
to
On 19 Nov 2008 Paul Vigay <invali...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <5000a328b...@uwclub.net>,
> Richard Travers <rich...@uwclub.net> wrote:
>> Most are also free for Windows, too. The same programs (I use Open
>> Office, Skype, Scribus, Gimp etc etc on both PC and Eee). Personally I
>> would do neither photo-editing nor video-editing on the Eee - the small
>> screen (I have the 7") is a huge disadvantage.

> I agree - but that's just down to screen size of individual machines.
> There's nothing preventing people from putting high res monitors on Linux
> machines and running at higher resolutions, although I believe RPCemu only
> supports screen modes up to around 1280x1024 (I can't remember off-hand
> without firing up the laptop).

Which is exactly what the EEE will do when attached to an external
monitor via it's VGA port.

Dave Higton

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 5:35:35 PM11/20/08
to
In message <jFz*yn...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> Dave Symes <da...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I can understand if you like 'messin' about with computers a lot, it
> > could be interesting, but if you just want to switch the damn thing on,
> > and get on with a mountain of work, what is so wrong with VRPC?
>
> a) it costs
> (just think of the guy on the newsgroups the other day who was interested
> in RISC OS but put off by the cost for what he was told was a 'dying' OS)
> b) it doesn't run on OSs other than Windows or Mac

> c) it has annoying mouseand keyboard troubles (see my VRPC forsale thread)


> d) you can't extend it or fix bugs. I reported bugs to VA 3 or 4 years
> ago and AFAIK they still haven't been fixed.

e) you can't access the parallel port via the proper SWIs (although
this won't be possible on the Eee either of course, for a different
reason)

Dave

Theo Markettos

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 5:35:42 PM11/20/08
to
Dave Symes <da...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <jFz*yn...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
> Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > a) it costs (just think of the guy on the newsgroups the other day who
> > was interested in RISC OS but put off by the cost for what he was told
> > was a 'dying' OS)
>
> TANSTAAFL
> It cost someone, whoever is the developer of RPCemu, his time.

Right, but many more users (potentially) see the benefit of that work.

> If we believed half of the stuff that circulates about RISC OS, very few
> of use would be here now.
> Which reminds, I've just had my Select Sub renewal notice, and with the
> downturn in business, can we afford to renew?
>
> > b) it doesn't run on OSs other than Windows or Mac
>
> Which again begs the question, what is so super-duper about Linux?

I have a Centrino 1.6GHz. It started with 256MB and now has 1.5GB RAM.
Windows still runs like a dog. It would sieze up and grind the disc for
minutes at a time. The mouse pointer would start jumping around. And once
I had more than a few windows open it would fail to redraw a window when I
switched, so I'd have to sit there waiting for it to catch up.

Linux's scheduler is better: even if an app takes 100% of CPU (as RPCEmu is
right now) the desktop continues to work just as smoothly. A few
applications still pause occasionally (yes, that means you Firefox) but they
don't stop you using other programs while they catch up. It only starts to
slow down when you run maybe 100 applications all wanting 100% of CPU.

There's also much reduced worries with viruses - I wouldn't touch a Windows
machine for anything where internet payments are involved.

It's easier than Windows to install things (this is Ubuntu). You just tell
it the name of the thing you want to install and, if it's in the distro, it
installs it all for you. And you don't have to worry about downloading a
trojanned copy. You don't ever have to go wandering around the web trying
to find the download page for whatever program it was you wanted. Of course
some bleeding edge things (like RPCEmu) aren't packaged, but that's what you
pay for being on the bleeding edge.

And when things go wrong Linux usually provides more diagnostic information.
For example, some of Windows' configuration may be greyed out. But you have
to bash your head against the wall as to _why_ it's greyed out and how you
fix it. The Linux command line will typically tell you why something won't
work when you try it. Though some commands still give cryptic error
messages, and the Linux GUI folks seem to think that imitating Windows
including its faults is a good idea.

> I just wanted a facsimile/clone of RO that worked on my Laptop when I'm
> out and about, I don't have the time a present to play setting things up,
> or have the install fail.

If we can sort a Debian/Ubuntu/whatever package, then installing RPCEmu on a
Linux machine should be just a few clicks - ideal for a netbook (where you
really don't care what the underlying OS is).

Theo

Ste (news)

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 5:49:50 PM11/20/08
to
In article <dde66401...@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,

Chris Hughes <ch...@mytardis.me.uk> wrote:
> And kills what's left of the commercial RISC OS market.

Would you care to elucidate to the rest of us just how it would manage that?
How would it kill Artworks and other commercial applications which are
currently available? How will it stop the non-existent new native RISC OS
hardware projects?

Also, just what sort of commercial 'market' are we talking about now anyway
- I find it hard to believe that there is a single software or hardware
developer left who can see sufficient commercial potential left for creating
a significant new product. Most can't even seem to finish their current
products.

Contrast that to providing a zero-cost platform to the 99.9% of the world's
computer-using public who _don't_ have native RISC OS hardware. They would
be able to give RISC OS a try - this includes all of those extremely
talented developers who've already left the platform precisely because they
don't have native hardware (but a number of them still hover nearby silently
watching).

If we could just attract a handful of new (or returning) enthusiastic and
skilled developers on a part time basis, we'd probably see more development
than we've seen in the last three years from all of the existing 'big'
commercial names. It's a long shot, I agree - but I'd be interested to hear
how not trying this would have a better end result.

Removing the cost barrier is essential to the future of RISC OS - people
from outside the current RISC OS market who are willing to pay either for
native hardware or an emulated solution will already have done so by now -
since neither of those have seen any new development for years.

druck

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 6:00:16 PM11/20/08
to
On 20 Nov 2008 Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:

> I think the minimal-work starter option would be a RISC OS 3.8 ROM image.

Not one with a hideously broken filecore I hope.

> Most of the code for RPCs is there in riscosopen CVS, it's 'just' a case of
> patching together various CVS tags to make a full build tree. And seeing
> whether it works, of course!

Or do you mean the pre-Iyonix RISC OS 5? I can't recall what Pace were
calling that.

druck

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 6:09:07 PM11/20/08
to
On 20 Nov 2008 Chris Hughes <ch...@mytardis.me.uk> wrote:
> And kills what's left of the commercial RISC OS market.

If you mean the hardware market, then that game has left town.

I don't see it affecting software much, as the few commercial
applications for which upgrades are being sold, are the things which
make people carry on using RISC OS, such as Artworks, and that people
will continue using on an emulator.

> Please don't tell me it will expand the market because it will not. I
> have been pushed more and more away from RISC OS over the past 18
> months and it will not take much more to push me completely away.

Nothing will expand the market now, but at least with an amulator you
can keep the ability to run RISC OS, even when you've ditched the
ancient hardware to make room on your desk.

druck

unread,
Nov 20, 2008, 6:34:04 PM11/20/08