Last month, I thought I left RISC OS. After 19 years of using Acorn or Acorn-derived computers, my love affair is no longer. I sit here writing this on my Mac Mini, and very happy I am with it too. My Iyonix lies abandoned - still sitting under the desk here, but not connected. And not actually used for some time. And it's weird - because, in some strange way, I thought I would be using RISC OS forever. In January 2005, I said: "There's people who annoy me on the RISC OS scene, and I still wouldn't think of leaving. The nice people more than cancel it out, and besides - I just couldn't really do without using RISC OS."
 
So what changed?

I first used an Acorn machine in 1987 (I was six!), when my Dad brought home a brand spanking new BBC Master 128. Cassette-only when we first got it, I spent many happy hours failing to win Seventh Star, learning BBC BASIC, and getting yelled at because the loading music of Ghouls was loud and annoying. Like many of today's RISC OS and ex-RISC OS users, playing around with Acorn's 8-bit machines were what got me interested in computing.
 
My next computer was in 1995, when I bought a Risc PC 700. I'd been aching for a 32-bit machine since I first read about the Archimedes in Acorn User. Believe it or not, I managed to pay for that machine using my paper round - after school and weekends every day, for two years, for £12 a week. We weren't a rich family - literally paying for it myself was the only way. I fell in love with that machine more than any other computer I've owned, and speak to most RISC OS users, and it's the same - their eyes glint when you mention the Risc PC. Such a beautiful machine.
 
Why have I given you this reasonably boring potted history? Well, quite apart from me being a self-obsessed arse - to try and paint the kind of person who I was; probably best described as an "interested user". I certainly wasn't a programmer (bar some dodgy RISC OS multitasking stuff that is long-lost on an old hard drive - oooh, a CD player, that's original), but I enjoyed mucking about with various things on the side. And I loved the machines partly for what they were - as well as for what I could do with them.
 
Finally, I finally got an Iyonix in the autumn of 2004. A machine I spent a considerable amount of money on. And yet, last month I finally lost my patience with RISC OS. Why?
 
At the South-East show in Guildford in 2004, Paul Middleton and Jack Lillingston stood in front of the crowd. They said that ROL and Castle had sorted out their differences, and that RISC OS 4 and RISC OS 5 were going to be merged. That ROL were going to concentrate on developing the desktop aspects of RISC OS, and Castle were going to concentrate on the hardware, and RISC OS for the STB market. Everyone was friends again.
 
This has not panned out.
 
Now, I don't know what happened. I have no idea. All I know is that the deal was gone back on. And here's the rub - we've heard nothing official about it at all. Rumours have flown around, but there's been no official statement from either company about what happened. Nothing. Now, as a user, I find it that simply insulting. In fact, I feel I was lied to.
 
Meanwhile, the forked OS goes on. We still have two competing USB stacks; we still have two HALs, and still we have two completely different 32-bit versions of RISC OS. All that dual effort, wasted. Who knows where we could be now, if all that effort had been put into different things? We'd still be in trouble, no doubt about it, but perhaps not quite so much. I simply don't buy the fact that competition in these circumstances is good. Competition is good when a market is at a certain level. The RISC OS market just isn't at the size where this kind of competition is helpful. If everyone had been working towards one goal, then I think we'd all be a lot better off. As it is, we've had over the past few years a huge duplication of effort. And the result is two versions of the operating system, that are going further and further apart. I can't see how this is helpful to anybody - it's completely pointless.
 
And the thing that really pushed me over the edge? This piece, in the RISC OS 6 FAQ:

Is there going to be a RISC OS 6 version for the Iyonix?
 
We have always been committed to providing RISC OS 4 (and now RISC OS 6) on all desktop RISC OS capable machines... The facts are however that our resources are limited, and priority has been given to working with partners who actively want RISC OS Select features on their products.

The thing is, I don't care whose fault all this is. It could be Castle's. It could be ROL's. It could be both. But we have a situation here where the two main companies promoting RISC OS can't work together, when this is desperately what is needed. I find it beyond pathetic. When what's needed is solutions to get RISC OS out of the mess that it's in, all we get is companies leap-frogging version numbers. Playground politics at its finest. It makes me not care whether RISC OS lives or dies - because I don't think the platform deserves to survive if the people in charge can't work together. You can afford that kind of indulgence when a platform is in great shape - or even when it's ticking over - but when you're in dire situation, you need everyone cooperating. There's just no evidence of this at all. And no, "OK, I won't sue you" does not constitute cooperation.
 
These were my thoughts, as I went through my temper tantrum. I do realise that a lot of people don't feel the forked nature of the OS is a problem. People who know a lot more technically than me think it's fine. What can I say - I disagree with you, for the reasons I give above. And I would point out to people who don't think that it's damaging RISC OS that Paul Middleton and Jack Lillingston think it's a problem - otherwise they wouldn't have attempted what they did in 2004 at Guildford. And yet, whilst I think it's a major problem, it's not actually why I left - at least, not directly.
 
Because the truth was - I'd already left. Two years ago. I just hadn't quite realised it. The situation I describe above made me angry enough to sever the emotional connection, but in practical terms, I was long gone anyway.
 
As I said, I bought my Iyonix at the end of 2004, intending to use it as my main machine. Not because I thought it was the most appropriate machine for me to buy, but simply because I wanted to support RISC OS. This was a big mistake - because it's been virtually unused. Oh, I've fired it up a bit to do the odd bit of graphics work, but to all intents and purposes, it was a waste of money. And the reason is simple - computing using RISC OS just got too difficult for me, for what I need to do. Browsing? Slow and frustrating. Getting screengrabs from DVDs? Impossible. Encoding MP3s? You're having a laugh. And much as I dislike Flash sites or Realplayer, would never use them for my own site, and appreciate the licensing and programming issues involved - it doesn't alter the fact that I have to be able to view them in my day-to-day life. My job is writing and developing websites - and whilst graphics are lovely to do on RISC OS, developing the kind of sites I have to do becomes a nightmare. The list goes on and on.
 
Of course, I do other things - write the odd letter, listen to MP3s, play Angband - all of which could be done on my Iyonix. But what's the point in swapping computers to do these tasks, when my Mac Mini can do them equally as well? Much as I love RISC OS, there has to be a reason for me to use it. I'm a sentimental bastard at the best of times, but I have my limits.
 
(Incidentally, I certainly don't mean to pour scorn on Peter Naulls' Firefox port, or the Netsurf guys. Both are impressive pieces of work, and both are good solutions for some RISC OS users. But not me, I'm afraid, considering the amount of web browsing I do, and the sites I visit, and the development work I need to do.)
 
I'm sitting here writing this on my Mac Mini. OS X is fine, but the GUI just isn't as nice as RISC OS. But it can do everything I need it to do, and pretty quickly and easily. And there's just a sense of fun around OS X that I haven't felt for RISC OS in a long time - in both development, and the general community feeling. And using it has become pretty much second nature to me, in a way that Windows never did.
 
I love RISC OS. I don't think I'll ever fall in love with a computing platform in quite the same way again. But love counts for nothing if you realise that, through no conscious choice, you've hardly used a computer you spent over a thousand pounds on. The only thing I still do on my Iyonix is vector graphics work - and that's only because I don't have the software on my Mac Mini. I may as well just sell my Iyonix and use the money to buy a decent package for OS X. It's almost certainly going on eBay in the next few weeks.
 
There was a time when I felt proud of my RISC OS machine. I'd show it off at the first opportunity. And there was a time when RISC OS and Acorn's machines were superior to anything else on the market - at least, for what I used them for. Now... I'm afraid my Iyonix just makes me feel vaguely embarrassed. How quickly a computer shuts down starts meaning less when you can't use it for your basic, day-to-day tasks.
 
How relevant the forked OS issue actually is to the apps situation is up for debate. I think there's a link; I'm sure others will disagree. But in the end, however that debate goes, the inarguable truth is - I've left RISC OS because it no longer does what I need it to do. And the same is true for many, many others.
 
I don't write this article because I want to cause a flamewar. (I'm sure I will be accused of this, but honestly - I'm not.) I don't write this article so everyone goes "Yeah, he's right. I'm leaving RISC OS immediately." Hell, I don't write this article because I have some vision that it will change things in any way. It clearly won't. I suppose part of the reason I've written it is as a kind of therapy. RISC OS has been part of my life for so long; to let it go is a wrench.
 
But... I don't know. I just thought, if I've left RISC OS, maybe I should say why. Just slipping away just means the userbase has one less user. In an odd way, I almost feel like I owe it to people to explain. To tell you why I left. Even though I'm of no importance whatsoever - I'm still one less user of RISC OS, and that's a bad thing for everyone left in the RISC OS market, because it's one less person spending money. I'm well aware that some people will simply see me as a whinging bastard who hasn't done much for RISC OS anyway; that's certainly their perogative. I wish I'd contributed more. But a platform can't survive on developers alone - you need the users too.
 
Of course, I'll still keep an eye on RISC OS land. I'm now a writer for The Icon Bar again, so it'd be a bit difficult for me to avoid it. But it'll be a bit like an old girlfriend, who you hang around on street corners watching, and stalk occasionally, before getting arrested, charged, and given a restraining order. You all know what I mean, yeah?
 
So, that's my story. Rather predictable, perhaps - but the truth, with no spin attached, and no interests to protect. If you're an ex-RISC OS user, what is it that made you stop using the platform? And if you're still a RISC OS user - what is it that makes you stay?