Pace are under no obligation to let ROL have "their" 32-bit version of ROS.

Do you have any concept of how long it takes to write something as complex as an OS from scratch? Remember RISC OS is over 250MB of source code

and if you're going to do the port then, TBH, you're going to write a better OS than just port RISC OS otherwise you're not gaining very much.

Linux has been around for ages - it's easy to forget just how long (and how many) people have been working on it.

Ok, the poll system is probably very simple - only one option can be selected and no other user input. What are the maximum no. of options for the poll? If we know this, maybe we can suggest more sensible polls

Have a look here: http://bluebirdy.de/

We ask the visitors to tell us, what they think about RISC OS Select...

[Edited by Matthias at 11:40, 30/5/2001]

Ok, the poll system is probably very simple - only one option can be selected and no other user input.

What are the maximum no. of options for the poll? If we know this, maybe we can suggest more sensible polls

If Pace can do the 32-bit bit, why have ROL lost it?

ROL haven't lost anything. Pace are under no obligation to let ROL have "their" 32-bit version of ROS. What bothers me about the announcement is that it seems 32-bit compatibility is no longer a priority. Two years ago when ROL was established it was but the announcement suggests that no work has been done on it.

I am under no illusions that ROL do NOT currently have the resources to make the necessary alterations to RISC OS. In this respect the announcement makes sense, although it does mean that, for me anyway, there isn't really anything worth buying right now.

The Unix flavour I was thinking of is GNU/Linux - it was written from scratch in C, so why not a verwsion of RiscOS too.

Do you have any concept of how long it takes to write something as complex as an OS from scratch? Remember RISC OS is over 250MB of source code and if you're going to do the port then, TBH, you're going to write a better OS than just port RISC OS otherwise you're not gaining very much.

Linux has been around for ages - it's easy to forget just how long (and how many) people have been working on it.

Ok, the poll system is probably very simple - only one option can be selected and no other user input.

That's because it's a poll, not a census form!

Sorry, this wasn't supposed to be a critisism - just an assumption about the system just so there's something to work from.

What are the maximum no. of options for the poll? If we know this, maybe we can suggest more sensible polls

Basically, keep it simple. Polls are supposed to be a list of options, and ONE option is selected from it, not something that requires Spearman's Rank Correlation to get any sensible data out of it!

Ok, here's one:
What RISC OS programming languages do you know?
- Assembler
- Basic
- C/C++
- 2 or more of the above
- None

An increase in instruction size does not necessarily mean that the performance will be much faster at all. Intel's Itanium (one of the processors that will run 64bit windows) is not even clocked as fast as the current Pentia. It's hope that its VLIW architecture will allow a sufficient degree of paralellism to allow it to make up the difference (we will see).

Agreed. The only real reason Windows is going 64bit is because Intel are as well. Those of you who develop on Windows and have access to the MSDN will also know that the issues for Windows developers going to 64bit (especially across COM) are greater than those for RISC OS going to full 32bit addressing. The difference is of course that RISC OS relies significantly on ARM code applications which are difficult to alter.

MS will have to keep the Win32 API for compatibility - in fact it wouldn't surprise me if Win64 is built on Win32. Hence the OS gets bigger and slower.

I think Itanium optimised apps will go faster than Pentium apps. The problem is that it'll take a little while for compilers to catch up (although I believe MS are actually ahead of the game for once).

Windows has (in actual fact) being getting SLOWER over the years so more and more powerful processors have been required to keep it running adequately. What performance increases Intel/AMD give in one hand I am sure Microsoft will take away in the other.

Exactly. I was discussing this with a friend a while ago who was extrolling the virtues of his mega processor. I pointed out that, for all the effort expended by Intel and AMD, Windows doesn't feel any faster than it did back with 3.1. Ok the OS is significantly more complex but...

I would also point out that there are (and have been) 64 bit Unix OS implementations for sometime, so why the fuss over Windows only NOW approaching a point where it can run 64bit code. No one clamoured for 64 bit windows as the 32 bit one was crap and unstable - now it will simply become crap unstable and 64 bit.

Actually....WinNT and 2K are quite solid...if you know what you're doing

The only benefit of 64 bit is being able to process large volumes of data in memory (servers and large DBMS engines benefit from this). Those sort of users value stability and so far based on the 32 bit Windows experience that sort of stability has proven somewhat lacking.

Exactly. AIUI it's not really an issue for RISC OS. Consider why we want 32bit modes

a) Faster processors
b) Larger address space.

Now the reasons for option a) are obvious. For b) AIUI we should be able to do away with Dynamic Areas as we'll have a flat, 4gig address space. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.

btw, did u get my email 'bout CC??

Hold on a minute folks.

First off people have been prepared to pay deposits in advance for non-existant hardware like Omega. Perhaps ROL figured people might be prepared to stumpf up for RO's future development as well. After all even if Omega/Imago and something new from Castle were available NOW without an OS it wouldn't be worth a whole lot would it ?

Well Omega has had clouds of doubt above it - not anymore. It's still some way off but I wouldn't place the blame for this entirely at MDs door.

True without a an OS new hardware is useless. However the announcement suggests that there is going to be no OS - certainly not in any timescale worth waiting for.

As to 32 bit or not that is as much a hardware issue as a software one if RISC OS was 32 bit NOW there would be NO hardware able to run it to any great effect. I suspect the hardware is at least 6-12 months off (if Omega is out by Autumn 2001 I'd be surprised (I hope that's famous last words on my part!!!)).

Conversations I had at Wakefield suggest that hardware isn't really the problem.

If we want RISC OS we need to pay for it - full stop end of story. I, for one, am prepared to pay - simply because the alternatives (Windows and Linux) just don't appeal.

I'm not willing to continue paying out for something that I deem either not worthwhile or as having a very dodgy future. Having used windows everyday for the last three years I can honestly say that all it's "features" that people keep dredging up are no longer true. It's not perfect (and the UI isn't as good as RISC OS) but it's a hell of a lot better than many people in the RISC OS market are prepared to admit.

One thing for certain ROL would not be adopting this approach unless they had to, the way it was announced I think is where the real problem lay. The second issue was not turning up at Wakefield, this pill has to be sugar coated - simply ignoring the users and your potential customers is not good politics.

I think it was downright inconsiderate.

I strongly suggest ROL talk to people and do so soon, I accept that what they've done is necessary, but that having been said many don't and they need and MUST be talked to.

The announcement suggests that they aren't willing to talk to people - no phone support, no guarantee that emails will be read...