| |
Call for questions: All About Acorn |
| |
(12:47 12/11/2001)
andrew (13:32 12/11/2001)
Peter (13:41 12/11/2001)
arenaman (14:19 12/11/2001)
johnstlr (13:01 13/11/2001)
rich (17:19 13/11/2001)
andrew (10:05 14/11/2001)
ams (19:39 14/11/2001)
Matthias (14:31 15/11/2001)
flounder (21:41 12/11/2001)
lproven (13:58 15/6/2002)
|
| |
|
rich |
Message #2816, posted at 12:47, 12/11/2001 |
| Unregistered user
|
So, anyone got any questions for ex-Acorn staff? The best ones will be forwarded to our friendly ex-Acorn employee, and if necessary he'll ask his co-workers for the answers to anything he's stumped with. Please bear in mind that we're talking to someone who actually did the work, not decided policy, so no flames please; also it may not be possible to answer questions about policy decisions without incurring the wrath of his present employer. |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
andrew |
Message #2817, posted at 13:32, 12/11/2001, in reply to message #2816 |
| Unregistered user
|
Is there anything I could ask him which would potentially benefit games development?
[Edited by andrew at 13:48, 12/11/2001] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter |
Message #2818, posted at 13:41, 12/11/2001, in reply to message #2816 |
| Unregistered user
|
I would like to know how hard is it to produce a faster motherboard for the Rsc Pc and why he thinks it has not been done ? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
arenaman |
Message #2819, posted at 14:19, 12/11/2001, in reply to message #2818 |
| Unregistered user
|
Yeah, is it immensely difficult to create faster controller chips? Why haven't Castle etc done this? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
flounder |
Message #2820, posted at 21:41, 12/11/2001, in reply to message #2816 |
| Unregistered user
|
Suppose the usual question: Was there anything left at the back of a cupboard, that could have been useful? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
johnstlr |
Message #2821, posted at 13:01, 13/11/2001, in reply to message #2819 |
| Unregistered user
|
Yeah, is it immensely difficult to create faster controller chips? Maybe it's just difficult to produce improved versions of the IOMD and VIDC chips themselves.
Why haven't Castle etc done this?
Because it's not worthwhile producing a hardware solution to a software problem? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
rich |
Message #2822, posted at 17:19, 13/11/2001, in reply to message #2821 |
| Unregistered user
|
Maybe it's just difficult to produce improved versions of the IOMD and VIDC chips themselves. Chandler (IOMD2) was extremely expensive to develop. It basically /was/ the Phoebe project from what I've heard. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
andrew |
Message #2823, posted at 10:05, 14/11/2001, in reply to message #2822 |
| Unregistered user
|
'Chandler', why could they not use names of interesting people like Ozzy or Elvis ;-) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
ams |
Message #2824, posted at 19:39, 14/11/2001, in reply to message #2823 |
| Unregistered user
|
What happened to Gallileo (was it ever nearly done would it have allowed RISC OS apps to run on it ?) And (second bite of cherry) VIDC20 (apparently) was completed was IOMD2 nearly ready - would it be possible for the VHDL to be released for it (perhaps under non-disclosure) so that the task can be completed. I am assuming that the complete disinterest of its original owners should leave them feeling that they have nothing to loose by realising it. Is it possible to get full datasheets for the existing IOMD/VIDC or IOMD2 - perhaps if the functionality is known some open hardware alternative can be arrived at.
Thanks and regards
Annraoi |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Matthias |
Message #2825, posted at 14:31, 15/11/2001, in reply to message #2824 |
| Unregistered user
|
What happened to Gallileo (was it ever nearly done would it have allowed RISC OS apps to run on it ?)
...
Thanks and regardsAnnraoi This was a German project and had nothing to do with Acorn. The machine was never completed. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
lproven |
Message #2826, posted at 13:58, 15/6/2002, in reply to message #2816 |
| Unregistered user
|
OK, here are a few to be getting on with... :¬ First ones off the top of my head.Part of the reason that Phoebe never happened was the expense of developing the proprietary chips further. Was consideration given to just using as many industry-standard parts as possible (as Apple have done with recent PowerMacs) to keep costs down? Off the shelf graphics, sound etc. If so, why didn't it happen? Was RISC OS /deliberately/ tied to Acorn hardware as a strategic move? Was it ever considered to port RISC OS to non-Acorn ARM hardware, like the Psion machines? Do you think that had Acorn gone open, allowed clones etc., it might have survived? --
Liam P. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
