In message <ap.244ee54eb9.a701a0a.m.con...@argonet.co.uk>
          <ATimbr...@aol.com> wrote:

Is the OS X version ever going to be released? If so is there a
timescale?

If I get to the position of having to use just a laptop, the chances
of it running windows natively are about the same as it running RISC
OS natively. It will be  Macbook, almost certainly. Windows in a
virtual machine if needed and RISC OS in another if available, (but
certainly not in a VM within a VM).

RISC OS has a great user interface and is very good for certain tasks,
however it is not good enough to be worth suffering windows for.

--
Jess               mailto:j...@itworkshop-nexus.net
                   sip:815...@draytel.org
   icq: 91353267   msn: phantasm...@hotmail.com    sms: 07891070734
         http://jess.itworkshop-nexus.net  Using RISC OS 5.11

I suspect the performance of Virtual Acorn would be pretty bloody nasty
when used inside something like VMware or Parallels, as neither provide
any support for the graphics acceleration that Virtual Acorn uses.

There's also an issue with the VM's JIT cache: JITing JITed code never
results in good performance, as it's a pain to cache.

B.

In message <5f7d67c04e.j...@itworkshop.invalid>
          Jess Hampshire <j...@itworkshop-nexus.net> wrote:

This is only my opinion, but it seems to me that RO developers seem to
target Windows users because of the sheer size of the userbase. I
think Ovation Pro has proved this is neither an advantage nor an easy
market to move in to. I suspect that Mac users are a far more willing
market, simply because they have the intelligence to choose the OS
they use based on features, and not on the 'everyone uses it so it
must be good' philosophy.

I also suspect that, if they are free to choose, most RO users will
move to MacOS rather than Windows for the same reason. (Not all have
that choice, of course.)

Therefore I am puzzled as to why there is such a reluctance for
'porting' (if that's the right word) RO software to Mac. I'd have
thought it would be logical (i.e more lucrative) to do that /before/
porting to Windows.

It's strange, and quite frustrating, to have some RO products on
Windows and not on Mac. Mac is a smaller market but with a bigger
willing customer base for such things.

So my plea to all active RO software authors is to consider the
motives of people buying a Mac, against those buying a Windows system.
Financially, it must be a better bet as most Mac users don't have cost
as the major reason for buying.

So, to my mind, both Aaron and Paul (VA and OPro) are missing huge
opportunities with their work by ignoring MacOS, and our loved RISC OS
suffers for it.

Jeremy.

--
Jeremy Brayshaw     <><

On Mar 8, 2:56 pm, Jess Hampshire <j...@itworkshop-nexus.net> wrote:

I don't know, but I wish they'd get on with it since they've stated
they're not going to do any development (e.g. fix the bugs) on the
Windows version until after the Mac version's done :(

Adam

In message of 8 Mar, "Adam" <n...@snowstone.org.uk> wrote:

I missed that - where did they state it?

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

In message of 8 Mar, Jeremy Brayshaw <jer...@brayshaw.org.uk> wrote:

Me too.

Might I add that I only bought a Mac because a program I had been using
on a PC was abandoned by its owners and development ceased.  But the
original program continued on a Mac and development continues, so I
bought, and migrated that activity to, a Mac.  I sometimes have to turn
the PC emulator on on the Mac but the PC here has not been turned on for
months now.

I will buy a VA for Mac tomorrow!

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

On 8 Mar 2007 Jeremy Brayshaw <jer...@brayshaw.org.uk> wrote:

[Snip]

The frustrating thing is the Virtual Risc PC *has* been ported to the Mac,
its just needs a smaller amount of work to finish the user interface and
release it.

It was first previewed on Mac on PowerPC so there was the issue of the JIT
needing to be ported to a different processor which was a big job, but now
MAC is on Intel this task has evaporated as the x86 JIT code can be used.

---druck

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

It's *quite* that simple - Both Apple and Microsoft are insane enough to
use bizarre (and rampantly differing) calling standards that might make
things tricky. Certainly though, you're right to suggest that it's
unlikely to be a lot of work.

There's a lot more to get working that just that though - things like
printing, and reliable host file system access etc need to be done as
well, and last time I asked anybody about this, this was precisely the
work that needed to be done.

I'm still hoping somebody will put the work into making RPCemu less
repugnant than it is, and adding a JIT to it, such that we have a nice
free alternative to use should ROOL ever actually manage to do anything.

B.

In article <398b6ec04e.Jer...@pressxpress.co.uk>,
   Jeremy Brayshaw <jer...@brayshaw.org.uk> wrote:
[Snippy]

Not so!
From what I gather, the majority (Though obviously not all) RO user who
like me, run a dual machine setup, are using a MS-Win machine to
compliment their RO machine.

And... If you have a version of VRPC installed on the Win-PC you have a
double advantage.

Dave S

--

In article <4ec07c1388...@ukgateway.net>,
   Dave Symes <d...@ukgateway.net> wrote:

I've never heard any compliments either way!

Or was that a typo?

John

--
John Williams, Wirral, Merseyside, UK - no attachments to these addresses!
Non-RISC OS posters change user to johnrwilliams or put 'risc' in subject
for reliable contact! Who is John Williams? http://www.picindex.info/author/

In message <5f7d67c04e.j...@itworkshop.invalid>
          Jess Hampshire <j...@itworkshop-nexus.net> wrote thus:

I hope so - been waiting ages for it to be released. However, when I
last asked Aaron (at the SE Show) he was very tight lipped about
possible dates (and quite rightly so). Still frustrating though,
although he did say development was continuing.

No doubt I shall be asking the same question at Wakefield:-)

--
Best Regards
Eddie