In message <ap.244ee54eb9.a701a0a.m.con...@argonet.co.uk> <ATimbr...@aol.com> wrote:
> VirtualAcorn extends support to include Windows Vista
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
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:56:08 +0000, Jess Hampshire wrote: > In message <ap.244ee54eb9.a701a0a.m.con...@argonet.co.uk> > <ATimbr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> VirtualAcorn extends support to include Windows Vista
> 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).
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.
In message <5f7d67c04e.j...@itworkshop.invalid> Jess Hampshire <j...@itworkshop-nexus.net> wrote:
> In message <ap.244ee54eb9.a701a0a.m.con...@argonet.co.uk> > <ATimbr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> VirtualAcorn extends support to include Windows Vista
> Is the OS X version ever going to be released? If so is there a > timescale?
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.
On Mar 8, 2:56 pm, Jess Hampshire <j...@itworkshop-nexus.net> wrote:
> In message <ap.244ee54eb9.a701a0a.m.con...@argonet.co.uk> > <ATimbr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > VirtualAcorn extends support to include Windows Vista
> Is the OS X version ever going to be released? If so is there a > timescale?
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 :(
In message of 8 Mar, "Adam" <n...@snowstone.org.uk> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 2:56 pm, Jess Hampshire <j...@itworkshop-nexus.net> wrote: > > In message <ap.244ee54eb9.a701a0a.m.con...@argonet.co.uk> > > <ATimbr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > VirtualAcorn extends support to include Windows Vista
> > Is the OS X version ever going to be released? If so is there a > > timescale?
> 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 :(
I missed that - where did they state it?
-- Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
> In message <5f7d67c04e.j...@itworkshop.invalid> > Jess Hampshire <j...@itworkshop-nexus.net> wrote:
> > In message <ap.244ee54eb9.a701a0a.m.con...@argonet.co.uk> > > <ATimbr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> VirtualAcorn extends support to include Windows Vista
> > Is the OS X version ever going to be released? If so is there a > > timescale?
> 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.
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:
> In message <5f7d67c04e.j...@itworkshop.invalid> > Jess Hampshire <j...@itworkshop-nexus.net> wrote: > > Is the OS X version ever going to be released? If so is there a > > timescale?
[Snip]
> 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.
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.
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 18:04:42 +0000, druck wrote: > 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.
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.
In article <398b6ec04e.Jer...@pressxpress.co.uk>, Jeremy Brayshaw <jer...@brayshaw.org.uk> wrote: [Snippy]
> 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.)
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.
In article <4ec07c1388...@ukgateway.net>, Dave Symes <d...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> 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.
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:
> In message <ap.244ee54eb9.a701a0a.m.con...@argonet.co.uk> > <ATimbr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> VirtualAcorn extends support to include Windows Vista
> Is the OS X version ever going to be released? If so is there a > timescale?
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:-)
> On 8 Mar 2007 Jeremy Brayshaw <jer...@brayshaw.org.uk> wrote:
>> In message <5f7d67c04e.j...@itworkshop.invalid> >> Jess Hampshire <j...@itworkshop-nexus.net> wrote: >> > Is the OS X version ever going to be released? If so is there a >> > timescale?
> [Snip]
>> 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.
> 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.
Mmm - Sounds logical - but Aaron did tell me that the first release would be on the PowerPC versions. Which for the moment this suits me, but my son has his sights firmly on my current machine and wants me to upgrade to a newer intel machine.
In message <4ec07c1388...@ukgateway.net> Dave Symes <d...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> In article <398b6ec04e.Jer...@pressxpress.co.uk>, > Jeremy Brayshaw <jer...@brayshaw.org.uk> wrote: > [Snippy]
> > 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.)
> 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.
Can I be the awkward sod who says he's running a RiscPC-G4 network?
> In message <4ec07c1388...@ukgateway.net> > Dave Symes <d...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
>> In article <398b6ec04e.Jer...@pressxpress.co.uk>, >> Jeremy Brayshaw <jer...@brayshaw.org.uk> wrote: >> [Snippy]
>> > 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.)
>> 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.
> Can I be the awkward sod who says he's running a RiscPC-G4 network?
> In message <5f7d67c04e.j...@itworkshop.invalid> > Jess Hampshire <j...@itworkshop-nexus.net> wrote: > > In message <ap.244ee54eb9.a701a0a.m.con...@argonet.co.uk> > > <ATimbr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> VirtualAcorn extends support to include Windows Vista
> > Is the OS X version ever going to be released? If so is there a > > timescale? > 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.
Entirely agree, and with the benefit of hindsight, so might David Pilling.
But it /is/ hindsight, because prior to the most recent versions the Mac had a funny filesystem, and interworking with other computer systems (not only RISC OS) was a bit iffy by reputation, and it put people off.
[Snip]
> 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.
Again, entirely agree, though Macs are no longer astronomically priced, particularly if you can qualify for education pricing (got a student in the family??). The Mac market is rather like the Acorn market was back in the glory days; a lot of help and enthusiasm around. But the upswing has been /very/ recent; OS X with its rock-solid Unix foundation... the iPod effect... and now Intel for the much-needed speed boost. Nobody could have forecast all this, even 3 years ago.
> 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.
(Paul??)
VA isn't /ignoring/ Mac OS AFAIK; they bring a demonstrator version of VA on Mac OS to most shows these days (though like you, I am impatient for the finished product).
There is a downside of course, for RO developers. Mac OS X is really rather good, especially where RO is weakest, on the internet. Two first-rate free browsers, and no virus worries. Don't want to encourage desertion, do we--?
However with all its strengths, the Mac still doesn't have a DTP app as nice to use as OvnPro, AFAICS.
Gary
-- Gary Locock, Network Manager, Bablake Junior School Coundon Road, Coventry CV1 4AU School Website: http://www.bablakejs.co.uk Private mail: g a r y (at) l o c o c k . c o . u k
> In message <4ec07c1388...@ukgateway.net> > Dave Symes <d...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> > In article <398b6ec04e.Jer...@pressxpress.co.uk>, > > Jeremy Brayshaw <jer...@brayshaw.org.uk> wrote: > > [Snippy]
> > > 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.)
> > 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.
> Can I be the awkward sod who says he's running a RiscPC-G4 network?
Nothing awkward about such behaviour at all, there are at least two of use doing this. Though I have been known on the RISC OS display to have a window for Tiger and within that another window running a PC emulator; a dual screen config makes this very leisurely.
-- Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Rob Kendrick <n...@rjek.com> wrote: > 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.
Daniel Clarke has done most of the legwork to add Risc PC emulation to qemu: http://www.home.marutan.net/qemu/ The svn is a quite a bit further than that tarball, so ask peter@marutan if you want newer sources (where there's some VIDC output, unlike those on the above page)
The advantage of qemu is that it's a JIT and quite cross-platform (runs on x86, x86_64, PowerPC, SPARC, Alpha, etc CPUs and Windows, Linux, MacOS, Solaris, etc). It also has quite a lot of emulated hardware - full network support, including an internal Samba server to serve local filesystems, serial/parallel/floppy all implemented (just need wiring into the right places for the RPC emulation), USB (OHCI, not sure if this matches Simtec or Castle). I think it'd be fairly trivial to bring across RPCEmu's HostFS too.
Currently it gets as far as booting RISC OS and displaying an abort message. It looks like there's something wrong with either the timers or the CPU emulation - the 26 bit CPU model was written for this port so there's quite possibly something amiss, and there may still be holes in qemu's upstream 32 bit ARM emulation (RISC OS tends to use more varied instructions than ARM Linux does, which finds bugs not exercised by GCC's ARM output).
I had a look and found a few bugs, but ran out of time. If anyone wants help in understanding the code I'm happy to show them round.
I demand that Jeremy Brayshaw may or may not have written...
[snip]
> I also suspect that, if they are free to choose, most RO users will move to > MacOS rather than Windows for the same reason.
Or Linux rather than Mac OS.
[snip] -- | Darren Salt | d @ youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | nr. Ashington, | Toon | RISC OS, Linux | s zap,tartarus,org | Northumberland | Army | Let's keep the pound sterling
Darren Salt wrote: > I demand that Jeremy Brayshaw may or may not have written...
> [snip] >> I also suspect that, if they are free to choose, most RO users will move to >> MacOS rather than Windows for the same reason.
> Or Linux rather than Mac OS.
Well, maybe. Personally, I find Linux far to 'geeky' to use seriously. RO is logical and simple to use, whereas you need to have a degree in technical things to use Linux! (My opinion only, before all you Linux supporters have a go!)
In message <4ec0903b47garyn...@locock.co.uk> Gary Locock wrote:
> Jeremy Brayshaw wrote:
>> 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.
> (Paul??)
Oops, sorry - meant to say 'David' there.
> VA isn't /ignoring/ Mac OS AFAIK; they bring a demonstrator version of VA on > Mac OS to most shows these days (though like you, I am impatient for the > finished product).
But so much RO software has been promised and never actually materialises - Oregano3, Cino, Cineroma, etc. It's understandable, but very frustrating. I'm wondering if VA for Mac is also in this category - we've had tantalising tasters of each of these, inc. VA, but the 'track record' suggests we'll never see any of them completed.
I was publicly pilloried for daring to suggest, two years ago, that Cineroma would never appear. It hasn't. Will the same be true of VA for MacOS? VA on Mac may be regularly publicly demonstrated, but so was Oregano3 and that never became available.
I'm sure there are very good reasons for such software not appearing - I'm not arguing that point - but we can't ignore the fact that it is /not/ available, no matter how valid the reason.
> There is a downside of course, for RO developers. Mac OS X is really rather > good, especially where RO is weakest, on the internet. Two first-rate free > browsers, and no virus worries. Don't want to encourage desertion, do we--?
Well, if RO is lacking in important areas, and no developer can justify correcting that, it would be silly to continue to do without those facilities when they do exist on other systems. Nose, spite and face come to mind! If people switch to Mac, then they're lost to RO. But if VA on Mac appears sooner rather than later, those 'deserters' may just stick with RO, at least in part. If it appears 'later', I suspect those same people will have found other ways to achieve what they want on MacOS and won't go back to RO.
In article <635acac04e.Jer...@pressxpress.co.uk>, Jeremy Brayshaw <jer...@brayshaw.org.uk> wrote:
> Darren Salt wrote: > > I demand that Jeremy Brayshaw may or may not have > > written...
> > [snip] > >> I also suspect that, if they are free to choose, most RO > >> users will move to MacOS rather than Windows for the > >> same reason.
> > Or Linux rather than Mac OS. > Well, maybe. Personally, I find Linux far to 'geeky' to use > seriously. RO is logical and simple to use, whereas you > need to have a degree in technical things to use Linux! > (My opinion only, before all you Linux supporters have a > go!)
I thought that too and then discovered Ubuntu which works "out of the tin" and is designed for a non technical user... www.ubuntu.com
> I was publicly pilloried for daring to suggest, two years ago, that > Cineroma would never appear. It hasn't. Will the same be true of VA > for MacOS? VA on Mac may be regularly publicly demonstrated, but so > was Oregano3 and that never became available.
With all due respect to those who do use a Mac here, you are in the minority - perhaps too small a number to justify the continued development cost of VA for the Mac.
I suppose statistically, given the ratio of Mac users to PC users generally, the sale of a Mac VA would be several orders of magnitude less than that of the Windows version.
On Mar 9, 8:49?am, Jeremy Brayshaw <jer...@brayshaw.org.uk> wrote:
> But so much RO software has been promised and never actually > materialises - Oregano3, Cino, Cineroma, etc. It's understandable, but > very frustrating. I'm wondering if VA for Mac is also in this category > - we've had tantalising tasters of each of these, inc. VA, but the > 'track record' suggests we'll never see any of them completed.
I obviously can't comment on stuff being developed by others but I can comment on VRPC for Mac.
It has been delayed for a number of reasons. The main one being time. Both Graeme and I have been busy on other projects. Further delays have been caused because I haven't been very well.
The current test version is far more advanced than anything that's been seen in public. However I am not going to announce a release date until we are happy with it and it's gone through the QA test cycle. Currently there are still some things that need to be fixed/implimented.
> I was publicly pilloried for daring to suggest, two years ago, that > Cineroma would never appear. It hasn't. Will the same be true of VA > for MacOS? VA on Mac may be regularly publicly demonstrated, but so > was Oregano3 and that never became available.
We want to release the product. We've spent a lot of time and money on it ans when it's completed to our satisfaction it will be released.
In message <4ec0903b47garyn...@locock.co.uk> Gary Locock <garyn...@locock.co.uk> wrote:
> But it /is/ hindsight, because prior to the most recent versions the Mac had > a funny filesystem, and interworking with other computer systems (not only > RISC OS) was a bit iffy by reputation, and it put people off.
Prior to the current system the Mac wasn't actually very good. It had most of the weaknesses that RISC OS has, but wasn't very fast and had a poor user interface.
The good things it shared with RISC OS have were UI consistency, a simple structure (simpler than current RISC OS) and good filetyping. (All but the first now seriously diminished with OS X).
The current system looks superb, (And that *is* important, if I'm doing a task that doesn't benefit from RISC OS' user interface, then I'd prefer the aesthetics of a Mac while I work) and is very stable, certainly a good foundation for a virtual machine.
|
