On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:42:10 +0000, Chris Joseph wrote: >>As far as I can tell, nobody pre-announced what they were going to be >>doing, dear.
> No-one announced what they were going to be doing. But someone noticed > that "RISC OS Open Ltd" had been registered as a company and there was > a lot of speculation about what was going to happen.
And somehow putting the knowledge of their existence into the public domain isn't their fault?
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:20:08 +0000, Rob Kendrick wrote: > Tell me, is your rag as full as ill-researched, badly thought-out > irrelevant and patronising dross as your usenet postings are?
On second thoughts, I already know the answer to this - you once sent me a sample copy on the understanding that I'd subscribe if it wasn't awful.
I distinctly recall not subscribing, and feeling entirely honest and just in not doing so.
In article <pan.2007.03.20.16.20.08.154...@rjek.com>, Rob Kendrick <n...@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:08:54 +0000, John Cartmell wrote:
> > It doesn't work when you get both the fact and the reference wrong! ;-) > I'm trying to discover some content in this posting of yours, but so far > it has escaped me.
There is content, an appropriate reference of historical significance to a budding journalist (like the person the reply was made to), and a total absence of insults. Try the style for yourself.
-- John Cartmell j...@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
In message <1174312828.372547.258...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> "Ams" <a...@globalcafe.ie> wrote:
[snip]
> As to the delay in updates that is a matter for ROL and Ad6 - its not in > their interests to delay on this (so I'd expect things to progress overtime > - albeit perhaps not rapidly enough to keep you onboard).
Obviously not speaking officially for anyone, but it is clear to me that some things are progressing behind the scenes but I also appreciate that this means that to most people it appears that nothing is happening.
RISCOS Ltd. showed some important improvements at the recent South West show and it is clear that things are still progressing from conversations I had, but with the market resources such as they are, things don't always get the priorities that others want.
I for one am hanging around for a while yet. Wakefield will hopefully be quite interesting (no I don't have any inside knowledge about a product release at Wakefield or anything, but one can only hope).
In message <1174330710.185103.298...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> "Ams" <a...@globalcafe.ie> wrote:
[snip]
> It's not a problem in a general sense. However Rob I'd agree with you > that in this specific case it is (so yes I am partly wrong). With > limited resources can Castle be expected to support their compiler on > *all* current and previous hardware/OS combinations - especially on > hardware that they don't manufacture or support or on an OS that they > didn't write and which contributes nothing to their bottom line?
Does that mean you expect to see ROL release a compiler for software to run on the RISC OS 6 systems? Is that what you're saying or have I misunderstood?
But then again, the Castle stuff is aimed at Risc PCs too - running RISC OS 4.39 etc. I don't understand what you're trying to say above. I R Confused.
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:57:18 +0000, John Cartmell wrote: > In article <pan.2007.03.20.16.20.08.154...@rjek.com>, > Rob Kendrick <n...@rjek.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:08:54 +0000, John Cartmell wrote:
>> > It doesn't work when you get both the fact and the reference wrong! ;-)
>> I'm trying to discover some content in this posting of yours, but so far >> it has escaped me.
> There is content, an appropriate reference of historical significance to a > budding journalist (like the person the reply was made to),
This I find difficult to believe, unless you made a special edition just for me.
> and a total > absence of insults. > Try the style for yourself.
On 20 Mar, Rob Kendrick wrote in message <pan.2007.03.20.16.07.04.384...@rjek.com>:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:42:10 +0000, Chris Joseph wrote:
> > > As far as I can tell, nobody pre-announced what they were going to > > > be doing, dear.
> > No-one announced what they were going to be doing. But someone > > noticed that "RISC OS Open Ltd" had been registered as a company and > > there was a lot of speculation about what was going to happen.
> And somehow putting the knowledge of their existence into the public > domain isn't their fault?
Putting details into the public domain tends to be an unavoidable consequence of setting up a company.
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:21:06 +0000, Steve Fryatt wrote: > On 20 Mar, Rob Kendrick wrote in message > <pan.2007.03.20.16.07.04.384...@rjek.com>:
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:42:10 +0000, Chris Joseph wrote:
>> > > As far as I can tell, nobody pre-announced what they were going to >> > > be doing, dear.
>> > No-one announced what they were going to be doing. But someone >> > noticed that "RISC OS Open Ltd" had been registered as a company and >> > there was a lot of speculation about what was going to happen.
>> And somehow putting the knowledge of their existence into the public >> domain isn't their fault?
> Putting details into the public domain tends to be an unavoidable > consequence of setting up a company.
I refer to their timing exclusively. Given they've said they're doing all of this in their spare time, one assumes they didn't actually require a company registration as early as they acquired one, thus starting the speculation.
In article <4b7e99c64e.j...@itworkshop.invalid>, Jess <phantasm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In message <4ec6955dfbalan_cal...@orpheusmail.co.uk> > Alan Calder <alan_cal...@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote: > > True about the before but not sure about the after. Is XP really that > > bad? > It's vile. Though the fully patched versions now seem to work. (Just > in time for it to be dropped)
Well that your particular view, and of course you are quite entitled to have it.
My view OTOH is the opposite, I've been at the MS-Win trough since 3.11, through 95, 98, 98SE, XP and now Vista.
I've found XP to be the best of the lot so far, and if you think XP is Vile, wait until you get Vista... I can't think of a suitable pejorative for it, but there you go, some people are besotted by the floaty windows, the resource sucking stuff going on behind the scenes, and the awful nanny MS stuff that prevents you from doing this that and the other.
Best of all. If you purchase a machine with it pre installed, you do not get a system disk, or a recovery disk.
During the install, Vista pinches and hides a bit of your HD and puts the install files in that hidden partition.
So, if Vista throws a wobbly, the maintenance and repair engine can dip into that partition and do a repair.
Erm! But what if the HD goes belly up and you have to put in a new one... Your only copy of the Vista installer is on the dead HD... Oh dear, apparently MS haven't thought about that one... Whoops!
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:15:45 +0000, Dave Symes wrote: > My view OTOH is the opposite, I've been at the MS-Win trough since 3.11, > through 95, 98, 98SE, XP and now Vista.
> I've found XP to be the best of the lot so far
So, you've not use 2000 then? It's my favorite - it's NT except with features, and it's all tastefully done. It doesn't patronise you with wizards that don't let you set stuff up the way you want, either.
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:33:40 +0000, Paul Vigay wrote: > I registered Orpheus Internet at Companies House as soon as we'd decided on > the name, probably a few months before the first public announcement of > what we were up to.
Do you do much singing? Or is it a misspelling of Morpheus, and if so, do you do much sleeping? :)
