Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Oct 2007 18:51 UTC, submitted by teigetje
RISC OS A flurry of RISC OS news today all crammed up into one item. There is a story on Java and RISC OS, a semi-announcement to a new source code release of RISC OS 5 by ROOL, and the Faraday medal for the man who designed the BBC Micro and ARM architecture - Professor Steve Furber. In addition, there is a piece on last week's news about the think tank Globalisation Institute's advice. The head of the organisation (who is a former RISC OS magazine journalist) seems to think unbundling RISC OS from the Iyonix is a possibility. Interestingly, the reports excludes Macintosh computers from unbundling. Update: The Intel Mac VirtualRiscPC beta has gone on sale.
Order by: Score:
hmmm
by poundsmack on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 04:54 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

the project interests me. but i mean its such an old code base. is it even modular enough to extent and update it or is just gona hit the brick wall win 9x hit and need to go to the next evolution?

Reply Score: 2

RE: hmmm
by torbenm on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 07:54 UTC in reply to "hmmm"
torbenm Member since:
2007-04-23

is it even modular enough to extend and update?


RISC OS is very modular and has been so from the start.

It still needs a lot of development before it covers all that Linux or Windows does. Especially device drivers are lacking, so you don't have as wide a selection of devices as you would on other platforms.

Reply Score: 1

really?
by Freebasen on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 10:02 UTC
Freebasen
Member since:
2006-01-11

Seems a tad on the expensive side I'd say. I'm not really familiar with the platform, but if version 6 is the newest, why is that not included?

Reply Score: 1

RE: really?
by flibble on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 10:22 UTC in reply to "really?"
flibble Member since:
2007-05-19

Freebasen: think Amiga like OS splits. The OS is developed by 2 different companies who hate each others guts. Version 0-3 were made by Acorn originally. Version 4 and 6 by one company (6 is just renumbered 4 to get them past the other group) produced and runs on some newer hardware and older hardware. Version 5 is made by a different company runs on a different set of newer hardware, it's v5 that's being opened up (a bit).

Two groups competing to be the king of the worlds smallest hill.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: really?
by Freebasen on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 21:20 UTC in reply to "RE: really?"
Freebasen Member since:
2006-01-11

Thanks for the info, that clears it up for me.

Reply Score: 1

the mac
by poundsmack on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 12:32 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

for these really nitch market OS's the mac's might be the best platform for them to work for. here is why. the mac is very exclusive hardware and you wouldnt only have to write upwards of 20 true device drivers. as opposed to the endless amount of genergic x86 boxes out there. the mac would allow them to get it working quickly and focus on the OS and not how many things can we make a driver for....

Reply Score: 2

RE: the mac
by flibble on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 12:48 UTC in reply to "the mac"
flibble Member since:
2007-05-19

The mac hardware is a very poor platform for porting risc os too, because large chucks of RISC OS are written in non-portable ARM assembler, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

The (not very) open license even goes as far as forbidding anyone to port it to non-ARM platforms.

Also, how open will Apple be with regards to hardware specs?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: the mac
by poundsmack on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 13:47 UTC in reply to "RE: the mac"
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

touche ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: the mac
by Kroc on Thu 4th Oct 2007 08:33 UTC in reply to "RE: the mac"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

The ARM code could be virtualised, even a G4 has more than enough grunt to do so

Reply Score: 2