OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/18711/RISC_OS_and_Java_New_Source_Release_Close Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2013, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Wed, 22 May 2013 23:23:22 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif OSNews.com http://www.osnews.com hmmm http://www.osnews.com/thread?275813 http://www.osnews.com/thread?275813 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? Wed, 03 Oct 2007 04:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (poundsmack) Comments RE: hmmm http://www.osnews.com/thread?275830 http://www.osnews.com/thread?275830
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. Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (torbenm) Comments really? http://www.osnews.com/thread?275838 http://www.osnews.com/thread?275838 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? Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Freebasen) Comments RE: really? http://www.osnews.com/thread?275844 http://www.osnews.com/thread?275844 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. Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (flibble) Comments the mac http://www.osnews.com/thread?275865 http://www.osnews.com/thread?275865 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.... Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (poundsmack) Comments RE: the mac http://www.osnews.com/thread?275871 http://www.osnews.com/thread?275871 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? Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (flibble) Comments RE[2]: the mac http://www.osnews.com/thread?275880 http://www.osnews.com/thread?275880 touche ;) Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (poundsmack) Comments RE[2]: really? http://www.osnews.com/thread?275975 http://www.osnews.com/thread?275975 Thanks for the info, that clears it up for me. Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Freebasen) Comments RE[2]: the mac http://www.osnews.com/thread?276076 http://www.osnews.com/thread?276076 The ARM code could be virtualised, even a G4 has more than enough grunt to do so Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Kroc) Comments