"RISC OS is said to be used in set top boxes scattered across the world, and a mobile phone developer reportedly bought up a load of RISC OS 5 kit. But some applications of ROS are much closer to home. Martin Hansen reports on the growing use of RISC OS in the timber frame housing industry."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-10-08
"I do agree, there are some programs/operating systems that are around simply because people have invested in either learning or putting their data in it, and because it works."
Usually, it's the last one. Organisations like banks or finance administrations cannot jump on every new MICROS~1 train because they need reliable solutions that run 24:7 year by year.
"Right now there are more legacy systems out there than I think most people know about. At my old bank they bought all these brand new dells running windows, but what were they running? a custom dos app which communicated to some legacy machine(why they needed to clients I'm not sure)"
At my local bank (Sparda-Bank), they use modern PCs that run only one application: A 3270 terminal emulator. It communicates with the IBM mainframe (I think it's an AS/400 iSeries) in the basement. Of course, power consumption and maintenance operations would be less complicated if they used real 3270 terminals. :-)
"The point is however, that there is a glut of old machines where people can't/won't migrate, or because they like the current system and nothing out there does what they want."
This is correct for medical diagnostics, too, where SGI and Sun workstations (Sun Sparc and Ultra, SGI Indy and Octane) process image data provided by a MRT or PET monster. I've even seen a system running with NeXT machines used for testing and evaluation. This hardware and software is such expensive that you simply cannot exchange the system twice a year.
"I think its good to see someone running RISC OS however, I have always thought that utility of RISC OS is limited since its not x86."
This may be correct, but personally I like the using concepts of RISC OS, the way the GUI looks like and how you do communicate with it. So it's great to see that RISC OS is still alive - and it's being used in fact.
Member since:2005-08-13
I completely agree, before I got this mac, I used the ROX desktop. As I read the docs it was the first time I had every heard of RISC OS. Now, since it is the only experience I have has with anything that uses RISC OS concepts(that I know of at least) I don't know how true it is to what it is based on, but I know I like it. I speculate that I would have liked RISC OS as well. Unfortunately, It appears to have suffered the fate of many other only worse, since the hardware is fairly exotic(at least in the world of the desktop)
Member since:
2005-08-13
Is this it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix
I do agree, there are some programs/operating systems that are around simply because people have invested in either learning or putting their data in it, and because it works. I seem to recall a picture of a bus terminal(i think) running on a c64.
Right now there are more legacy systems out there than I think most people know about. At my old bank they bought all these brand new dells running windows, but what were they running? a custom dos app which communicated to some legacy machine(why they needed to clients I'm not sure) The point is however, that there is a glut of old machines where people can't/won't migrate, or because they like the current system and nothing out there does what they want.
I think its good to see someone running RISC OS however, I have always thought that utility of RISC OS is limited since its not x86. Personally, I wish the 6502 had evolved into our current systems(someone created a 32 bit machine a few years ago) however, we have to live with the x86 and that means to get much traction it means the OS should be able to run on them.
One example of this would be Apple migrating to x86. In one move they went from the PPC(which I personally feel is a superior design, in theory at least) to the x86 and instantly the machines gained a lot of utility. Now people who might have a few windows apps they need for work can run them without emulating the processor and thus might buy a mac because they don't have to maintain two different machines for work and personal use.
-Mike