Two important pieces of RISC OS news have broken this week: firstly, RISC OS Ltd announced that they have been developing a 32-bit version of RISC OS. Secondly, Advantage Six have announced that they have built a series of machines for embedded / industrial use.
RISC OS as an OS previously only used 26 bits of the ARM chip; the other 6 bits were used for processor flags. This operating mode became obsolete with the SA110 chip; thus all newer ARM cores have separate processor flags. RISC OS has therefore had a problem with the development of new hardware.
For background, RISC OS split around four years ago with RISC OS Ltd being sold a head license agreement from Element 14 (later Pace), and Pace selling their rights to RISC OS off to Castle around 2 years ago. Pace in that time had already done work to produce a 32-bit version of the OS but development was primarily for their Set-top box market. Castle’s version is exclusively used on their Iyonix desktop machine.
RISC OS Ltd have arguably done a lot more work in improving and modernising their version of the OS for desktop use, but had not received the neccessary backing to produce a 32-bit version and the hardware abstraction required. Previously RISC OS Ltd’s version would only run on ‘legacy’ hardware; this has now been resolved and their developments may be used on a modern ARM system, paving the way for future development. It has yet to be announced whether RISC OS Ltd’s ‘Select’ version of their OS will run on the Iyonix.
The announcements over this week mean that now both versions will run on a modern ARM core. RISC OS may soon be useable in industrial / embedded situations.
www.drobe.co.uk carry both stories.
www.advantagesix.com for people interested in the new hardware.
Are you kidding me? Am I to assume that RISC OS was 16 bit untill now? Hello and welcome to last millenium!
I would have thought it was 32-bit, isn’t the ARM a 32-bit processor?
Read the article, RISC OS was 26 bits with the other 6 for flags.
“RISC OS as an OS previously only used 26 bits of the ARM chip; the other 6 bits were used for processor flag”
From what I remember the ARM processors RISC OS runs on have always been 32bit.
In fact, would’nt it be more intelligent to just skip over 32bit and head straight for 64bit?
>In fact, would’nt it be more intelligent to just skip over 32bit and head straight for 64bit?
RiscOS runs on ARM processors. There are no 64bit ARM processors…
Leo.
Welcome to the 90s RiscOS! 😉
Just out of curiosity, anybody here still use RiscOS? How about a review about it? I love weird little niche OSes.
If someone is still talking about RiscOS and still upgrading it, it must means that some people are using it.
Why? Lyonix PC are not that cheap. You can get an emachine for much less and run Linux or XP on it. And I would guess that any X86 CPU (32bits) are able to beat ARM in performance….
So it’s a weird OS used by «special» people….
What kind of people use this os? What is it’s purpose? In what areas/fields does it make sense to pick risc os over commodity desktop operating systems?
RiscOS has always been 32bit since 1987 – when the first version was called Arthur :
ARM processors have a 32 bits word size and a 32 bits data bus. RiscOS is an OS that has been specifically designed for ARM processors, and thus *is* 32bit, in common terms.
What was 26bit and is now 32bit, both in ARM processor and therefore in RiscOS, is the Program Counter register (PC). That means rougly that 64Mb of address space were directly addressable by the processor at any one time.
Since StrongARM (SA110) and ARM7, the PC is now 32 bits, but has a 26bit mode to ensure compatibility with already written software.
Until now, only a specific version of RiscOS was running in 32bits PC mode, though the main branch was still running in 26 PC mode, that was still available on ARM processors until the advent of ARM9 and XScale architectures.
The only exception to that is the the ability of certain ARM processors to operate in “Thumb” mode, where *external* data bus is handled as 16 bits, but registers are still 32 bits (even PC
: this to be able to produce low-footprint processors that can use economic 16bit memory, for embedded/mobile devices (see GBAs, telephones).
Renaud
For those who want a better idea of the 32bit issue, read this: http://www.riscos.info/32bit/
Licences: RISCOS Ltd were sold a licence to develop RISC OS for the desktop market. This is *not* the head licence (as this was retained by e14 and subsequently sold on to Pace). The head licence, along with all other RISC OS technology owned by Pace were sold to Castle in mid-2003.
Iyonix pricing: Yeah it’s expensive (welcome to a niche market). In terms of raw processing power, yes it has less than that of an x86 chip. However, RISC OS doesn’t run on an x86 chip.
Code branches: Arguably Castle’s source tree is the “main branch” (they own the head licence, after all).
As renuad writes “RiscOS has always been 32bit since 1”.
Am I the only one that see’s a contradiction to this article and what some have posted about it already being 32-bit. If it is then why the big news article on it, seems like it would be old news.
thanks, jmb
indeed, I should have said “original branch was still running in 26bit mode”, instead of “main branch …” ;
my wording was driven by historical reasons rather than commercial ones.
I’m afraid justifications about who-owns-what appear off-topic here, as the main goal of our interventions in this forum is to put the right light, on a technical point of view, on an OS we both using every day.
However, many thousands of dedicated users across the world use RISC OS daily in order to do their work free from Microsoft unreliability, free from Mac OS limitations and free from Linux confusion.
Microsoft unreliability : Yeah right, welcome to 2004, stop using Windows 3.1 and install XP. XP is a very good and stable OS. Virus? ActiveX? Yes, they do exist, you have to protect your PC from them. Why only Windows? Because it’s the most used OS and it’s more fun to program crap virus/trojan/spyware to annoy 98% of the marketshare.
free from Mac OS limitations : Limitations? Please explain, mabe OS X does not have the same amount of software that Windows enjoy but everything important is there. Games may be the only limitation of OS X.
free from Linux confusion : Have you tried Lycoris? Linspire? Xandros? They are very good Desktop Linux OS that can be used by anybody with a clue about PC and OS.
That comment was full of empty air…. Please, give some real reason why someone would want to use RiscOS and pay more to get a Lyonix PC… What is the motivation? Darn! Even BeOS seem to have a bigger userbase!
RiscOS is embedded OS….almost exclusively used with Intel StrongArm embedded processor and is used for embedded devices and pda and handheld game machine…
So, for ordinary PC users….it’s just nothing but a some interesting story. No big thing for us.
RISC OS was designed as a general purpose desktop OS and it’s main market in the 80s/90s was in British Schools. I’m pretty sure that there aren’t any PDAs and handheld games machines that use RISC OS and I’ve never heard of any other embedded devices that use it. The main people using RISC OS today are dedicated RISC OS fans, the same kind of people who have stuck with the Amiga and Atari.
Personally I think that RISC OS is still a very fine desktop OS as long as you’re happy with it’s limited selection of software. You can still use it for professional quality digital imaging and desktop publishing, TechWriter is still one of the best word processors around. RISC OS lacks memory protection and preemptive multitasking so the underlying OS is a bit primitive. But it’s one of the most elegant and user friendly operating systems around, IMO the user interface is far better than Windows XP or any Linux GUI.
RISC OS tends to be used because people like the GUI which is highly productive – works with you rarher than against you. It is a niche market but you have to consider that, although most of the best GUi developments in Windows appear to have been taken from RISC OS, many of the very best ideas have been ignored.
The OS was designed together with the original ARM processors by Acorn so even though ARM & XScale are now used elsewhere they are not inappropriate processors for RISC OS ie they were quite literally made for one another.
Of course that does mean that you can run a desktop computer on the sort of power that PCs chuck out as waste heat!
so.. much.. stupidity…
anyways, I’m a proud owner of a risc pc 700 and a happy risc os 3.7 user. I plan on doing some upgrades later but for now my 37mhz(yes, 37mhz) arm 710, 48mb of ram and a 500mb hdd is plenty. the os runs very fast on this hardware. Heck it’ll multitask as well as any newer os in 4mb of ram with a 20mhz arm2 cpu. And I’m sick of comments like ‘why would you use this instead of <random windows or *nix>?’ or ‘why not use <crappy comodity hardware>?’ . Its all settled with this little phrase..
If you have to ask “Why?” then your not part of the target market.
Just food for thought….
A system that will up and run for weeks/months on end without any “assistance” from the user is a very positive thing to look for.
I run 2K Pro due to stability. XP can not handle/stay stable in the “enviroment” that I have to put it in. BeOS is/was an extremely good OS that got beat to death by others before it was given a chance to get out of the starting blocks.
I like the “feel” of the “niche” OS’s, but I am part of that group that likes to be able to use my system at any given time and accomplish what I started out to do.
I also run OSX and have no major complaints about it. It is stable, even doing video production work (just like a MAC should be), and you couldn’t ask for more graphics software than what is out there for it now.
The thing that gets all parties stirred up here is that the “developers” are going up against the “users” (of which many have not done their homework). My clients come to me because I give them the best options for their needs. What I keep seeing/hearing here is folks that know their world and those that are dangerous in the world of OS’s.
And for those of you that think I am nuts, just remember something……
These “niche” guys are the same folks/type of folks that have developed the OS’s that you are so dogmatic about being the best and grandest! I say these things being an individual that works with 95, 98, 98SE, 2K Pro, XP, OS-X, 9.2, WinCE, Palm, PPC, BeOS, RISC OS just to name a few. If we don’t use them currently, we have/do use them, because they all have their place.
This is food for thought for everyone.
Well, RiscOS may be an alternative OS fun for the hardcore fan but it can’t beat other alternative OS that use plain x86 CPU and normal PC hardware. Nothing costly to buy.
That goes for Pegasos / MorphOS and AmigaOS. Nice alternative OS that cost arms and legs to own because of the hardware.
I’ll try SkyOS, Syllable or even haiku before RiscOS.
You can buy a second hand risc pc 600/700 off ebay for under 100 usd most of the time. Usually comes with os3.7 and a decent ammount of ram. You can upgrade the OS, your ram and get a strongarm cpu later on if you need to.. It’s no more expensive than getting new parts for your x86 based machine….
The point is, I don’t need to get new parts for my x86 PC to use Linux, SkyOS, Syllable or any alternative OS that runs with x86 CPU. I allready have x86 PC at home, in fact, 2 of them.
And if everybody where using alternative OS, even Linux, upgrade cycle that we see would slow down dramaticaly. The need to upgrade is fueld by Microsoft bigger and bolder OS and Game developers.
..your loss.
From: ggg
However, many thousands of dedicated users across the world use RISC OS daily in order to do their work free from Microsoft unreliability, free from Mac OS limitations and free from Linux confusion.
Note to all: That’s actually a direct quote of RiscOS promotional material, here:
http://www.riscos.org/riscos/intro9.html
The high school I attended from 1994 – 1997 had a lab full of Acorn boxes. They were used primarily for DTP and imaging work, and were a refreshing change from the other ‘main’ lab running Windows 3.11. I and many others worked on the school newsletter, and in my final year the yearbook, on those boxes.
I found RiscOS to be stable (unlike Windows 3.11), quick (again, unlike Windows 3.11), and have a pleasant, useful interface that was also aesthetically appealing (again, unlike… well you know ;-). I judged these things not only against Windows 3.11, but against my background of using MacOS at home. I think I still have a “RiscOS formatted” diskette around somewhere.
Given the newfound ‘spirit’ of collaboration an cooperation between former ‘enemies’ in the RiscOS world, I’m hopeful that this OS – which can do desktop work along with the best of them given half a chance – can be modernised ‘under the hood’, and run on more modern hardware. These items of news are part of that process, which is why they’re important.
Given some time, RiscOS could be a real contender in some sectors. I wouldn’t watch it closely, but I’d keep an open mind (as opposed to running a duopoly line – “Windows or Linux; that’s all”).
Yawn. Typical OSNews commentary with people jumping in without even a token attempt to check things. Unfortunately, the article doesn’t really help.
Firstly, “untill, millenium, would’nt, see’s, etc” – please learn to spell.
Secondly, and for the umpteenth time, it’s “RISC OS” – “RiscOS” refers to something completely unrelated.
Thridly, ARM Procesors and RISC OS have always been 32-bit (since 1987/1998 depending exactly what you want to count). The “26bit” is a short hand refering to the operation of RISC OS in its use of the program counter on machines with ARM6/ARM7/StrongARM processors. RISC OS is not really 26-bit. The link jmb kindly pointed to on my web pages explains this in more detail.
Contrary to the title of the article, RISC OS in a form which uses the program counter in 32-bit has been available on the Iyonix (not “Lyonix”). This is the other branch of RISC OS developed by RISCOS Ltd.
“RiscOS (sic) is an embedded OS”. No, RISC OS is a desktop OS that happens to be well suited to some types of embedded enviroment – mostly due to size, efficiently and modularity.