In message ,
Tony Williams wrote:

In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

Tony Williams wrote:
Plus a certain caution about having my means of earning
money totally reliant on later OS' from RISCOS Ltd.

I haven't bothered either.

A RO4 machine passed through my hands. I can't say
that I saw any significant improvements, nor did I
particularly like it.

Plus being a cheapskate.

Nothing wrong with not wanting the latest thing regardless.

It seems to me that the main thing that each new OS does is
consume yet more of the uP's horsepower. I paid for that
horsepower, it is *mine*, and I resent a fat+weak OS that
wastes much of it on doing the pretty bells and whistles.


Well, as far as I'm concerned (SA pre rev-T) RO4 actually provided some
small performance/speed benefits over RO3.7. I gather that if my SA was
a rev-T or later I'd have seen even more improvements. I like the F+
format (long names/small FAU) although the idea of keeping a drive map
in RAM is a bit odd to my mind (mine takes 1 meg)... but then it's never
(yet) been a problem, despite a few power-switch shutdowns. So, IME
only, a later OS certainly hasn't "consumed yet more of the uP's
horsepower".

OTOH, CLI - Arthur - RO2 - RO3.1 probably did.

To go back a few steps...

116 Messenger-Pro/2.61 (MsgServe/2.02) (RISC-OS/4.02) NewsHound


Is probably me and me alone.

Hwyl!

M.

--
Martin Angove (it's Cornish for "Smith") - ARM/Digital SA110 RPC
See the Aber Valley -- http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/abervalley.html
.... I was an atheist until I realised I was God.