John Cartmell wrote:
In article , Grunff
wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:

I make no reference to what the market demands - but what is possible and
appropriate using html. There is nothing stopping you from producing
web-pages produced entirely of high quality graphics (including text),
and they will look the same on all browsers - but don't pretend that they
are appropriate for public consumption.

No one said anything about producing sites made up entirely of graphics.

If you don't the site looks different in different browsers and according to
the settings chosen by the user.

Not really. It's possible to create sites that appear essentially the
same across a wide range of browsers almost entirely in as HTML. Yes the
user has the ability to override any element of the display but that
that's not a bad thing and not default behaviour.

More sensibly, a good designer can create a PHP/CSS site that will look
identical or as close as matters across non-broken browsers, taking into
account known browser/platform peculiarities.

But then you cannot claim that the site 'looks the same or similar'
in all or most browsers.

I think your thinking about web design is rooted in Ye Olde Ages.

John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
If you want to stay close to the leading edge you don't in reality get
much choice no matter

With computers the problem now is that a monopoly supplier is telling you what
the leading edge is - and the direction you're travelling in is not your
choice anymore. You get more/faster and forget what you leave behind.

Untrue for many of us, there are still non Monopoly suppliers taking a
fresh look at where the leading edge is and should be. FWIW, RISCOS was
never at any leading edge it was a Johnny come Lately that failed. We
had a few RISCOS advocates at a company I worked at, and bless them they
all thought RISCOS was terribly new just because it was the the first
experience they had with a GUI, overlooking the fact that there had been
GUIs and better developed GUIs long before RISCOS and unsurprisingly
those same GUIs continue to flourish long after RISCOS has died the death.

John Cartmell wrote:

If you don't the site looks different in different browsers and according to
the settings chosen by the user. But then you cannot claim that the site
'looks the same or similar' in all or most browsers.


Your knowledge of the subject is simply not sufficient to have a
meaningful conversation about it.

--
Grunff

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:40:42 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

I know what my system will and will not do. If I wanted to play the latest
games I'd buy a games machine. What is *not* happening here - but does happen
with Windows machines - is the pernicious step of new applications (or
essential updates) being made available only for the new OS even where they
don't need the 'power' of the new OS. That's the ratchet that forces users to
buy new machines - and where they then find that old software doesn't work and
has to be re-purchased.

Bear in mind that it becomes increasingly more difficult (besides the
decreasing financial rewards) to maintain old software versions and
compatability.
At what point does a software vendor stop supporting W98 and ME,
remember that to be able to support these OSs you need one or more
boxes, maybe more with different configurations. It may not be easy
now to get boxes with the original W2000 installation.
If you are creating a device driver, firewall or other software with a
very close relation to the OS then the exact configuration can be very
important.

I create and sell Visio addons and stencils. I can still create
stencils for Visio 5 but having had only a handful of sales for Visio
5 so far this year it's no longer worth my while creating V5 versions
for new stencils. Occasionaly I get a request for a Visio 4 version.
Regretfully, I have to reply that I can't produce V4 versions and it's
not worth doing so: I would need to buy (secondhand) an appropriate
version of Visio, a new box on which to install it, physical space for
it etc, etc.


--
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd. http://www.pherber.com/
Electronics for Visio http://www.electronics.sandrila.co.uk/

On 14 Apr 2006 11:17:53 GMT, "Bob Eager" wrote:

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:04:06 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 14 Apr 2006 10:08:46 GMT, "Bob Eager" wrote:

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 09:45:18 UTC, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

I notice they do 'open systems' versions without a copy of Windows. But
you have to phone for that. Anyone know why they are so coy about those
prices?

See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10...l_linux_tough/
"Reg readers take the Dell 'Open-source PC' challenge"

Aha. I see. Thank you. It's all a con then!

Probably I'll get an IBM instead...at least last time they were happy to
sell me machines with no OS...

If they bundle Windows, that is the case...... :-)

Lats time they bundled nothing at all...and the time before..and the
time before. I fear it's changed, though..

So if they did this time, it would still be asymptotic to nothing at
all ;-)


--

..andy

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:53:49 +0100, Grunff wrote:

John Cartmell wrote:

If you don't the site looks different in different browsers and according to
the settings chosen by the user. But then you cannot claim that the site
'looks the same or similar' in all or most browsers.


Your knowledge of the subject is simply not sufficient to have a
meaningful conversation about it.

I have friends who are stuck in a cul-de-sac with Acorn computers.
Some of them will never forgive me for moving on to PC use. These
Acorn users seem to spend a lot of time desperately trying to
construct rational arguments as to why it's more intelligent to stick
with their obsolete technology, rather than to adopt "inferior"
systems.
It's like a religion with them and interestingly a lot of them are
practicing Christians, which is also quite an exclusive group too.
John Cartmell isn't a Christian though, he's a "Scientist". Different
banner, same shaky zealotry.
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the (EGG) to email me.

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 12:34:58 UTC, Stuart Noble
wrote:

So, how easy would it be to create a bootable CD for a home made
machine? I rather fancy a bit of colonic irrigation

What I do is make a floppy (could be a CD, but a floppy was quicker to
debug) that was a bootable, network capable DOS. Boot from that and use
DriveImage to image the hard disk to a server.

Then make a bootable CD containing the image and a copy of DriveImage.
Good basic, easy recovery CD.
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

Mike Halmarack wrote:

I have friends who are stuck in a cul-de-sac with Acorn computers.
Some of them will never forgive me for moving on to PC use. These
Acorn users seem to spend a lot of time desperately trying to
construct rational arguments as to why it's more intelligent to stick
with their obsolete technology, rather than to adopt "inferior"
systems.

Yes, I've met a few of them.

I've used RISC OS at various points in time, and while I appreciate the
exposure I've had to it, it isn't something I'd be tempted to look at now.


--
Grunff

Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 12:34:58 UTC, Stuart Noble
wrote:


So, how easy would it be to create a bootable CD for a home made
machine? I rather fancy a bit of colonic irrigation


What I do is make a floppy (could be a CD, but a floppy was quicker to
debug) that was a bootable, network capable DOS. Boot from that and use
DriveImage to image the hard disk to a server.

Then make a bootable CD containing the image and a copy of DriveImage.
Good basic, easy recovery CD.

The basic process is described ad nauseum on the web but it's just too
fiddly for novices. Download this, get hold of that etc. I can't believe
there isn't a user friendly utility that can put the essentials on a
bootable cd, and give you options as to what else it should include.

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:54:44 UTC, Stuart Noble
wrote:

What I do is make a floppy (could be a CD, but a floppy was quicker to
debug) that was a bootable, network capable DOS. Boot from that and use
DriveImage to image the hard disk to a server.

Then make a bootable CD containing the image and a copy of DriveImage.
Good basic, easy recovery CD.

The basic process is described ad nauseum on the web but it's just too
fiddly for novices. Download this, get hold of that etc. I can't believe
there isn't a user friendly utility that can put the essentials on a
bootable cd, and give you options as to what else it should include.

In my case it's my standard CD burning program. Copy the hard drive
image, the floppy image and the utility program all to the drive letter
assigned to the burner. Hit the Bootable button and hit Finalize. That's
it!
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

And the first corollary of Moore's Law is that software authors get more
and more lazy as a result and write less and less efficient code. Anyone
remember the Sinclair Z88? It had an operating system and Pipedream
(combined text processor, spreadsheet, database and comms package) in
12K (yes, that's a K not an M).

I was always in awe of the Chess program in 1k for the ZX81 that
actually played a game against you.

Interested to know what people think about recovery disks. I recently
sorted out a friend's Dixons PC, which was infected with all manner of
nasties. Put My Documents on to a cdrw, booted from the Dixons recovery
CD and the whole thing was running sweetly within the hour. Doing that
periodically seems like a simple maintenance schedule for any level of
user.
So, how easy would it be to create a bootable CD for a home made
machine? I rather fancy a bit of colonic irrigation

While I don`t have a bootable recovery disc for mine, I do keep my
emergency CD updated regularly with pretty much everything I list on my
site for keeping spyware and other assorted malware at bay.

One thing you end up doing by "flattening" a system to a bare install
again is to leave yourself open to the myriad of hacks patched since the
recovery CD was created.

In your friends case, did you simply reinstall and leave him to it, or
did you "harden" it a little to give him slightly more than a cat in
hells' chance of getting the patches before he got re-hacked ?

John Cartmell wrote:

In article , Grunff
wrote:

You clearly have very little idea of what the market demands.


I make no reference to what the market demands - but what is possible and
appropriate using html. There is nothing stopping you from producing web-pages
produced entirely of high quality graphics (including text), and they will

Many clients want sites that have high visual content and consistent
appearance across the major platforms. This does not imply that the site
will look the *same* on every platform, but it will retain its visual
integrity and display in a way appropriate for the platform. With
increasing use of small screen mobile devices this is becoming ever more
important.

If it doesn't render on AmigaDOS or riscOS they probably ain't too
bothered, but any version of IE, or any Gecko based engine from version
4 onward, will usually need to be catered for. Opera, etc are a bonus.

Any fool can achieve some of that with a large bitmap. Doing it all with
the maximum of efficiency, and minimum byte count is however requires
far more skill.

Many sites require lots of pixel perfect positioning of page elements,
and often identification of different platforms and the serving of
specific tailored pages for that platform. A real pro will be able to
have those bespoke browser specific versions generated on the fly from
the *same* source code, so as to keep the site maintainable.

None of this has anything to do with standards compliance. Also note
that in a world where the dominant browser is not compliant with those
standards, and in many cases will fail to display pages written to the
standard correctly, to claim that a page is OK because it validates is
complete nonsense.

look the same on all browsers - but don't pretend that they are appropriate
for public consumption. If a web-designer doesn't show his clients the
limitations - and possibilities - of web sites then they are prostituting
their 'profession'.

Well it looks like we will have to bow to your greater experience and
technical knowledge of web design then.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Cartmell wrote:

You are not really comparing like with like. Your old system is no longer
leading edge. If you thrust software on it that required 10 times the CPU
performance to even work, it would not hack it at anything approaching a
suitable speed. That was what Grunff was attempting to maintain.


I know what my system will and will not do. If I wanted to play the latest
games I'd buy a games machine. What is *not* happening here - but does happen

A "games machine" will run a tiny subset of the games that are
available. Many genres of game are simply not represented on them. Hence
if you want to run a large number of particular games you need a recent
PC with Win2K or later. End of discussion.

with Windows machines - is the pernicious step of new applications (or
essential updates) being made available only for the new OS even where they
don't need the 'power' of the new OS. That's the ratchet that forces users to
buy new machines - and where they then find that old software doesn't work and
has to be re-purchased.

I would say this is true for any platform that is currently be developed
aggressively. Supporting old software is a expensive process for any
developer. Unless the new users are prepared to pay ever increasing
prices for their software to support this activity, or existing users
are prepared to pay for maintenance, then this is the way is has to be
(unless you can get the developers working for nothing).

If you want the productivity gains to be had from the latest version of
Photoshop and you currently run Win98, then you buy new hardware and OS.
The cost of the hardware and OS is irrelevant anyway when you compare it
to the thousands of man hours that you have invested in learning to get
the best from the application, and the hours of productivity you can
gain by being able to exploit the most recent developments. Sometimes it
really is only the result that matters and not how you get there.

I still use a 10 year old platform for email and other tasks. It does them
as well as it ever did and never suffers problems with the usual Wintel
malware but I can hardly claim it is in any way comparable to modern
hardware performance wise in spite of having a hugely efficient multi
tasking OS.


My hardware/software is comparable to 'modern' performance except in clearly
defined ways (speed/resolution). It makes working in parallel with new

i.e. it is not at all comparable unless you fix the criteria first...

machines easy and transitions comfortable. At the moment I'm switching between
4 machines with peer-to-peer networking, using the same monitor/keyboard/mouse
and moving applications and day-to-day working over to a beta status computer;
if I encounter problems I can slip back to the old machine at a second's
notice.

Yes and?

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Cartmell wrote:

With computers the problem now is that a monopoly supplier is telling you what
the leading edge is - and the direction you're travelling in is not your

The leading edge is defined by a vast legion of hardware and software
developers, most of whome have nothing to do with the usual suspects.

You buy yorself a copy "Doom Ultra 3D Son of the Sequal Part II", and
find it gets a frame rate of 3 fps and other online players keep
fragging you before you even see them move. Is this the fault of a
monopolist? Do you need a new OS to boost performance, quite possibly
no. Do you need Intel to sell you a better chip? probably not, there are
better alternatives for many gamers. Need a lower ping DSL connection?
or a better video card, do you need to go to Microsoft for them? Doubt it.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Stuart Noble wrote:

Isn't there some utility with a big numpty button saying, "create
bootable cd" to include OS, installed updates, address book, mail
folders and my docs? Slipstreaming and the rest are all too complicated
for the type of user that would benefit most.

Look at either Ghost or a virtualisation program then.

With ghost you can image a complete machine to a file. When you want to
restore to that known state, boot off the ghost CD and image the drive
from the file. That will deal with all user induced goofs, and all but
the most hardcore malware that bungs root kits into writeable bits of
flash on your motherboard.

If you want bombproof "go back to where I came from" technology, then
VMWare or one of the other technologies will do it.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
Grunff wrote:
Mike Halmarack wrote:

I have friends who are stuck in a cul-de-sac with Acorn computers.
Some of them will never forgive me for moving on to PC use. These
Acorn users seem to spend a lot of time desperately trying to
construct rational arguments as to why it's more intelligent to stick
with their obsolete technology, rather than to adopt "inferior"
systems.

Yes, I've met a few of them.

I've used RISC OS at various points in time, and while I appreciate the
exposure I've had to it, it isn't something I'd be tempted to look at now.

Then close your eyes. Most of the best of current computer development is
based on the sort of stuff developed by Acorn - not to mention the PVR
technology.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

Colin Wilson wrote:
Interested to know what people think about recovery disks. I recently
sorted out a friend's Dixons PC, which was infected with all manner of
nasties. Put My Documents on to a cdrw, booted from the Dixons recovery
CD and the whole thing was running sweetly within the hour. Doing that
periodically seems like a simple maintenance schedule for any level of
user.
So, how easy would it be to create a bootable CD for a home made
machine? I rather fancy a bit of colonic irrigation


While I don`t have a bootable recovery disc for mine, I do keep my
emergency CD updated regularly with pretty much everything I list on my
site for keeping spyware and other assorted malware at bay.

One thing you end up doing by "flattening" a system to a bare install
again is to leave yourself open to the myriad of hacks patched since the
recovery CD was created.

In your friends case, did you simply reinstall and leave him to it, or
did you "harden" it a little to give him slightly more than a cat in
hells' chance of getting the patches before he got re-hacked ?

Did him Zone Alarm, Spybot, Adaware, Thunderbird, Firefox and SP2, all
of which he has to reinstall each time but it's straightforward stuff,
even for a beginner.
He had a particularly nasty rogue dialer that ended up costing BT a few quid

Did him Zone Alarm, Spybot, Adaware, Thunderbird, Firefox and SP2, all
of which he has to reinstall each time but it's straightforward stuff,
even for a beginner.

OK... perhaps another to add to the list

SpywareBlaster http://www.javacoolsoftware.com

....it locks down loads of activex exploits.

In article . net,
Paul Herber wrote:
Bear in mind that it becomes increasingly more difficult (besides the
decreasing financial rewards) to maintain old software versions and
compatability.

This is particularly difficult where the OS supplier deliberately maximises
the incompatible versions in order to increase sales.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article , Steve Firth
wrote:
FWIW, RISCOS was never at any leading edge it was a Johnny come Lately
that failed.

Look at the first RISC OS desktop and the Microsoft equivalent of the same
date. Then come back here and retract your comment! ;-)

First consumer RISC computer, first multimedia computer, fastest most
efficient when released, fastest most efficient when RiscPC released, fastest
most efficient when StrongARM processor released for RiscPC.

Microsoft were always a million times better at marketing of course. ;-(

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

Colin Wilson wrote:
Did him Zone Alarm, Spybot, Adaware, Thunderbird, Firefox and SP2, all
of which he has to reinstall each time but it's straightforward stuff,
even for a beginner.


OK... perhaps another to add to the list

SpywareBlaster http://www.javacoolsoftware.com

...it locks down loads of activex exploits.

Yeah, I put that on as well. All the usual (free) suspects

John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
I think your thinking about web design is rooted in Ye Olde Ages.

No.
A web site in a public forum needs to be seen by those with the commonest,
latest, fastest, slowest machines across a range of platforms and a range of
browsers AND for those who have set up their systems to cope with a range of
visual disabilities - including partially sighted and blind AND for those
excluding facilities that they consider unnecessary and/or insecure AND those
accessing from public/company machines with other restrictions AND those using
mobile phone or similar technology AND much more.

Anyone who says they design a web site to look the same or similar across the
range don't know what they are doing. A designer who promises that for a
client is misleading them.

Thanks for the demonstration that you don't have a clue what you are
talking about.

John Cartmell wrote:
In article , Steve Firth
wrote:
FWIW, RISCOS was never at any leading edge it was a Johnny come Lately
that failed.

Look at the first RISC OS desktop and the Microsoft equivalent of the same
date. Then come back here and retract your comment! ;-)

Have a look at the Xerox Star, Lisa and Macintosh interfaces then come
back here and eat humble pie.

First consumer RISC computer,

No it wasn't.

first multimedia computer,

No, it wasn't.

fastest most efficient when released,

No,it wasn't.

fastest most efficient when RiscPC released, fastest
most efficient when StrongARM processor released for RiscPC.

Microsoft were always a million times better at marketing of course. ;-(

And there's one of your problems, you think that the only alternatives
were Acorn and Microsoft. Acorn couldn't design an interface even if
they read all of "Tog on Interface" which they clearly did not.

The best claim that can be made for RISCOS was that it was marginally
better than the BBC B. I can still recall the poor sods who used to come
to companies for interviews claiming to be "computer literate" because
they could use a Word Processor on a BBC B.

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article , Steve Firth
wrote:
FWIW, RISCOS was never at any leading edge it was a Johnny come Lately
that failed.

Look at the first RISC OS desktop and the Microsoft equivalent of the same
date. Then come back here and retract your comment! ;-)

Have a look at the Xerox Star, Lisa and Macintosh interfaces then come
back here and eat humble pie.

So how 'Johnny Come Lately' are you calling Microsoft's offering? ;-)

First consumer RISC computer,

No it wasn't.

Presumably you missed Apple's public apology after they made their false claim
in their adverts.

first multimedia computer,

No, it wasn't.

You could try suggesting one that was earlier.

fastest most efficient when released,

No,it wasn't.

Ditto

fastest most efficient when RiscPC released, fastest
most efficient when StrongARM processor released for RiscPC.

Microsoft were always a million times better at marketing of course. ;-(

And there's one of your problems, you think that the only alternatives
were Acorn and Microsoft.

I'll happily acknowledge all the others. I certainly have done in all my
teaching - and tend to be the only one even appreciating that anything outside
Microsoft exists.

[Snip gratuitous insult]

The best claim that can be made for RISCOS was that it was marginally
better than the BBC B.

RISC OS (not RISCOS). If you must be insulting (and wrong) at least get the
name right.

[Snip gratuitous insult]

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

John Cartmell wrote:

first multimedia computer,


No, it wasn't.


You could try suggesting one that was earlier.

Amiga, 1985


fastest most efficient when released,


No,it wasn't.


Ditto

See above.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 22:29:02 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

John Cartmell wrote:

first multimedia computer,


No, it wasn't.


You could try suggesting one that was earlier.

Amiga, 1985


fastest most efficient when released,


No,it wasn't.


Ditto

See above.

I don't think you realise what you're up against.
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the (EGG) to email me.

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 22:29:02 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

John Cartmell wrote:

first multimedia computer,


No, it wasn't.


You could try suggesting one that was earlier.

Amiga, 1985


fastest most efficient when released,


No,it wasn't.


Ditto

See above.


Xerox Alto 1973?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Alto

http://www.guidebookgallery.org/arti...oxaltocomputer


--

..andy

Andy Hall wrote:

Xerox Alto 1973?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Alto

http://www.guidebookgallery.org/arti...oxaltocomputer

It had the OS technology, but not the peripheral or software support to
really count as a multimedia platform (in the true sense of the word -
before PC architecture dumbed it down to meaning "has a CD ROM drive and
a sound card"). Things like Scala and Video Toaster defined a whole new
capability.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Cartmell wrote:
Grunff wrote:

[about computers that should be built to last 5-10 years but which reside
within a system that forces users to replace machines much more frequently to
the detriment of users' pockets and the environment]

Even so, each machine will only have a lifetime of 2-3 years.

In that case there is something badly wrong with the system.

Not at all, technology moves on. There's nothing inherently wrong with
the system, it's just 'old hat'.

I refresh my boxes every 2 - 3 years, usually with a new OS if
available. It doesn't help that I work in IT too, so my home box needs
to keep up with my work box.

Then all my castoffs cascade back down the family tree mine goes to
sister, sisters goes to dad, ending up with nephews and nieces who are
glad to get their hands on a 'pooter.

All recycled.

Cheers,

Paul (Pentium 4 1.8, 1Gb RAM)

Hmm, that's getting on a bit now too ...

John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article , Steve Firth
wrote:
FWIW, RISCOS was never at any leading edge it was a Johnny come Lately
that failed.
Look at the first RISC OS desktop and the Microsoft equivalent of the same
date. Then come back here and retract your comment! ;-)

Have a look at the Xerox Star, Lisa and Macintosh interfaces then come
back here and eat humble pie.

So how 'Johnny Come Lately' are you calling Microsoft's offering? ;-)

I don't give a bugger about Microsoft's offerings. And it's a peculiar
obsession of yours that any alternative to RISCOS can only be Micro$loth.

First consumer RISC computer,

No it wasn't.

Presumably you missed Apple's public apology after they made their false claim
in their adverts.

Presumably you know bugger all about the 6502?

first multimedia computer,

No, it wasn't.

You could try suggesting one that was earlier.

Arguably the first multimedia applications were created in Smalltalk,
commencing in 1983.

The Amiga was introduced in 1985 and is generally credited as the first
multimedia computer.

In 1986 Apple released Hypercard which integrated videodisc control into
MacOS (and incidentally predated Visual Basic as an easy software
construction toolkit with multimedia extensions).

Also in 1986 Authorware released the first multimedia authorising system
on any computer, "Course of Action" which was later renamed as
"Authorware" and which remains to this day *the* standard for authoring
multimedia content. It was released originally for the Macintosh and
later for the IBM PC.

In 1986 Apple launched the Mac SE which could be fitted with a RasterOps
Colourboard 264 giving full 24 bit colour, and the NuBus Macintosh II
which could also take a 24 bit display card. Both systems shipped over a
year before the first Archimedes systems.

The Archimedes didn't appear until late 1987 and could only offer 256
colour graphics compared to the 4096 of the Amiga and 16.7 million of
the Macintosh.

Apple Introduced QuickTime in 1989 and Acorn didn't appear to support
software video playback until 1984.

What you call "multimedia" was in truth simply videodisc transport control.


fastest most efficient when released,

No,it wasn't.

Ditto

The fastest most efficient computer at the time of release of the
Archimedes was the Ncube 10 which achieved 10 TIPS. The Macs of the time
managed 3.9 MIPS, Acorn claimed that Archimedes computers could manage 4
MIPS but never published any benchmarks to support the claim. Also the
version of Arthur released in 1987 would randomly delete files without
warning, Acorn actually placed stichers on A305 and A310S to warn of the
problem.

So hardly the most efficient computer available in 1987, was it?

fastest most efficient when RiscPC released, fastest
most efficient when StrongARM processor released for RiscPC.

Microsoft were always a million times better at marketing of course. ;-(

And there's one of your problems, you think that the only alternatives
were Acorn and Microsoft.

I'll happily acknowledge all the others. I certainly have done in all my
teaching - and tend to be the only one even appreciating that anything outside
Microsoft exists.

Which is why you've had such a fetish about M$ in this thread, eh?

[Snip gratuitous insult]

"Acorn couldn't design an interface even if they read all of "Tog on
Interface" which they clearly did not."

Is not " a gratuitous insult" it's a statement of fact.

The best claim that can be made for RISCOS was that it was marginally
better than the BBC B.

RISC OS (not RISCOS). If you must be insulting (and wrong) at least get the
name right.

[Snip gratuitous insult]

"The best claim that can be made for RISCOS was that it was marginally
better than the BBC B. I can still recall the poor sods who used to come
to companies for interviews claiming to be "computer literate" because
they could use a Word Processor on a BBC B. "


Is not " a gratuitous insult" it's a statement of fact.

In article , Steve Firth
wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article , Steve Firth
wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article , Steve Firth
wrote:
FWIW, RISCOS was never at any leading edge it was a Johnny come Lately
that failed.
Look at the first RISC OS desktop and the Microsoft equivalent of the
same date. Then come back here and retract your comment! ;-)

Have a look at the Xerox Star, Lisa and Macintosh interfaces then come
back here and eat humble pie.

So how 'Johnny Come Lately' are you calling Microsoft's offering? ;-)

I don't give a bugger about Microsoft's offerings. And it's a peculiar
obsession of yours that any alternative to RISCOS can only be Micro$loth.

First consumer RISC computer,

No it wasn't.

Presumably you missed Apple's public apology after they made their false
claim in their adverts.

Presumably you know bugger all about the 6502?

The 6502 (CISC - old architecture) chip was released the same year that the
first (IBM) project to design a RISC chip for desktop computers was started.
The IBM project was shelved but the Acorn project continued thanks to the
brilliance of its design team. The Acorn RISC computers were released in 1987
and were the first desktop computers running RISC. Previous RISC computers had
included the like of the Cray Supercomputers that cost a touch more than most
home users could afford! Apple advertised their Newton computer (1993) as
being the first RISC computer for home buyers having conveniently forgot that
they had not developed the technolgy on which it was based (ARM - Acorn RISC
Machine - processors) and that Acorn had not only developed the hardware (see
Steve Furber) but had also produced the operating system (see Sophie Wilson)
and had successfully marketed the product to home and education users as the
Archimedes desktop machines.

first multimedia computer,

No, it wasn't.

You could try suggesting one that was earlier.

Arguably the first multimedia applications were created in Smalltalk,
commencing in 1983.

The Amiga was introduced in 1985 and is generally credited as the first
multimedia computer.

And Bill Gates tried the same line in 1995. I think the Domesday system
actually came first - but it does depend on how you define the term.

The fastest most efficient computer at the time of release of the
Archimedes was the Ncube 10 which achieved 10 TIPS.

We were discussing home computers!

The Macs of the time managed 3.9 MIPS, Acorn claimed that Archimedes
computers could manage 4 MIPS

And the difference between CISC and RISC computers means that RISC computers
complete many more instructions per cycle than CISC computers. You appear to
be saying that the Archimedes were at least three times faster than the Macs
of the time. Or had you not appreciated that fact?


[Snip]

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

John Cartmell wrote:
In article , Steve Firth
wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article , Steve Firth
wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article , Steve Firth
wrote:
FWIW, RISCOS was never at any leading edge it was a Johnny come Lately
that failed.
Look at the first RISC OS desktop and the Microsoft equivalent of the
same date. Then come back here and retract your comment! ;-)
Have a look at the Xerox Star, Lisa and Macintosh interfaces then come
back here and eat humble pie.
So how 'Johnny Come Lately' are you calling Microsoft's offering? ;-)

I don't give a bugger about Microsoft's offerings. And it's a peculiar
obsession of yours that any alternative to RISCOS can only be Micro$loth.

First consumer RISC computer,
No it wasn't.
Presumably you missed Apple's public apology after they made their false
claim in their adverts.

Presumably you know bugger all about the 6502?

The 6502 (CISC - old architecture) chip was released the same year that the
first (IBM) project to design a RISC chip for desktop computers was started.
The IBM project was shelved but the Acorn project continued thanks to the
brilliance of its design team. The Acorn RISC computers were released in 1987
and were the first desktop computers running RISC. Previous RISC computers had
included the like of the Cray Supercomputers that cost a touch more than most
home users could afford! Apple advertised their Newton computer (1993) as
being the first RISC computer for home buyers having conveniently forgot that
they had not developed the technolgy on which it was based (ARM - Acorn RISC
Machine - processors) and that Acorn had not only developed the hardware (see
Steve Furber) but had also produced the operating system (see Sophie Wilson)
and had successfully marketed the product to home and education users as the
Archimedes desktop machines.


Oh looky cut and paste. The 6502 although considered a CISC chip was in
fact effectively a RISC chip and Acorn themselves used to brief that
their experience with the 6502 had convinced them that there was value
in RISC.

first multimedia computer,
No, it wasn't.
You could try suggesting one that was earlier.

Arguably the first multimedia applications were created in Smalltalk,
commencing in 1983.

The Amiga was introduced in 1985 and is generally credited as the first
multimedia computer.

And Bill Gates tried the same line in 1995. I think the Domesday system
actually came first - but it does depend on how you define the term.

Your obsession with Bill Gates is showing. You also snipped (without
marking the fact) the following:

"In 1986 Apple released Hypercard which integrated videodisc control
into MacOS (and incidentally predated Visual Basic as an easy software
construction toolkit with multimedia extensions).

Also in 1986 Authorware released the first multimedia authorising system
on any computer, "Course of Action" which was later renamed as
"Authorware" and which remains to this day *the* standard for authoring
multimedia content. It was released originally for the Macintosh and
later for the IBM PC.

In 1986 Apple launched the Mac SE which could be fitted with a RasterOps
Colourboard 264 giving full 24 bit colour, and the NuBus Macintosh II
which could also take a 24 bit display card. Both systems shipped over a
year before the first Archimedes systems.

The Archimedes didn't appear until late 1987 and could only offer 256
colour graphics compared to the 4096 of the Amiga and 16.7 million of
the Macintosh.

Apple Introduced QuickTime in 1989 and Acorn didn't appear to support
software video playback until 1984.

What you call "multimedia" was in truth simply videodisc transport control."

And you failed to address the point that what the Archimedes advocates
refer to as "multimedia" was simply the ability to control a videodisc.

The fastest most efficient computer at the time of release of the
Archimedes was the Ncube 10 which achieved 10 TIPS.

We were discussing home computers!

You simply stated that it was the fastest most efficient computer at the
time. You did not even try to claim it was the fastest most efficient
microcoputer. A claim that is dubious at best, and you have snipped
again without markign the fact my observation that the "efficient"
Archimedes deleted data without warning, which makes any claims that it
was efficient bogus and bunkum.

The Macs of the time managed 3.9 MIPS, Acorn claimed that Archimedes
computers could manage 4 MIPS

And the difference between CISC and RISC computers means that RISC computers
complete many more instructions per cycle than CISC computers. You appear to
be saying that the Archimedes were at least three times faster than the Macs
of the time. Or had you not appreciated that fact?

Are you as daft as you appear? MIPS a measurement of instructions per
second, not instructions per cycle. Your comment above is a fine display
of ignorance on your part.

In article , Steve Firth
wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article , Steve Firth
wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article , Steve Firth
wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article , Steve Firth
wrote:
FWIW, RISCOS was never at any leading edge it was a Johnny come
Lately that failed.
Look at the first RISC OS desktop and the Microsoft equivalent of the
same date. Then come back here and retract your comment! ;-)
Have a look at the Xerox Star, Lisa and Macintosh interfaces then come
back here and eat humble pie.
So how 'Johnny Come Lately' are you calling Microsoft's offering? ;-)

I don't give a bugger about Microsoft's offerings. And it's a peculiar
obsession of yours that any alternative to RISCOS can only be Micro$loth.

First consumer RISC computer,
No it wasn't.
Presumably you missed Apple's public apology after they made their
false claim in their adverts.

Presumably you know bugger all about the 6502?

The 6502 (CISC - old architecture) chip was released the same year that
the first (IBM) project to design a RISC chip for desktop computers was
started. The IBM project was shelved but the Acorn project continued
thanks to the brilliance of its design team. The Acorn RISC computers
were released in 1987 and were the first desktop computers running RISC.
Previous RISC computers had included the like of the Cray Supercomputers
that cost a touch more than most home users could afford! Apple
advertised their Newton computer (1993) as being the first RISC computer
for home buyers having conveniently forgot that they had not developed
the technolgy on which it was based (ARM - Acorn RISC Machine -
processors) and that Acorn had not only developed the hardware (see Steve
Furber) but had also produced the operating system (see Sophie Wilson)
and had successfully marketed the product to home and education users as
the Archimedes desktop machines.


Oh looky cut and paste.
No. I know the subject without having to do any cut and paste.

The 6502 although considered a CISC chip was in fact effectively a RISC
chip
Effectively in what way? Certainly not effectively enough to stop IBM spending
millions on development of a RISC computer after the 6502 was released - nor
to help them complete their development.

and Acorn themselves used to brief that their experience with the 6502
had convinced them that there was value in RISC.

Reference?

first multimedia computer,
No, it wasn't.
You could try suggesting one that was earlier.

Arguably the first multimedia applications were created in Smalltalk,
commencing in 1983.

The Amiga was introduced in 1985 and is generally credited as the first
multimedia computer.

And Bill Gates tried the same line in 1995. I think the Domesday system
actually came first - but it does depend on how you define the term.

Your obsession with Bill Gates is showing. You also snipped (without
marking the fact) the following:

(Snip)

[Snip]

We were discussing home computers!

You simply stated that it was the fastest most efficient computer at the
time.

We were discussing home computers. You failed to record your change of
subject.

You did not even try to claim it was the fastest most efficient
microcoputer. A claim that is dubious at best, and you have snipped again
without markign the fact my observation that the "efficient" Archimedes
deleted data without warning, which makes any claims that it was efficient
bogus and bunkum.

I didn't see the temporary OS (Arthur) working - though your claim isn't borne
out in any references I can find (quote Acorn User issue/page as I have a full
set) - but the replacement (RISC OS 2) certainly had none of those problems.

[Snip]

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

Grunff wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Well, for most people that is really all they DO want actually.

That is true for many, yes - but it doesn't apply to everyone.


What a gratuitously useless statement.

Sure, I have a friends who has 5 Linux macihnes running latest spec
hardware 24/7 as he attempts to test out incredibly obscure series
summations in his little hobby - which is investigating odd mathematical
theorems.

BUT the OP was talking about his aging parents..and these typically want
to write letters, and send e-mails and fill in their attendance
allowance claim forms on line.

No need for massive hardware here.

Grunff wrote:
Douglas de Lacey wrote:

And the first corollary of Moore's Law is that software authors get
more and more lazy as a result and write less and less efficient code.

Yes, no arguments there. But there are other reasons for wanting faster
machines than just running crappily written office software.

I like RTS games. The current crop of RTS games, which are hugely
superior to those from 5 years (never mind 15 years) ago, need fast
machines to run. Not just to run well, but to run at all. This is mainly
due to the superb graphics, but also to the complexity of the worlds
currently used.


Agreed, this is where most computng power goes these days. Running 3D
video stuff.

John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
Grunff wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:

Even so, each machine will only have a lifetime of 2-3 years.
In that case there is something badly wrong with the system.

Only in that hardware performance continues to increase in accordance
with Moore's law. If hardware constantly gets faster, software (in
particular entertainment software) will be written to make use of the
faster hardware. And as long as the software is appealing, users will
choose to buy it and buy hardware to run it.

So there's the flaw in the system - the continuous improvement of
hardware. What do you suggest we do about it?

Avoid Microsoft. Their OSs are designed to make you have to upgrade at
too-short intervals. I'm using a 10+ year old computer. It has had a new
processor, new hard drives, more memory and OS upgrades. I've added the means
to allow networking, USB, &c. But in that time you'll have purchased 4-6 new
Windows machines at far greater expense. I'm limited by speed (though it went
far faster than the equivalent Windows machines when new and when it had a new
processor added) and by colours/resolution (32 thousand colours is its maximum
at a reasonable resolution). But it still runs all the software of the last 10
years. Of course I now have an upgrade - but that also runs all the old
software even if some has to be done through a form of emulation - and the two
will happily run in parallel. I have no expectation of the old machine being
pensioned off for another 3-5 years (or more). That may be exceptional; but
your expectation of PCs is exceptionally bad.

From an individual user's POV, it's easy - stick with your old machine,
and choose not to run any demanding software.

But suppose you buy a machine and then, a few years later, have the option to
add a new card that increases the speed of processing by 5-10 times? ;-)

Well this machine has to be about 6-8 years old, celeron processor,
win98SE and that is it. Its good enough to run everything I need right
now, so why change it?

About the only tow things that stretch it are a flight simulator and
Corel Draw/Photopaint.

I'd rather be on Linux, and this year maybe I will be...if I can get
VMWARE going well enough to run the few WIN apps I need...ie6
occasionally for sites that wont work with anything else, and Corel Draw
and the flight sim...

Pepel but computers on price and features, but my time as an IT
professional convinces me that they should be buying on one thing alone
- support. Apart from the very few that are pushing the technology to
the limit, one way or another.

John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
Grunff wrote:
Valid code is all very well, but if you need a site to look *exactly the
same* in a number of browsers (as most clients require), you need to
test and tweak until you achieve this.

You need to tell your clients that they're asking for crap sites. *No*
properly designed site looks the same in a true range of browsers and anyone
who promises such is a fool or a rogue.

However they can get remarkably CLOSE.

However the solution to this problem is VMWARE. One machine running half
a dozen OS's and browers.

John Cartmell wrote:
In article , Grunff
wrote:
You clearly have very little idea of what the market demands.

I make no reference to what the market demands - but what is possible and
appropriate using html. There is nothing stopping you from producing web-pages
produced entirely of high quality graphics (including text), and they will
look the same on all browsers - but don't pretend that they are appropriate
for public consumption. If a web-designer doesn't show his clients the
limitations - and possibilities - of web sites then they are prostituting
their 'profession'.

You can show them till you are blue in te face., They somply won;t
listen, and will take their work to someone who CAN produce more or less
the same look and feel and positioning acrosos half a doezn browseres.

the point is there may be an HTML standard, but there is no browser
standard.

Nothing says that a single line of (perfectly formed) HTML has to be
displayed as a wrapped column of text, or a single line with a scroll
bar along the bottom.

In practice Grunff is right and you are wrong. You would either put it
in a defined width table, box, or use explicit line breaks to get it to
display consistently.

Mike Halmarack wrote:

John Cartmell isn't a Christian though, he's a "Scientist". Different
banner, same shaky zealotry.

second rate scientist..first rate scientists are aware of how relative
and limited all knowledge actually is.