To : 999 + K5A
From : 483 (Daniel Shimmin)
Re : New Acorn computers
K5A recently mentioned the new RISC PC
range from Acorn, and commented that
the inclusion of a cheap PC card
facility would allow the machines to
compete with machines such as the Power
Macintosh, which also provide cheap PC
emulation.
However, it seems that the RISC PC is
well ahead (except in terms of public
profile), as a recent report on the
Guardian's technology page was very
complimentary to the RISC PC, saying
that it ran Windows software in a way
"similar to OS/2 but better" (OS/2 is
IBM's fairly new operating system), and
that the Power Macintosh was not as
good because it required SIXTEEN
megabytes of RAM just to emulate a 286
PC (compared with the RISC PC where you
can install an actual 486 PC chip for
only a hundred pounds). Apparently
other newspapers have also given the
RISC PC better coverage than Acorn
products normally get.
In any case, the Power Macintosh seems
to be hideously expensive; although I
don't know of the actual raw processing
power of its CPU, one thousand three
hundred and fifty pounds plus extra for
keyboard plus extra for monitor plus
VAT seems an awful lot compared to
fourteen hundred plus VAT for a decent
RISC PC that includes (literally)
everything, including a processor that
is supposed to be able to handle still
graphics six times faster than a 66MHz
486 PC.
To : 999 + K5A + 19F
From : 483 (Daniel Shimmin)
Re : RISC OS vs. Windoze
The PC vs. Archimedes debate also
continues, now slightly altered into
the RISC OS vs. Windoze debate. Readers
of Acorn magazines will already be sick
of hearing this mentioned, but RISC OS
seems to have been way ahead for a long
time; the new version of Windoze
codenamed Chicago, due out about now,
includes features such as proportional
scroll bars and an icon bar; RISC OS
has had these since it came out some
years ago. The new version of Windoze
also boasts that it is "mostly in
32-bit code", while RISC OS has always
been COMPLETELY in 32-bit code, and so
on.
Previously I had not used Windows
extensively, except on a friend's lowly
386 portable. Now I have used version
3.11 (or whatever the latest
incarnation was) with 8Mb 33MHz 486's
on an extensive course learning C using
the latest version of Borland Turbo
C++. When programming C on the Arch I
use RISC OS and Acorn ANSI C.
Now, Borland TC++ is definitely a
better compiler package (I don't know
about the efficiency etc. of the
compiler itself), but it does cost
about twice as much as the Acorn
version. On the other hand, writing and
running C programs is far easier in
RISC OS than in Windoze, and even the
guy running the course (who obviously
knew a great deal about various
languages under various operating
systems) commented that Windoze was a
real pain and caused a great deal of
inconvenience for the compiler and the
user.
My PC-owning friend, who normally
trumpets the advantages of PC's with
Windoze over RISC OS machines,
suggested that Borland Turbo C++ for
DOS was in fact a much better bet. No
doubt true, but this makes Windoze look
a bit pointless - I can hardly see
myself descending back to BBC-style
command lines to develop software on
the Arch (except perhaps BASIC under
RISC OS 2) when I have a perfectly
useable WIMP-based development
environment.
I'm afraid I wasn't impressed by
Windoze at all, and such minor features
as not having instant window drag or
re-size wasn't impressive either
(again, such features have been on RISC
OS for years, and I don't think even
the new version of Windoze will have
them).
A few thoughts to keep the debate
raging anyway. Not that I would object
to having a RISC PC with a 486 card,
8Mb of RAM and a 16-bit linear sound
card...
To : 999 + K5A
From : 483 (Daniel Shimmin)
Re : RISC PC
K5A also mentioned that the ARM610 to
ARM710 processor upgrade takes about a
minute on the new machines. At the
Harrogate Show, I saw a guy from Acorn
(in the middle of a heaving crowd, as
it was on the Saturday), change a
machine in tower configuration (i.e.
the whole massive machine was STOOD ON
ITS SIDE) from an ARM610 processor to a
prototype ARM710 (yes, they do exist,
there were several of them lying around
on top of the demonstration machines'
monitors, of all places), and back
again, by reaching inside the case
WITHOUT LOOKING WHAT HE WAS DOING, in
about TWENTY SECONDS.
Rather different from the
IBM-compatible PC machines that boasted
"Intel Overdrive and Pentium
compatible" a year or so ago, only to
find now that the Pentium chips won't
actually fit into them at all!
To : 999 (Everyone)
From : 483 (Daniel Shimmin)
Re : Narrow-mindedness (?)
As a contribution to Chris' recently
inaugurated "most bizarre topic for a
text message" competition, I would like
to point out the general intolerance,
if that is the right word, displayed by
many people who consider themselves
knowledgeable about computers when met
by something they don't consider
sensible.
In order to make clear (or clearer)
what I mean, I will mention some
examples that spring to mind. Firstly,
I have recently come across a utility
for the Archimedes that is intended to
allow you to read DFS disks (which the
Archimedes can't do on its own).
After commenting that "obviously" you
will need to attach a 5.25" drive to
your Archimedes to read DFS disks, the
author says that he supposes that it
will also read DFS files off 3.5"
disks, although he "can't see why
anyone would have DFS files on a 3.5"
disk".
Now, I can think of a very good reason
why some people might want DFS files on
a 3.5" disk, namely that they might own
a Master Compact, which uses 3.5" disks
as standard, and prefer to use DFS
because they are used to it and don't
require the additional features of
ADFS.
This may seem an irrelevant correction
of a fairly unimportant aside in the
instructions of a rather obscure piece
of software, but I think it is a good
example of something that I feel
happens all too often. Many people
condemn other people's particular ways
of using computers as being
"ridiculous", or "unwise" or "silly",
either, as in this case, because they
simply lack information about the
reasons why something might be the case
(in which case they should have been
more restrained in their criticism), or
because they are simply unable to
understand that someone else might
prefer things slightly different.
For example, it is pretty clear that
some people prefer, say, older simpler
computers to newer more complicated
ones, or Edit to View, or whatever.
Many people will not admit that this is
simply their preference, or that, where
there are valid reasons for both views
(such as whether it is better to use
the Verbose option when copying files
in RISC OS), there really is no way of
proving that one view is more right
than another.
Another (the last) example concerns the
old 8-Bit Software menu; on showing the
magazine disk to some other users, I
was greeted (derisively) with, "oh, you
don't know how to turn the cursor off,
do you?". The reason for having the
cursor on was not that I didn't know
how to turn it off, but rather that the
8-Bit menu was often pretty crowded,
what with user ID's and issue dates and
options and things, and it seemed best
that the cursor should be there
fulfilling its original purpose of
showing the user where exactly on the
screen input was being demanded.
On some issues, of course, there is a
fairly clear-cut answer as to what is
best, and all computer users can
benefit from people mentioning ways
that they could do things better.
However, criticising other people for
things that you consider to be
"obviously" unwise is not such a good
idea; it just means that the person
being criticised then often has to go
to the trouble of explaining why they
prefer to do something in a certain way
- there tends to be a reason.
EDITOR........ It is very easy to
criticise others especially if you
don't know what you are talking about.
PRESS BREAK