|[Web] RISC OS vs. AmigaOS
|Posted on 03-May-2004 03:42 GMT by Ronald St-Maurice
Are we so dissimilar?
If you asked us to list the troubling issues facing the RISC OS platform right now, the lack of more modern hardware support and the OS development split between Castle and RISCOS Ltd. would probably be there, right at the top, beating other problems like the USB split between Castle and Simtec and the gradual slowdown in software development...
|List of all comments to this article
|Sorted by date, most recent at bottom
|03-May-2004 11:07 GMT
|03-May-2004 12:25 GMT
|03-May-2004 13:04 GMT
|03-May-2004 13:09 GMT
|03-May-2004 13:27 GMT
|03-May-2004 13:35 GMT
|03-May-2004 13:44 GMT
|03-May-2004 14:07 GMT
|03-May-2004 14:50 GMT
|03-May-2004 14:56 GMT
|03-May-2004 15:10 GMT
|03-May-2004 15:27 GMT
|03-May-2004 16:25 GMT
|RISC OS vs. AmigaOS : Comment 14 of 22
|Posted by Joe "Floid" Kanowitz on 03-May-2004 16:57 GMT
|In reply to Comment 12 (minator):
As far as I can tell, the big difference is that all the ARM solutions have stuck with ARM cores... Which would be akin to limiting Amiga to ColdFire in this day and age.
There seem to be differing opinions of how competetive the RiscPCs were when released, and I vaguely remember someone digging one up or importing one (to the US) back in the BBS days... It seems that however much attention they may've deserved then, the present offerings have the prices of A1s or Pegasosen, but even less performance.
Amusingly, whoever's doing RiscOS now had some sort of GPL squabble a year or two back, but it's been a while, and I can't remember what the issue was; it seems to have gotten resolved.
|List of all comments to this article (continued)