| |
Poll |
| |
cterran (16:55 4/2/2004)
ksattic (17:08 4/2/2004)
monkeyson2 (17:11 4/2/2004)
monkeyson2 (17:13 4/2/2004)
Phlamethrower (17:21 4/2/2004)
illudium (11:04 9/2/2004)
rich (14:17 9/2/2004)
illudium (15:39 9/2/2004)
rich (11:25 10/2/2004)
rich (09:45 5/2/2004)
andrew (11:37 5/2/2004)
rich (11:42 5/2/2004)
Phlamethrower (11:45 5/2/2004)
andrew (11:59 5/2/2004)
monkeyson2 (12:13 5/2/2004)
stdevel (15:46 5/2/2004)
rich (09:41 6/2/2004)
stdevel (10:55 6/2/2004)
rich (13:38 6/2/2004)
cterran (17:20 4/2/2004)
rich (09:46 5/2/2004)
cterran (15:17 5/2/2004)
|
| |
|
Chris |
Message #50716, posted by cterran at 16:55, 4/2/2004 |
Member
Posts: 163
|
What happened to the 'latest OS' poll? Lose the figures?
Best, Chris |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Simon Wilson |
Message #50719, posted by ksattic at 17:08, 4/2/2004, in reply to message #50716 |
 Finally, an avatar!
Posts: 1291
|
What happened to the 'latest OS' poll? Lose the figures? Have a look at the previous polls (right at the bottom of the list) and you'll see it's a slightly different question. I answered the same, though. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Phil Mellor |
Message #50720, posted by monkeyson2 at 17:11, 4/2/2004, in reply to message #50719 |
 Please don't let them make me be a monkey butler
Posts: 12380
|
Have a look at the previous polls (right at the bottom of the list) and you'll see it's a slightly different question. I answered the same, though. I'm glad you pointed that out, because my mental arithmetic didn't add it up to 100% and I was worried something had gone horribly wrong! Infact the only thing that went wrong was my mental arithmetic.
I've answered the same, too.  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Phil Mellor |
Message #50721, posted by monkeyson2 at 17:13, 4/2/2004, in reply to message #50720 |
Please don't let them make me be a monkey butler
Posts: 12380
|
Pedantry mode on:
The poll asks about the latest version of RISC OS. Is Arthur a version of RISC OS? It's a trick question! |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Chris |
Message #50723, posted by cterran at 17:20, 4/2/2004, in reply to message #50719 |
Member
Posts: 163
|
What happened to the 'latest OS' poll? Lose the figures? Have a look at the previous polls (right at the bottom of the list) and you'll see it's a slightly different question. I answered the same, though.
Ah, so it is. Silly me.
I think the only thing I need the RPC for now is EFF's font converter, used a couple of times a year.
Best, Chris |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #50724, posted by Phlamethrower at 17:21, 4/2/2004, in reply to message #50721 |
 Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
And what about all those developer types with super-secret copies of RISC OS 6?  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #50763, posted by rich at 09:45, 5/2/2004, in reply to message #50721 |
 Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
Pedantry mode on:
The poll asks about the latest version of RISC OS. Is Arthur a version of RISC OS? It's a trick question! Exactly. It's the "Cowboyneal" last, stupid answer. If you look back, it generally garners about 2% of the vote, no matter how foolish an option it is.
________
 Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #50764, posted by rich at 09:46, 5/2/2004, in reply to message #50723 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
What happened to the 'latest OS' poll? Lose the figures? Have a look at the previous polls (right at the bottom of the list) and you'll see it's a slightly different question. I answered the same, though.
Ah, so it is. Silly me.
I made it in italic and everything!
________
Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #50767, posted by andrew at 11:37, 5/2/2004, in reply to message #50763 |
 Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
Pedantry mode on:
The poll asks about the latest version of
. Is Arthur a version of RISC OS? It's a trick question! Exactly. It's the "Cowboyneal" last, stupid answer. If you look back, it generally garners about 2% of the vote, no matter how foolish an option it is.
It is a version of RISC OS though. It was called OS 1.0 and 1.1 IIRC. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #50769, posted by rich at 11:42, 5/2/2004, in reply to message #50767 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
It is a version of RISC OS though. It was called OS 1.0 and 1.1 IIRC. It wasn't even a proper OS - it was a stop-gap measure so that machines would work between the release of the hardware and the time RISC OS was actually finished.
I've got a an ArthurOS machine here in the office right now, and believe me, it's not very capable. Even taking a screenshot of the pseudo-desktop was like pulling teeth.
Let's just say, I'd be very surprised if 2% of Iconbar readers had even seen ArthurOS in action, let alone still used it on a regular basis.
________
Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #50771, posted by Phlamethrower at 11:45, 5/2/2004, in reply to message #50769 |
Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
Let's just say, I'd be very surprised if 2% of Iconbar readers had even seen ArthurOS in action, let alone still used it on a regular basis. I've poked it around for a few minutes in an emulator, but that's about it |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #50772, posted by andrew at 11:59, 5/2/2004, in reply to message #50771 |
Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
I think a lot of people started using it much like a BBC Micro and launched straight into BASIC. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Phil Mellor |
Message #50773, posted by monkeyson2 at 12:13, 5/2/2004, in reply to message #50772 |
Please don't let them make me be a monkey butler
Posts: 12380
|
Arthur's desktop/window manager was written in BASIC
[Edited by monkeyson2 at 12:14, 5/2/2004] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Chris |
Message #50775, posted by cterran at 15:17, 5/2/2004, in reply to message #50764 |
Member
Posts: 163
|
What happened to the 'latest OS' poll? Lose the figures? Have a look at the previous polls (right at the bottom of the list) and you'll see it's a slightly different question. I answered the same, though.
Ah, so it is. Silly me.
I made it in italic and everything!
Never underestimate the stupidity of your readers, Rich...  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Stuart Tyrrell |
Message #50776, posted by stdevel at 15:46, 5/2/2004, in reply to message #50769 |
www.stdevel.co.uk
Posts: 279
|
It wasn't even a proper OS 'course it is.
Just because the GUI isn't integrated into the OS itself, that does not a non-OS make. Even without the GUI it was reasonably advanced for its day.
The fact that Arthur was a quick stop-gap after the Palo Alto work fell through makes it all the more amazing.
Anyway, we'd all be arguing over whether Arthur 5 is based on later code than Arthur 4, if it weren't for that wreched film making Acorn change the name.... |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #50823, posted by rich at 09:41, 6/2/2004, in reply to message #50776 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
It wasn't even a proper OS 'course it is.
Oh really? Ever use it for anything other than firing up the monotasking paint program and then wandering off in boredom? (probably the wrong person to ask that question of!)
Just because the GUI isn't integrated into the OS itself, that does not a non-OS make. Even without the GUI it was reasonably advanced for its day. No, the fact that it was completely useless makes it an non-OS I was still doing my DTP on BBC Masters at the time. I would have moved to almost anything else. Almost.
Arthur was so shite that even Computer Concepts tried to write a proper Archie OS instead. Luckily RISC OS came along and that expensive hardware was actually usable.
________
Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Stuart Tyrrell |
Message #50826, posted by stdevel at 10:55, 6/2/2004, in reply to message #50823 |
www.stdevel.co.uk
Posts: 279
|
It wasn't even a proper OS 'course it is.
Oh really? Ever use it for anything other than firing up the monotasking paint program and then wandering off in boredom? (probably the wrong person to ask that question of!)
Yup
Remember OS!=GUI.
Arthur was a reasonably advanced OS. It was more advanced that the BBC MOS. More advanced than a very advanced thing.
Its GUI looked like it was cobbled together in a weekend - but all that sound, the graphics, the I/O, the fact the machine worked at all were down to the OS.
I'd go so far as to say that Arthus OS didn't have a GUI. It had a program which presented a desktop, but it lay on top of the OS as an application, rather than being part of the Operating System itself.
*unplug desktop on Arthur and you could still present programs of the day which impressed, like Zarch and Conqueror (all of which used the OS heavily). In fact anyone who tried to use Desktop was obviously one bit short of a bucket.
*unplug desktop on RISC OS and you can't use much, as most current programs assume the GUI which is now integrated into the OS.
We didn't have those fancy window thingies in my day you know. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #50840, posted by rich at 13:38, 6/2/2004, in reply to message #50826 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
Remember OS!=GUI. While this might be technically true, try telling it to most Windows users
________
Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
David Marston |
Message #50950, posted by illudium at 11:04, 9/2/2004, in reply to message #50724 |
Member
Posts: 19
|
So, just out of interest, if I regularly use RISC OS 5 and Select how should I answer the question? I think defining which of the two is "latest" is pretty difficult. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #50967, posted by rich at 14:17, 9/2/2004, in reply to message #50950 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
So, just out of interest, if I regularly use RISC OS 5 and Select how should I answer the question? I think defining which of the two is "latest" is pretty difficult. RISC OS 5 is later than Select.
Discuss
________
Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
David Marston |
Message #50989, posted by illudium at 15:39, 9/2/2004, in reply to message #50967 |
Member
Posts: 19
|
So, just out of interest, if I regularly use RISC OS 5 and Select how should I answer the question? I think defining which of the two is "latest" is pretty difficult. RISC OS 5 is later than Select.
Discuss
No, it isn't 
Select 4.37 (claims 11 Aug 2003)
RISC OS 5.03 (can't check the exact date now, but early May 2003 at the latest) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #51029, posted by rich at 11:25, 10/2/2004, in reply to message #50989 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
So, just out of interest, if I regularly use RISC OS 5 and Select how should I answer the question? I think defining which of the two is "latest" is pretty difficult. RISC OS 5 is later than Select.
Discuss
No, it isn't
Select 4.37 (claims 11 Aug 2003)
RISC OS 5.03 (can't check the exact date now, but early May 2003 at the latest)
Yes, but the /first/ issue of Select was before the /first/ issue of RISC OS 5. You're just proving that Select is more up to date (or more buggy ), not that RISC OS 5 came after Select.
Or something
________
Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
