| |
ARMini reviewed on The Register |
| |
pwx (08:05 10/5/2012)
andypoole (13:24 10/5/2012)
Col (16:02 10/5/2012)
andypoole (17:09 10/5/2012)
lproven (13:45 10/5/2012)
swirlythingy (17:22 10/5/2012)
JohnB (08:54 13/5/2012)
Acornut (11:09 13/5/2012)
swirlythingy (11:31 13/5/2012)
JohnB (13:07 13/5/2012)
arawnsley (17:54 13/5/2012)
trevj (21:29 13/5/2012)
pwx (09:20 14/5/2012)
jess (11:46 14/5/2012)
bhtooefr (11:59 14/5/2012)
JohnB (21:10 14/5/2012)
bhtooefr (11:56 14/5/2012)
trevj (20:04 14/5/2012)
jess (08:15 15/5/2012)
trevj (13:02 15/5/2012)
diodesign (23:05 17/5/2012)
swirlythingy (17:37 18/5/2012)
filecore (06:21 22/5/2012)
|
| |
|
Philip Webster |
Message #120315, posted by pwx at 08:05, 10/5/2012 |
Member
Posts: 227
|
http://www.reghardware.com/2012/05/10/product_round_up_arm_mini_computers_the_best_and_the_rest/
The review is very positive, but they said it was too expensive.
A number of other ARM-based computers are reviewed as well, at a variety of price points. |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Poole |
Message #120333, posted by andypoole at 13:24, 10/5/2012, in reply to message #120315 |
Posts: 5558
|
http://www.reghardware.com/2012/05/10/product_round_up_arm_mini_computers_the_best_and_the_rest/
The review is very positive, but they said it was too expensive. That's because it is too expensive. It's a 120 quid dev board in a box with a few other bits (which certainly don't add up to £580). But we've had this discussion before...
My entire decent spec gaming machine cost less than an ARMini does. There's absolutely no way I'd ever justify paying that kind of money for a RISC OS box these days. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Liam Proven |
Message #120334, posted by lproven at 13:45, 10/5/2012, in reply to message #120315 |
Member
Posts: 4
|
Cheers, Philip. :¬)
________
--
Liam P. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Colin Cartmell-Browne |
Message #120339, posted by Col at 16:02, 10/5/2012, in reply to message #120333 |
Member
Posts: 89
|
My entire decent spec gaming machine cost less than an ARMini does. There's absolutely no way I'd ever justify paying that kind of money for a RISC OS box these days. Yes but what your conveniently ignoring is the fact that the manufacturer of your gaming machine is likely to sell thousands of units and can therefore afford to have a lower margin of profit on top of the development and manufacturing costs per machine than R-Comp who, with the best will in the world, are likely to sell a lot less individual units and therefore need to charge more in order to ensure the financial stability of their business. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Poole |
Message #120341, posted by andypoole at 17:09, 10/5/2012, in reply to message #120339 |
Posts: 5558
|
My entire decent spec gaming machine cost less than an ARMini does. There's absolutely no way I'd ever justify paying that kind of money for a RISC OS box these days. Yes but what your conveniently ignoring is the fact that the manufacturer of your gaming machine is likely to sell thousands of units and can therefore afford to have a lower margin of profit on top of the development and manufacturing costs per machine than R-Comp who, with the best will in the world, are likely to sell a lot less individual units and therefore need to charge more in order to ensure the financial stability of their business.
I built the machine myself, it didn't come from a manufacturer (well, the parts did, but you know what I mean).
The fact still remains that I could buy the component parts of an ARMini, download RISC OS from ROOL's site and save a hell of a lot of money. Yes, it'd be missing whatever "tweaks" R-Comp do to the OS, but I highly doubt said tweaks are worth the extra 300 quid (going by El Reg's estimate - I already own some of the parts required (USB hub, power supplies, etc), so the saving would actually be even more). 600 quid for a machine that's basically a development board with a few bits (USB hub, PSU, CD drive) bolted on is just crazy money.
At the end of the day, when I'm buying something I tend to look at the pricet and worry about my wallet, not the manufacturer's wallet. Yes they'll naturally want to make a profit, but the bottom line is that I'd much rather have the money in my wallet than in theirs. As Peter said in the other thread, for 600 quid, it better be something well worth investing in. That ain't a dev board that costs more than five times what I can build the thing myself for. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Martin Bazley |
Message #120342, posted by swirlythingy at 17:22, 10/5/2012, in reply to message #120315 |
Posts: 460
|
That ARMini review was one of the most nakedly biased articles I have ever read, even allowing for the complaints about price. It gave it far more prominence than any number of far more important ARM-based PCs, and made RISC OS out to be a highly useful operating system suitable for conventional use by any average customer, while barely mentioning any of the far more capable and cheaper computers people are actually buying.
I say this as one who owns an ARMini, has supported RISC OS all his life, and voted for Ken Livingstone at the last election. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
John Albert Bullen |
Message #120370, posted by JohnB at 08:54, 13/5/2012, in reply to message #120342 |
Member
Posts: 43
|
I'm also an ARMini owner and was pleasantly surprised how balanced the review was. The Beagleboard does deserve to be up there so the surprise was more that the ARMini managed to get coverage - along with RISC OS!
If you look at the actual rankings in the article it's :-
1) Raspberry Pi
2) Beagleboard
3) CuBox
4) CottonCandy
5) Panda Board
6) Rhombus
7) Slim-Slice
The ARMini part is like a curiousity section - note the following page being titled 'Acorn Antiques', the listing the major shortfalls in the OS and the positive part being it's fast and retro.. but you'll have difficulties finding compatible 32-bit software. I'm not sure that's going to lead to droves of people thinking it's equivalent to Mac OS in ease of use. Plus the criticism of price already mentioned above.
Overall, for the length of the article, we had a surprising amount of coverage but I got the impression if there'd have been an offering running Haiku it would also have got the same coverage.. The author clearly has an interest in niche operating systems. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Blind Moose |
Message #120371, posted by Acornut at 11:09, 13/5/2012, in reply to message #120370 |
 No-eye-deer (No Idea)
Posts: 487
|
Yeah, but more importantly, did you vote for (showing my age), Red Ken?  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Martin Bazley |
Message #120372, posted by swirlythingy at 11:31, 13/5/2012, in reply to message #120371 |
Posts: 460
|
Yeah, but more importantly, did you vote for (showing my age), Red Ken? My point in saying that was that I know very well what a biased article looks like, and I've read quite a few in the last few months, and I still say that was worse than anything the Evening Boris sicked up.
I know RISC OS users like to pretend that if something validates their life choices it must therefore automatically be fair and balanced, but it really isn't. In a balanced article, the best the ARMini (which is a practically useless machine by most modern standards, i.e. Facebook) could have hoped for was a footnote at the bottom of the BeagleBoard section. Instead it got two whole pages and most of the Raspberry Pi section, whereas the other entrants had to make do with a paragraph or two and many actual ARM-based desktop PCs were omitted altogether. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
John Albert Bullen |
Message #120373, posted by JohnB at 13:07, 13/5/2012, in reply to message #120372 |
Member
Posts: 43
|
I agree with you regarding balance. The ARMini/RISC OS coverage was surprisingly extensive relative to the rest of the article given it was aiming to look at ARM mini-systems in general. However I don't feel it was biased to the extent you imply. It wasn't singing the ARMini's praises, presenting it as a Windows alternative or failing to mention areas where it's deficient:-
1) It's quicker than an RPi - but a lot more expensive
2) Also more expensive than a Mac Mini - which is a lot faster than the ARMini.
3) You don't get a lot of hardware for your money
4) Software updates work well 
5) Screen Mode support is palaeolithic
6) It's basic by modern standards - 1980's OS
7) No swap backed virtual memory
8) No multiuser support
9) Basic security and memory protection
10) It's fast
11) You'll like it if you're into old Acorns and nostalgia.
12) There's a lot of software that will no longer run.
13) It's expensive!
I don't think many Windows users are going to run out and buy an ARMini based on the above. Without going into a full-scale RISC OS review I'm not sure what else could have been said in the space used while still being fair. Although I do understand where you're coming from in saying there was just too much coverage full stop. Perhaps there should have been two separate articles rather than the mix that was published.
[Edited by ad at 16:08, 13/5/2012. Fix random broken smiley.] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Rawnsley |
Message #120374, posted by arawnsley at 17:54, 13/5/2012, in reply to message #120372 |
R-Comp chap
Posts: 600
|
I believe the ARMini review was originally meant to be a standalone article (the review has been ongoing for close to 9 months IIRC!). I suspect the lop-sided nature of the article as a whole reflects a desire to cover more ARM hardware, whilst also delivering the ARMini review as originally intended.
I certainly don't think it was meant to reflect the significance/importance of the individual products. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Trevor Johnson |
Message #120375, posted by trevj at 21:29, 13/5/2012, in reply to message #120374 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
Sounds like an editorial decision to expand the ARMini piece into something covering a few other options. I was also a little surprised at the number of platforms omitted, so keeping the ARMini in a separate piece (or possibly combining with the RPi and BB/PB, i.e. systems which already are or soon-ish should run RO) and covering a wider range of hardware in the second piece may have been better.
But 2 articles would be more expensive to publish, of course!
Anyway, a good piece all the same. Let's hope for more RO coverage in the media!
[Edited by trevj at 08:39, 14/5/2012] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Philip Webster |
Message #120377, posted by pwx at 09:20, 14/5/2012, in reply to message #120375 |
Member
Posts: 227
|
Sounds like an editorial decision to expand the ARMini piece into something covering a few other options. I was also a little surprised at the number of platforms omitted, so keeping the ARMini in a separate piece (or possibly combining with the RPi and BB/PB, i.e. systems which already are or soon-ish should run RO) and covering a wider range of hardware in the second piece may have been better.
I had no idea that so many ARM-based desktops existed, so I'm glad they added the mini-reviews of the other machines. I would consider buying one of the cheaper ones to use with Linux - I only use RO on original Acorn hardware, so the ARMini has no appeal for me. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
jess hampshire |
Message #120382, posted by jess at 11:46, 14/5/2012, in reply to message #120372 |
Member
Posts: 20
|
(which is a practically useless machine by most modern standards, i.e. Facebook) Facebook is quite usable on netsurf, http://m.facebook.com and somewhat more pleasant than looking at timeline profiles. (Similarly the HTML gmail is nicer than their new fancy interface.) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Eric Rucker |
Message #120383, posted by bhtooefr at 11:56, 14/5/2012, in reply to message #120372 |
Member
Posts: 337
|
Indeed, that article was about as fair and balanced as Fox News.
Granted, it seemed to be fair about the ARMini being horrendously overpriced, but it wasn't fair at all about RISC OS, IMO - it mentioned its technical drawbacks, but it way over-promoted RISC OS. I like playing with the OS, and I understand why people like using it, but you kinda do need to point out, this isn't going to replace your desktop. And maybe give it its own article, if you want to get up on your soapbox about it, then you can still get up on the soapbox, and compare it fairly in a separate article.
(For those that aren't familiar with Fox... Fox News uses a "fair and balanced" slogan, but outright lies rampantly (and when they're called on it, they say they're an entertainment channel, not a news channel, so it's all OK), tends to have a radical right-wing and radical Christian viewpoint (as in, radical even for the US, and it's actually radicalizing the US, annoyingly for those of us that live in it), and is run by Murdoch. Need I say any more?) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Eric Rucker |
Message #120384, posted by bhtooefr at 11:59, 14/5/2012, in reply to message #120382 |
Member
Posts: 337
|
Facebook is quite usable on netsurf, http://m.facebook.com and somewhat more pleasant than looking at timeline profiles. (Similarly the HTML gmail is nicer than their new fancy interface.) And quite a lot of Facebook's functions simply aren't available on the mobile interface. Yes, you can use a very basic, stripped down Facebook, but not the whole thing.
HTML Gmail is an option, although it's not quite as good (I won't say efficient, because the new Gmail UI is rather inefficient, actually) as the JavaScript version.
YouTube is probably better on a Beagle xM than it is on a RiscPC, but still clunky as hell - having to drag the page onto Murnong, and then play the resulting file manually, is not good. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Trevor Johnson |
Message #120386, posted by trevj at 20:04, 14/5/2012, in reply to message #120383 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
radicalizing the US, annoyingly for those of us that live in it That's one reason why people like me hope that people like you won't be driven to escape the place: you're needed in order to provide some balance! (Much as I'm sure it's tempting to consider moving nearer to Acorn's origins, a plentiful supply of roundabouts, and... oh yes, the right-wing media and corrupt politicians.) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
John Albert Bullen |
Message #120387, posted by JohnB at 21:10, 14/5/2012, in reply to message #120382 |
Member
Posts: 43
|
RE Facebook & Netsurf - cheers for the tip - never thought of that
[Edited by JohnB at 22:11, 14/5/2012] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
jess hampshire |
Message #120390, posted by jess at 08:15, 15/5/2012, in reply to message #120386 |
Member
Posts: 20
|
[ oh yes, the right-wing media and corrupt politicians.) I think our media would be though of as pinko liberal over there. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Trevor Johnson |
Message #120395, posted by trevj at 13:02, 15/5/2012, in reply to message #120390 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
Relatively so, I guess you're probably right. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Chris Williams |
Message #120417, posted by diodesign at 23:05, 17/5/2012, in reply to message #120383 |
 The Opposition
Posts: 269
|
Indeed, that article was about as fair and balanced as Fox News. Bit worried that some people are getting 'review article' mixed up with 'news article'. Not sure you can describe an opinion you disagree with as a 'lie'.
C. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Martin Bazley |
Message #120422, posted by swirlythingy at 17:37, 18/5/2012, in reply to message #120417 |
Posts: 460
|
Indeed, that article was about as fair and balanced as Fox News. Bit worried that some people are getting 'review article' mixed up with 'news article'. Not sure you can describe an opinion you disagree with as a 'lie'.
I don't think you've actually read what anybody wrote. It is entirely possible to agree with someone's opinion, and still think they're massively biased. You do think personal bias in reviews of "ARM mini computers: the best and the rest" is bad, right? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #120446, posted by filecore at 06:21, 22/5/2012, in reply to message #120422 |
Posts: 3868
|
This'll probably just get you all upset even further.
[Edited by filecore at 07:31, 22/5/2012] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
