| |
Messenger Pro 7 |
| |
HeathHayle (15:41 28/3/2013)
andypoole (16:22 28/3/2013)
HeathHayle (17:14 28/3/2013)
bluenose (17:34 28/3/2013)
deadmalc (18:33 28/3/2013)
Gulli (11:07 29/3/2013)
andypoole (11:35 29/3/2013)
Gulli (22:31 29/3/2013)
swirlythingy (20:43 28/3/2013)
flibble (22:09 28/3/2013)
nunfetishist (10:31 29/3/2013)
deadmalc (13:00 29/3/2013)
bhtooefr (13:23 29/3/2013)
deadmalc (17:28 29/3/2013)
swirlythingy (00:38 30/3/2013)
deadmalc (08:30 30/3/2013)
arawnsley (09:32 30/3/2013)
HeathHayle (10:22 30/3/2013)
arawnsley (11:21 30/3/2013)
HeathHayle (11:58 30/3/2013)
Gulli (11:25 30/3/2013)
filecore (14:12 30/3/2013)
Gulli (20:10 30/3/2013)
nunfetishist (23:07 29/3/2013)
deadmalc (13:03 29/3/2013)
nunfetishist (23:08 29/3/2013)
deadmalc (23:12 29/3/2013)
nunfetishist (23:28 29/3/2013)
|
| |
|
David Heath |
Message #122157, posted by HeathHayle at 15:41, 28/3/2013 |
Member
Posts: 147
|
Does anyone know if Messenger Pro 7 will work on RiscOS 3.1? Also will it work on RPCEmu thanks for all your help guys. From David Heath |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Poole |
Message #122158, posted by andypoole at 16:22, 28/3/2013, in reply to message #122157 |
Posts: 5558
|
Does anyone know if Messenger Pro 7 will work on RiscOS 3.1? Also will it work on RPCEmu thanks for all your help guys. From David Heath First words at the top of the Messenger Pro website:
Requirements
RISC OS 3.1 or higher
4Mb RAM or more
(8Mb Recommended)
Internet connection with RISC OS software Was it really that hard to find? 
On the other hand, 40 quid for an email client that doesn't even support IMAP... (at least, the version that comes in ROOL's NutPi pack doesn't, making it unusable with things like google mail, etc...) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
David Heath |
Message #122160, posted by HeathHayle at 17:14, 28/3/2013, in reply to message #122158 |
Member
Posts: 147
|
LOL! I already read that but wasn't sure if that was old info and the site just hasn't been updated |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Doug Webb |
Message #122161, posted by bluenose at 17:34, 28/3/2013, in reply to message #122158 |
Member
Posts: 9
|
Well the full version does have a IMAP client and also acts as a server plus a whole lot more.
The Nut Pi MessengerPro is a tailored one and there is a lot of software on offer on the NutPi card for the money so I guess it acts as a good taster for some of the applications that have paid for full feature rich additions. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Malcolm Hussain-Gambles |
Message #122162, posted by deadmalc at 18:33, 28/3/2013, in reply to message #122158 |
Member
Posts: 9
|
google mail supports pop or imap as far as I remember.. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Martin Bazley |
Message #122164, posted by swirlythingy at 20:43, 28/3/2013, in reply to message #122158 |
Posts: 460
|
On the other hand, 40 quid for an email client that doesn't even support IMAP... (at least, the version that comes in ROOL's NutPi pack doesn't, making it unusable with things like google mail, etc...) You've answered your own question there. Like some other things in the NutPi pack, the version of Messenger sold in that bundle has been crippled (I don't think it's even the Pro version). The factually correct form of your assertion would be its inverse, i.e. 40 quid for an email client that does support IMAP (or slightly less for one that doesn't, but comes bundled with some other stuff). |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Howkins |
Message #122166, posted by flibble at 22:09, 28/3/2013, in reply to message #122164 |
Posts: 892
|
The factually correct form of your assertion would be its inverse, i.e. 40 quid for an email client People pay for email clients? How quaint. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Rob Kendrick |
Message #122167, posted by nunfetishist at 10:31, 29/3/2013, in reply to message #122166 |
 Today's phish is trout a la creme.
Posts: 525
|
The factually correct form of your assertion would be its inverse, i.e. 40 quid for an email client People pay for email clients? How quaint.
And people wonder why other people are moving to different OSes where they don't cost 40 quid. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Gunnlaugur Jonsson |
Message #122168, posted by Gulli at 11:07, 29/3/2013, in reply to message #122162 |
Member
Posts: 138
|
google mail supports pop or imap as far as I remember.. I use gmail exclusively with POP so yes, they do support that. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Poole |
Message #122169, posted by andypoole at 11:35, 29/3/2013, in reply to message #122168 |
Posts: 5558
|
google mail supports pop or imap as far as I remember.. I use gmail exclusively with POP so yes, they do support that.
Try keeping multiple machines/phones/tablets in sync using POP. Much easier with IMAP. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Malcolm Hussain-Gambles |
Message #122170, posted by deadmalc at 13:00, 29/3/2013, in reply to message #122167 |
Member
Posts: 9
|
The factually correct form of your assertion would be its inverse, i.e. 40 quid for an email client People pay for email clients? How quaint.
And people wonder why other people are moving to different OSes where they don't cost 40 quid.
And people wonder why RISC OS is struggling because of lack of commercial support....
I'm sure if there were 100 people buying it a day the cost would be less than that, and it would be far better too...
Probably 5 copies a year? Do the maths.
[Edited by deadmalc at 13:01, 29/3/2013] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Malcolm Hussain-Gambles |
Message #122171, posted by deadmalc at 13:03, 29/3/2013, in reply to message #122166 |
Member
Posts: 9
|
The factually correct form of your assertion would be its inverse, i.e. 40 quid for an email client People pay for email clients? How quaint.
Outlook? a huge number of people pay a lot of money for that, ok it's bundled with office, but it's a massive cash cow. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Eric Rucker |
Message #122172, posted by bhtooefr at 13:23, 29/3/2013, in reply to message #122170 |
Member
Posts: 337
|
Meanwhile in the real world, most of the development on RISC OS is done on a volunteer basis, by people who are doing it for fun, and commercial development is dying because there are four of you that are actually willing to pay that much for software as limited as it is. The market will only bear so much, before it jumps ship to another platform with significantly faster and cheaper hardware, significantly more capable and cheaper (sometimes even free) software, and significantly easier data exchange.
RISC OS is dead, people. Sure, it can still be useful, but it is no longer a commercially viable OS, it's just a hobby. That's not saying that it can't be commercially viable in the future - Linux was just a hobby at first, after all, Linus Torvalds even wrote a book about the development of Linux, and the TITLE was "Just For Fun" - but it's highly unlikely that it ever will be.
You just have to look at what's happened with ROL, to see this. ROL is an example of the failure of the commercial model in a market the size of the RISC OS market - higher development costs (developers are more likely to work for free if they know that everyone else gets the work for free), higher support costs (if you pay for something, you expect better support), a limited development pool (a commercial closed-source project can't easily give every qualified developer access to their source, they have to go through NDAs and such, and vet every developer that accesses the source, whereas a shared or open source project can have many more eyes), and a focus on what's most profitable, not necessarily what's best.
Just look at what ROOL's done in the past five years, versus what ROL's done - ROL claimed to have a significantly more portable OS (and based on Justin Fletcher's rambles, I can believe it), but with the realities of the business, they never had the resources to get a stable version of their OS running on anything other than IOMD hardware. ROOL, on the other hand, ported their (Iyonix-based, already stable) OS back to IOMD, to OMAP3, to OMAP4, and now to BCM2835 (and, yes, that BCM2835 release isn't a stable release yet (just look at the troubles with RC7 and RC , but RC6 runs great on the hardware that RC6 works properly on, certainly better than the A9home release of 4.42). Even if their OS isn't as portable, due to the fact that they don't have to worry about profit, and run on donations to cover the expenses, they get things done, which ROL never did.
[Edited by bhtooefr at 13:30, 29/3/2013] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Malcolm Hussain-Gambles |
Message #122175, posted by deadmalc at 17:28, 29/3/2013, in reply to message #122172 |
Member
Posts: 9
|
Can't disagree with that, but I was trying to avoid the word "dead" - not that your wrong, your not it just makes me sad.
In the real world....lol
ROOL have done a great job, no question about that!
In the real world people are generally prepared to pay for applications, the problem is not enough are on RISC OS, and I suspect even if the apps were £5 each people would still not buy them and grumble. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Gunnlaugur Jonsson |
Message #122190, posted by Gulli at 22:31, 29/3/2013, in reply to message #122169 |
Member
Posts: 138
|
google mail supports pop or imap as far as I remember.. I use gmail exclusively with POP so yes, they do support that.
Try keeping multiple machines/phones/tablets in sync using POP. Much easier with IMAP.
True, but that wasn't the issue I was answering, only whether or not Gmail supports POP |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Rob Kendrick |
Message #122192, posted by nunfetishist at 23:07, 29/3/2013, in reply to message #122170 |
Today's phish is trout a la creme.
Posts: 525
|
And people wonder why RISC OS is struggling because of lack of commercial support....
I'm sure if there were 100 people buying it a day the cost would be less than that, and it would be far better too...
Probably 5 copies a year? Do the maths.
[Edited by deadmalc at 13:01, 29/3/2013] This is called the market reacting to forces as it should  Of course, I imagine they'd sell more copies if it were a tenner. Question is, four times as many?
Of course, there are many mail clients out there (some better than Messenger Pro) that cost nothing, not because the market's larger, but because of the generosity of the authors. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Rob Kendrick |
Message #122193, posted by nunfetishist at 23:08, 29/3/2013, in reply to message #122171 |
Today's phish is trout a la creme.
Posts: 525
|
Outlook? a huge number of people pay a lot of money for that, ok it's bundled with office, but it's a massive cash cow. You don't pay for Outlook, you pay for Exchange simultaneous connection licences. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Malcolm Hussain-Gambles |
Message #122194, posted by deadmalc at 23:12, 29/3/2013, in reply to message #122193 |
Member
Posts: 9
|
Well I'm fairly sure outlook doesn't come bundled with any version of windows, only with office proffesional. Or have things changed?
Unless your talking about outlook express, in which case your better off without an email client ;-) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Rob Kendrick |
Message #122195, posted by nunfetishist at 23:28, 29/3/2013, in reply to message #122194 |
Today's phish is trout a la creme.
Posts: 525
|
Well I'm fairly sure outlook doesn't come bundled with any version of windows, only with office proffesional. Or have things changed?
Unless your talking about outlook express, in which case your better off without an email client ;-) It's bundled with all but the lowest package of Office, and Microsoft's money spinner with it is Exchange licences. After all, everybody already owns a copy of Office
Anyway, Outlook isn't really a mail client; it's a groupware client. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Martin Bazley |
Message #122196, posted by swirlythingy at 00:38, 30/3/2013, in reply to message #122172 |
Posts: 460
|
Quick, everyone, choose your cards!
[Edited by swirlythingy at 00:39, 30/3/2013] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Malcolm Hussain-Gambles |
Message #122200, posted by deadmalc at 08:30, 30/3/2013, in reply to message #122196 |
Member
Posts: 9
|
Wow, that's even funnier than bullshit bingo...point made! |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Rawnsley |
Message #122201, posted by arawnsley at 09:32, 30/3/2013, in reply to message #122196 |
R-Comp chap
Posts: 600
|
Heheh nice one Martin - you just left off any quote by Tarquin, although maybe they're just too crazy even for the bingo cards  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
David Heath |
Message #122205, posted by HeathHayle at 10:22, 30/3/2013, in reply to message #122201 |
Member
Posts: 147
|
Hello Andrew hows you? I have ordered messenger pro 7 now. Now you have seen my thread could you answer my original question please? will Messenger Pro 7 still work on RiscOS 3.1?
[Edited by HeathHayle at 10:24, 30/3/2013] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Rawnsley |
Message #122206, posted by arawnsley at 11:21, 30/3/2013, in reply to message #122205 |
R-Comp chap
Posts: 600
|
Hi David!
I believe so, but RO3.1 will likely have limitations on RAM etc. There's nothing that's designed *not* to work on 3.1, but it needs the toolbox modules, new boot (tcpip) and so on which means that you'll want at least 4Mb of RAM to use it.
In practice, I'd suggest 8Mb (eg. 8Mb A5000) as a practical minimum, but I don't have any RISC OS 3.1 kit to test on any more.
We only routinely test down to RISC OS 4, which we consider the baseline OS for RISC OS operation. We don't actively do anything to prevent operation on earlier systems (provided you have new boot, nested wimp etc), but equally we can only test on the kit we have available, and in practical terms, that means a StrongArm RiscPC is as far back as we go. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Gunnlaugur Jonsson |
Message #122207, posted by Gulli at 11:25, 30/3/2013, in reply to message #122172 |
Member
Posts: 138
|
ROL is an example of the failure of the commercial model in a market the size of the RISC OS market ROL is an example of a company shooting itself in the foot. Their days were numbered the minute they announced they would not create a 32 bit version of RISC OS, any market they had after that was only ever going to be shrinking. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
David Heath |
Message #122208, posted by HeathHayle at 11:58, 30/3/2013, in reply to message #122206 |
Member
Posts: 147
|
Hi David!
I believe so, but RO3.1 will likely have limitations on RAM etc. There's nothing that's designed *not* to work on 3.1, but it needs the toolbox modules, new boot (tcpip) and so on which means that you'll want at least 4Mb of RAM to use it.
In practice, I'd suggest 8Mb (eg. 8Mb A5000) as a practical minimum, but I don't have any RISC OS 3.1 kit to test on any more.
We only routinely test down to RISC OS 4, which we consider the baseline OS for RISC OS operation. We don't actively do anything to prevent operation on earlier systems (provided you have new boot, nested wimp etc), but equally we can only test on the kit we have available, and in practical terms, that means a StrongArm RiscPC is as far back as we go. Thanks Andrew for your help that's what I like about Acorn and RiscOS the fact you can still use the software on old Acorns. I can't wait to use messenger pro because I really don't like the new Outlook layout on Hotmail and its another thing I can use RiscOS for now YAY!!! thanks again!!!
[Edited by HeathHayle at 11:59, 30/3/2013] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #122210, posted by filecore at 14:12, 30/3/2013, in reply to message #122207 |
Posts: 3868
|
ROL is an example of a company shooting itself in the foot head. There, fixed that for you. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Gunnlaugur Jonsson |
Message #122216, posted by Gulli at 20:10, 30/3/2013, in reply to message #122210 |
Member
Posts: 138
|
ROL is an example of a company shooting itself in the foot head. There, fixed that for you.
Hehe - didn't want to take it quite that far |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
