OK, very late;
Paul's just got the pics off his camera. And as I wasn't there I can't write up a show report to go with it, but there's Iyonix specs which is probably all people are interested in from the show anyway ;)
An update to the details was sent in another email, which as it's quite short I'll include here:
The maximum application slot (Wimp slot) on the IYONIX PC will be at least 128MBytes. If you have enough RAM then each individual application will be able to claim at least 128MB for its application space. This is a major improvement over the 28MByte limit which is an inherent limitation of 26-bit versions of RISC OS.
Link: pics and specs
Oh, and while I think of it, this is completely off topic but doesn't really merit its own news posting - the Free Ads section and the Mediawatch page have been fixed after the last round of forum updates introduced a new user database and broke posting authentification.
| |
Some late show stuff and other mopping up |
| |
andrew (14:01 8/11/2002)
moss (15:06 8/11/2002)
fwibbler (15:31 8/11/2002)
Hertzsprung (15:53 8/11/2002)
Hertzsprung (15:54 8/11/2002)
moss (16:04 8/11/2002)
walkerdi (16:21 8/11/2002)
Simon Wilson (16:35 8/11/2002)
Iyonix (18:55 8/11/2002)
ams (20:34 8/11/2002)
Simon Wilson (21:15 8/11/2002)
Steve Scott (02:11 13/11/2002)
|
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #91398, posted by andrew at 14:01, 8/11/2002 |
 Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
There's none of the RO5 desktop :| |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
John Hoare |
Message #91399, posted by moss at 15:06, 8/11/2002, in reply to message #91398 |
Posts: 9348
|
http://www.blastzone.demon.co.uk/seshow/gallery/ro5.jpg |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
fwibbler |
Message #91400, posted by fwibbler at 15:31, 8/11/2002, in reply to message #91399 |
Posts: 320
|
Sigh! I do wish Castle would actually look at the
appearance of other Operating systems and see just
how old fashioned RISC OS looks alongside them.Whether you like the MacOS X and WindowsXP look or
not, they at least look modern, up to date, compared
to RISC OS. RISC OS needs a new /modern/ look to help to sell it
to the outside world and it needs to be a new look
/for/ RISC OS rather than just a copy of other
operating systems. Just my two pence worth.
Cheers! |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
James Shaw |
Message #91401, posted by Hertzsprung at 15:53, 8/11/2002, in reply to message #91400 |
 Ghost-like
Posts: 1746
|
I cannot agree with you that WinXP looks *modern*! To me, it looks like a Fisher Price toy! |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
James Shaw |
Message #91402, posted by Hertzsprung at 15:54, 8/11/2002, in reply to message #91401 |
Ghost-like
Posts: 1746
|
Also, think what comments might be made if Castle had changed the icons -- we'd likely complain that they had wasted time making cosmetic changes, rather than making improvements to the functionality or usefulness of the OS. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
John Hoare |
Message #91403, posted by moss at 16:04, 8/11/2002, in reply to message #91402 |
Posts: 9348
|
Whether you like the MacOS X and WindowsXP look or
not, they at least look modern, up to date, compared
to RISC OS. Oddly enough, I converted my girlfriend to RISC OS recently. Well, I didn't have to convert her - she just saw the desktop and loved it. She *prefered* the simple, clean look. And this is an old RISC OS 3.6 desktop! |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
James Walkerdine |
Message #91404, posted by walkerdi at 16:21, 8/11/2002, in reply to message #91403 |
Member
Posts: 4
|
To be honest though, if you look at the screenshot that Moss posted, alot of it looks ok.
The Artworks window looks good to me.
The scrollbars on the windows perhaps look a bit dated, and some of the apps icons look a bit poor (CloseUp being an example).It's probably these odd little things that let it down. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Simon Wilson |
Message #91405, posted at 16:35, 8/11/2002, in reply to message #91404 |
| Unregistered user
|
Just wondering - how do Castle figure that 200MHz RAM is 25x faster than 16MHz RAM? I get 12.5 times. Am I correct in saying that the DDR is clocked at 100MHz and a memory transfer can be done on either the leading or falling edge of the clock? It makes sense if the RAM is actually clocked at 200MHz so there's an effective 400MHz transfer speed. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Censored |
Message #91406, posted by Iyonix at 18:55, 8/11/2002, in reply to message #91405 |
Member
Posts: 235
|
Also, think what comments might be made if Castle had changed the icons -- we'd likely complain that they had wasted time making cosmetic changes, rather than making improvements to the functionality or usefulness of the OS. If people want a mordern look then get a desktop theme, or create your own icons - That is the beauty of RISC OS :) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Annraoi |
Message #91407, posted by ams at 20:34, 8/11/2002, in reply to message #91406 |
Member
Posts: 56
|
In response to the query re-the DDR speed. Yes the DDR SDRAM allows data transfers on both clock edges. The effective rate is 200MHz, but bear in mind the DATA PATH of DDR RAM is NOT 32 but rather 64bit hence castles assertion that it's 25x the speed of the old RPC system. Regards Annraoi |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Simon Wilson |
Message #91408, posted at 21:15, 8/11/2002, in reply to message #91407 |
| Unregistered user
|
Thanks for the answer, Annraoi. Does anyone know what the data path width of the memory on board the Kinetic processor card is? Simon |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Steve Scott |
Message #91409, posted at 02:11, 13/11/2002, in reply to message #91408 |
| Unregistered user
|
Funnily enough, I had not seen or used Windows XP till last week, and find the new look horrible. However, you can actually revert back to the Windows "classic" interface with "relative ease". Haven't found any RISC OS look yet... |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
