A thought on getting Omega/Iyonix a bit cheaper

[Garry]

Hello,
Since selling my RPC, I've been giving casual thought to getting an
Iyonix or Omega (if,when, maybe ,etc.), I was wondering if there was
anyone else out there thinking the same, and maybe we could all get
together to cut ourselves a better deal with a dealer or Castle/MD
directly. If some of us wanted Omegas and others Iyonixes (sic?) then
we'd have to go to a dealer, if we all wanted the same thing, we could
go to the manufacturer in question. I know this might be a bit mean to
the dealers which don't get our business, but I was thinking we could
all save a little money here (as a scotsman, this means a lot!).

I have not personally decided which to get (although swinging greatly
one way), or even to get one at all, but if I could save a bit of
cash, then that would help. I'm not looking for commitments or
anything, just kind of mulling it over and seeing who else fancies it.
I'm guessing a dealer would give a good deal to say a school who
wanted maybe 30 machines, so could maybe extend us the same offer.

I have no idea if any dealer would go for it, but if we get the
numbers, it's worth checking out.

Thanks

Garry

[John Cartmell]

In article <b5652016.0307100304.5d4d09b6@posting.google.com>, Garry
<banditstan2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

[Snip]
maybe we could all get together to cut ourselves a better deal with a dealer or Castle/MD directly.

[Snip]

Before doing that it may be worthwhile checking just how much a dealer
actually gets and whether it's worth losing all your retail support.

[it isn't]

--
John Cartmell john@cartmell.demon.co.uk FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Acorn Publisher magazine & FD Games www.acornpublisher.com

[Garry]

John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<4c0fcffd1bjohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk>... In article <b5652016.0307100304.5d4d09b6@posting.google.com>, Garry <banditstan2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: [Snip]maybe we could all get together to cut ourselves a better deal with a dealer or Castle/MD directly. [Snip] Before doing that it may be worthwhile checking just how much a dealer actually gets and whether it's worth losing all your retail support. [it isn't]

Yes, but I would'nt have thought they'd be very forthcoming about
margins on these things, if we all knew how much they made on a sale,
everyone would be trying to squeeze a better price out them!

Right now, I'm just checking out interest, but I totally agree that
it's better to buy from a dealer, spread the wealth a bit. It's really
a credit to Castle that they value the dealer network more than making
a bit more profit by *just* selling direct. If there is a mix and
match of Omega/Iyonix, then we'd have to go to a dealer anyway.

Maybe it seems a bit off to be scrounging a better deal out of these
companies who are doing their best to support the market, but maybe
this would encourage sales they would not otherwise have had (of
Iyonixes or Omegas). If it does, then Castle/MD may lower the prices
for everyone and get more sales.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying the prices are too much, but even if you
see a bargain in a shop, you still want to get it a little bit
cheaper. :-)

Cheers

Garry

[Garry]

Dave Plowman <dave.sound@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<4c0fe641bddave.sound@argonet.co.uk>... In article <b5652016.0307100304.5d4d09b6@posting.google.com>, Garry <banditstan2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: I'm guessing a dealer would give a good deal to say a school who wanted maybe 30 machines, so could maybe extend us the same offer. I'd be most surprised if any school bought even one.

So would I, but I'm just making an example. If a school wants to go
Acorn, the NC route is price competitive with the PC, sort of.

If a few people are interested, please let me know, and we'll see what
kind of deal we can get.

Thanks

Garry

[Jess]

In message <b5652016.0307101305.76ea88e0@posting.google.com>
banditstan2000@yahoo.co.uk (Garry) wrote:
Dave Plowman <dave.sound@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<4c0fe641bddave.sound@argonet.co.uk>... In article <b5652016.0307100304.5d4d09b6@posting.google.com>, Garry <banditstan2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: I'm guessing a dealer would give a good deal to say a school who wanted maybe 30 machines, so could maybe extend us the same offer. I'd be most surprised if any school bought even one. So would I, but I'm just making an example. If a school wants to go Acorn, the NC route is price competitive with the PC, sort of. If a few people are interested, please let me know, and we'll see what kind of deal we can get.

I was speaking to an ICT co-ordinator at junior school. They would love
a simple to use low maintenance system with a citrix client to allow
access to off site windows servers. They *really* want to stick two
fingers up at RM.

If a suitable up to date ICA client existed, something like a RISC
Station with it in ROM too would be ideal for their needs. (Or slym
with an HD)

I think an up to date ICA client is vital for any hope of RO regaining
ground or even holding steady in education.

An NC style arrangement is still a good idea, but now Citrix is taking
hold in education, RO has an opening, but only if a decent ICA client
is created.

--
Jess icq: 91353267 msn: phantasm_39@hotmail.com http://www.kentwebnet.com
Hotmail is my spam trap - don't use for email
mailto:nospam@itworkshop.uklinux.net
RISC OS 4.36 kinetic 64+128+2M Castle Storm DMA + 17GB 586-133 I-3 ADSL


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[Simon Challands]

In message <934205104c.steve@helvellyn.stevefryatt.org.uk>
Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
On 10 Jul, Garry wrote in message <b5652016.0307100900.5a7f4b47@posting.google.com>: Maybe it seems a bit off to be scrounging a better deal out of these companies who are doing their best to support the market, but maybe this would encourage sales they would not otherwise have had (of Iyonixes or Omegas). If it does, then Castle/MD may lower the prices for everyone and get more sales. This argument comes up every time: "if it was a bit cheaper, I'd buy one." It isn't a bit cheaper and it probably can't realistically be so while still covering the costs of development against the small number of sales that are going to result.

Sometimes it's "If it was a bit cheaper I could afford to buy one". I could
just about afford an Iyonix, and I may yet buy one, but I'm having to think
very carefully before spending that much money. There will be plenty of
others in the same boat, and those are people already in the RO scene. I'm
sure Castle have done their sums when working out the price, though, which
could be a step on the road to better, and cheaper things.

It seems likely (without knowing much at all about the technical side of
things) that the development of the Iyonix could be the expensive bit,
opening the door for things to come. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but if
you only ever spend money on the principal that something better and cheaper
is going to arrive soon you'll never buy anything technological.

--
Simon Challands, creator of
The Acorn Elite Pages: http://elite.acornarcade.com/
Three Dimensional Encounters: http://www.3dfrontier.fsnet.co.uk/

[Liam Gretton]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Simon Challands wrote:
Sometimes it's "If it was a bit cheaper I could afford to buy one". I could just about afford an Iyonix, and I may yet buy one, but I'm having to think very carefully before spending that much money.

Then you should think about what you want your expensive computer to do,
and budget around that. For significantly less than the price of an Iyonix
or Omega, you could buy a very powerful PC and run RedSquirrel or Virtual
Acorn. With RedSquirrel you won't get the same level of performance that
you would from an Iyonix, but you'll save a lot of money and can delegate
a lot of tasks to Windows applications.

Why do you want an Iyonix in particular? What will it do for you that a
cheaper computer won't?

(not meaning to shoot the Iyonix down: it's an awesome achievement to get
a new RO box out to market, but it's a very expensive machine and I can't
think of ONE THING it can do that a PC half the price can't do).

--
Liam Gretton ljg@star.le.ac.uk
Space Research Centre, http://www.src.le.ac.uk/
Physics and Astronomy Dept, phone +44 (0) 116 223 1039
University of Leicester, fax +44 (0) 116 252 2464
Leicester LE1 7RH, UK

[druck]

On 11 Jul 2003 Liam Gretton <ljg@star.le.ac.uk> wrote: On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Simon Challands wrote: Sometimes it's "If it was a bit cheaper I could afford to buy one". I could just about afford an Iyonix, and I may yet buy one, but I'm having to think very carefully before spending that much money. Then you should think about what you want your expensive computer to do, and budget around that. For significantly less than the price of an Iyonix or Omega, you could buy a very powerful PC and run RedSquirrel or Virtual Acorn. With RedSquirrel you won't get the same level of performance that you would from an Iyonix, but you'll save a lot of money and can delegate a lot of tasks to Windows applications.

A very effective way of killing the platform.

Its selling hardware Castle to buy the rights to RISC OS? The very few people
that buy new software for emulators (as opposed to the vast majority that
think emulator = free = ok to download software from the web), would not
fund any future developement of the platform, OS or applications.

---druck

--
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/

[John Cartmell]

In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307110047000.3235-100000@dms1>,
Liam Gretton <ljg@star.le.ac.uk> wrote: (not meaning to shoot the Iyonix down: it's an awesome achievement to get a new RO box out to market, but it's a very expensive machine and I can't think of ONE THING it can do that a PC half the price can't do).

Help in the development of RISC OS 6?

--
John Cartmell john@cartmell.demon.co.uk FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Acorn Publisher magazine & FD Games www.acornpublisher.com

[druck]

On 11 Jul 2003 druck <news@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
On 11 Jul 2003 Liam Gretton <ljg@star.le.ac.uk> wrote: On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Simon Challands wrote: Sometimes it's "If it was a bit cheaper I could afford to buy one". I could just about afford an Iyonix, and I may yet buy one, but I'm having to think very carefully before spending that much money. Then you should think about what you want your expensive computer to do, and budget around that. For significantly less than the price of an Iyonix or Omega, you could buy a very powerful PC and run RedSquirrel or Virtual Acorn. With RedSquirrel you won't get the same level of performance that you would from an Iyonix, but you'll save a lot of money and can delegate a lot of tasks to Windows applications. A very effective way of killing the platform. Its selling hardware Castle to buy the rights to RISC OS?

Its selling hardware that has allowed Castle to buy the rights to RISC OS.
The very few people that buy new software for emulators (as opposed to the vast majority that think emulator = free = ok to download software from the web), would not fund any future developement of the platform, OS or applications.

---druck

--
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/

[Liam Gretton]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, druck wrote:
On 11 Jul 2003 Liam Gretton <ljg@star.le.ac.uk> wrote: On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Simon Challands wrote: With RedSquirrel you won't get the same level of performance that you would from an Iyonix, but you'll save a lot of money and can delegate a lot of tasks to Windows applications. A very effective way of killing the platform.

Not my problem (as a computer user), much as I'd like to see it succeed.
In the same way I'm not too bothered which company the hammer I buy next
week to bang some nails into some wood comes from, as long as it's of
reasonable quality, does the job and isn't made by Chinese convicts.
Its selling hardware Castle to buy the rights to RISC OS?

Sorry, you'll have to rephrase that...
The very few people that buy new software for emulators (as opposed to the vast majority that think emulator = free = ok to download software from the web), would not fund any future developement of the platform, OS or applications.

That's not relevant to my argument (though a good point, even though I
don't entirely agree). No-one in their right mind would spend over 1000GBP
for a computer just to fund the manufacturer's future well-being.

Anyway, though I don't have a large or even particularly valid statistical
sample, I know of a couple of colleagues who have bought VA just to run
some of our old software on their PCs. Those are people who wouldn't
consider buying a RO machine ever - and all of a sudden they're forking
out for a copy of RO. As it happens, that expenditure doesn't contribute
towards developing the OS, but we all know which company's fault that
is, with it's head-in-the-sand attitude...

Dunno about you, but if I spend that sort of money on a machine, it's got
to be able to do as much as possible that I want it to do. Right now for
my needs, that cash is better spent on a fast PC that can run all the
applications I need AND as luck would have it can run a very good Acorn
emulator for those RISC OS apps I still wish to use.

How many times do we hear that before buying a computer, one should assess
what it is to be used for? Do that with RO and you are left with a very
limited set of capabilities - good for mail (as long as you don't want
anything 'esoteric' such as IMAP over TLS or LDAP...), has some nice
features (universal drawfile support is the jewel in RO's crown IMHO), but
that's about it. Unfortunately none of the current RO boxes measure up to
any of the alternatives, and that's largely down to the OS and lack of
applications rather than the hardware. Factor in the ability to run RO
under emulation... what's the point in buying dedicated hardware to run
RO given the costs involved?

--
Liam Gretton ljg@star.le.ac.uk
Space Research Centre, http://www.src.le.ac.uk/
Physics and Astronomy Dept, phone +44 (0) 116 223 1039
University of Leicester, fax +44 (0) 116 252 2464
Leicester LE1 7RH, UK

[Liam Gretton]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, John Cartmell wrote:
In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307110047000.3235-100000@dms1>, Liam Gretton <ljg@star.le.ac.uk> wrote: (not meaning to shoot the Iyonix down: it's an awesome achievement to get a new RO box out to market, but it's a very expensive machine and I can't think of ONE THING it can do that a PC half the price can't do). Help in the development of RISC OS 6?

I must have missed the OS development roadmap somewhere. What will RO6 do,
exactly? (I have a CD somewhere showing a concept of the 3D desktop that
RO4 would have...). Why should I care about the vague possibility of a
future version of the OS when I need my computers to do a job?

--
Liam Gretton ljg@star.le.ac.uk
Space Research Centre, http://www.src.le.ac.uk/
Physics and Astronomy Dept, phone +44 (0) 116 223 1039
University of Leicester, fax +44 (0) 116 252 2464
Leicester LE1 7RH, UK

[Michael Gilbert]

In article <b25d02104c.news@itworkshop.invalid>, Jess
<URL:mailto:phantasm_39@hotmail.com> wrote: In message <b5652016.0307101305.76ea88e0@posting.google.com> banditstan2000@yahoo.co.uk (Garry) wrote: Dave Plowman <dave.sound@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<4c0fe641bddave.sound@argonet.co.uk>... In article <b5652016.0307100304.5d4d09b6@posting.google.com>, Garry <banditstan2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > I'm guessing a dealer would give a good deal to say a school who > wanted maybe 30 machines, so could maybe extend us the same offer. I'd be most surprised if any school bought even one. So would I, but I'm just making an example. If a school wants to go Acorn, the NC route is price competitive with the PC, sort of. If a few people are interested, please let me know, and we'll see what kind of deal we can get. I was speaking to an ICT co-ordinator at junior school. They would love a simple to use low maintenance system with a citrix client to allow access to off site windows servers. They *really* want to stick two fingers up at RM.

RM are not synonymous with Windows in education. Citrix systems are not
low maintenance. It's incredibly easy (especially at Primary) to deploy
secure, low maintenance PC installations. You need to start with the
right baseline, though. It's also incredibly easy to totally trash a
Citrix installation. An example from my own recent experience had the
ITCo at a primary totally blitzing an NT 4 server somehow; no Citrix
left at all.

Citrix is super, but. If a suitable up to date ICA client existed, something like a RISC Station with it in ROM too would be ideal for their needs. (Or slym with an HD)

However good the ICA client was, the box would hold it back. In my
(quite long) experience of this stuff, you need a decent graphics
capability to make Citrix work well. None of the 7500-powered machines
has this. Their performance (on the current client) is okay, but dire
compared with even a 2 year old PC running Windows natively. I think an up to date ICA client is vital for any hope of RO regaining ground or even holding steady in education.

I think it's wholly irrelevant. If you're running an ICA client, you're
running Windows. You might as well be using an eLux powered
purpose-built device as anything else. You have no incentive to start
running RISC OS software An NC style arrangement is still a good idea, but now Citrix is taking hold in education, RO has an opening, but only if a decent ICA client is created.
My experience is absolutely the reverse of this. The demand we had for
Citrix was from Acorn schools wanting parallel Windows capability. That
was half a decade ago. Now, most of them have had to bite the bullet
and buy new hardware, and it's going to be running Windows. They would
like to keep on with RISC OS, so we install VA5000. Which is, of
course, not good for the image of the platform, as the GUI is horrid.

--
Michael Gilbert: in his own write

OK, so there's the Trident in Bangor

[mark stephens]

> In message <934205104c.steve@helvellyn.stevefryatt.org.uk> Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:

[snip] Sometimes it's "If it was a bit cheaper I could afford to buy one". I could just about afford an Iyonix, and I may yet buy one, but I'm having to think very carefully before spending that much money. There will be plenty of others in the same boat, and those are people already in the RO scene. I'm sure Castle have done their sums when working out the price, though, which could be a step on the road to better, and cheaper things.

I think Castle would have been through the sums VERY carefully. Getting the
number right is critical to their success.

They would also factor in extra sales from lower prices, offset against lower
base price, and how many they can handle. Orders of millions is no good if
you can't make/handle that number ;-)

--
Mark

[Garry]

Michael Gilbert <mgilbert@eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message news:<ant1021531cb9GWx@riscpc.local>... In article <4c0fcffd1bjohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk>, John Cartmell <URL:mailto:john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote: In article <b5652016.0307100304.5d4d09b6@posting.google.com>, Garry <banditstan2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: [Snip]maybe we could all get together to cut ourselves a better deal with a dealer or Castle/MD directly. [Snip] Before doing that it may be worthwhile checking just how much a dealer actually gets and whether it's worth losing all your retail support. [it isn't] It really isn't. If a school came to me tomorrow wanting 30 Iyonix, I'd not be able to afford to discount the price at all. It's good that we can resell the machines, but margins are very tight. TBH, the basic discount Castle can offer on Iyonix is about the level I'd take on a big sale of Windows tin.

I don't know what margins are on PCs, but I appreciate they are not
great.
And even if 30, or even 100, people got together, how much do you think you'd save? Seriously.

I have not the slightest idea, but I think that Castle will be selling
these at profit, and if they have made enough money to buy RISC OS
(for an undisclosed sum, granted), then the cashflow situation at
Castle must be at least 'OK'. In their press release about buying RISC
OS, they state 10 years of year-on-year growth, so I think they are
probably alright.

This seems to be a contentious issue, but I don't think it should be.
For a lot of people, including myself, £1000 is a mental barrier and
£1250 for an Iyonix is just too much for some people, particularly if
they have to buy software and a monitor. I can only speak for myself,
but a lower price would encourage me to buy an Iyonix or Omega. I have
owned 3 RiscPCs, all second-hand, this is clearly not helping the
market, I bought my last one around the launch of the Iyonix, if the
Iyonix had been (say) £999, I think I would have gone for it, rather
than another s/h RiscPC, even if the Iyonix was barebones, like no
floppy,CD, or even case. I know Castle don't want to support homemade
Iyonixes, perfectly understandable. But if they supplied everything
that mattered, but not the generic stuff like
keyboards/mice/CD/floppy/case/PSU, then maybe they could get the price
down just a tad. I for one have loads of bits and pieces just gasping
to be part of an Iyonix! ;-)

A sale at low profit, is generally better than no sale at all.

Cheers

Garry

[John Cartmell]

In article <vAwPa.46865$9C6.2402671@wards.force9.net>,
Danny Jones <daniel@thejonesfamily.plus.com> wrote:
<cferris@freeRemoveuk.com.invalid> wrote in message news:b60c3a104c.cferris@cferris.freeuk.com... Not Catch Window/IBM virus's etc Why to people still insist on still calling PC's IBM compatibles/IBM PCs? Unless you mean IBM's OS/2?

Because some of us are old and PC means* personal computer = desktop or
laptop computer of any platform.

*should mean

Like windows refers to something that Windows didn't properly have for a
long time ;-(

--
John Cartmell john@cartmell.demon.co.uk FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Acorn Publisher magazine & FD Games www.acornpublisher.com

[Liam Gretton]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, John Cartmell wrote:
I must have missed the OS development roadmap somewhere. What will RO6 do, exactly? I don't know but your PC certainly won't help in its development

No, but it helps me do my job and pursue my hobbies very nicely.

An interesting point though. If you want to run RO on a laptop you
currently have to buy one of MD's Alpha laptops. I wonder what ROL's cut
is compared to that of MS for the copy of Windows you're obliged to have
with it...?

--
Liam Gretton ljg@star.le.ac.uk
Space Research Centre, http://www.src.le.ac.uk/
Physics and Astronomy Dept, phone +44 (0) 116 223 1039
University of Leicester, fax +44 (0) 116 252 2464
Leicester LE1 7RH, UK

[Simon Challands]

In message <4c10141b51john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307110047000.3235-100000@dms1>, Liam Gretton <ljg@star.le.ac.uk> wrote: (not meaning to shoot the Iyonix down: it's an awesome achievement to get a new RO box out to market, but it's a very expensive machine and I can't think of ONE THING it can do that a PC half the price can't do).

Unless an emulator can offer a significant performance over a RiscPC there's
no point in me buying one (apart from the laptop situation, which I'm not
going to go in to). The fact that I've considered buying an Iyonix must
mean that I would find some use for it over and above the RiscPC. If I
needed a PC I would have got one years ago, and things I can do on RO I
much prefer doing on RO. Whether it's worth spending all that much money
for that reason is an entirely different question. I couldn't come up with
a logically weighed up cost vs. benefit argument, but I want the machine ;)
Help in the development of RISC OS 6?

I don't find that a particularly good argument. Putting money into a
company to help it develop, and hopefully get something back from that
money, is what the stock market is for. Not an option in this case.

--
Simon Challands, creator of
The Acorn Elite Pages: http://elite.acornarcade.com/
Three Dimensional Encounters: http://www.3dfrontier.fsnet.co.uk/

[John Cartmell]

In article <da4464104c.3dfrontier.fsnet.co.uk@3dfrontier.fsnet.co.uk>,
Simon Challands <pleasedontuse@hotmail.com> wrote: Help in the development of RISC OS 6?
I don't find that a particularly good argument. Putting money into a company to help it develop, and hopefully get something back from that money, is what the stock market is for. Not an option in this case.

That's the second person who has totally misread the line - even though it
is quite clear. The question was:
What can a RISC OS machine do that a [Windows] PC can't?
Answer:
Help in the development of RISC OS 6?

I opted out of the chance to produce the usual long list and gave the one
answer that no-one could possibly argue about! ;-)

[unless of course you know better? ;-)) ]

--
John Cartmell john@cartmell.demon.co.uk FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Acorn Publisher magazine & FD Games www.acornpublisher.com

[Ams]

banditstan2000@yahoo.co.uk (Garry) wrote in message news:<b5652016.0307110216.55a172c4@posting.google.com>...
A sale at low profit, is generally better than no sale at all.

At one level Garry you right, at another you're wrong.

The thing is there is *no* income coming into the RISC OS platform
currently other than sales of hardware. No money for adding this
software feature or that, how will a successor for Iyonix be paid for
(yes let's take the long view here).

I agree £999 would be a nice "round" price, but you'd still have
someone (or other) carping on about how they could get an Athlon PC
for £400 or whatever. If you follow the downward spiral down, Castle
might double their sales - but cut their profit per machine to such a
level that they would not be able to fund *any* further development.

Let's have a look at what Castle have *actually* done (and let's
ponder how much it cost):

* Updated C/C++ Compiler and PRMs (this cost I'd imagine a bit up
front)
* Designed and produced Iyonix
* Updated the SCL and other bits and pieces (made available to
*even* non-
purchasers)
* Have produced a Technical Reference Manual (out now - again a
cost)
* Have issued several quite significant updates to RO5 (enabling
UDMA for
example).

They also bought the RO license, thus securing the platform.

Look at the history, some people thought Kinetic's were overpriced,
but they very well may have paid for developing the Iyonix prototype.

The issue is do you want to be using a platform with a future or would
you prefer a cheap but dead one ? If you want a living, dynamic and
progressive platform it costs. Perhaps when there are lots of OEM's
using RO5 things may get a bit cheaper - but until then I think we're
going to have to bite the bullet (I am currently saving for an Iyonix
- and trust me it seems to cost a lot more in Euros ;)



Regards


Annraoi

[Steve Fryatt]

On 11 Jul, mark stephens wrote in message
<53233a104c.markee@idrsolutions.com>:
In message <934205104c.steve@helvellyn.stevefryatt.org.uk> Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote: [snip] Sometimes it's [....]

No I didn't -- please try to get the attributions correct when quoting.

--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/

* "Smile, it confuses people." - Scott Adams

[David Boddie]

John Cartmell wrote:
What can a RISC OS machine do that a [Windows] PC can't? Answer: Help in the development of RISC OS 6?

If you're one of the developers of RISC OS 6 then I can perhaps see your
point, or are you suggesting that it should be an open source project?

Maybe you're suggesting that lucky users will get to beta test it and
report bugs to the development team.

I can't wait to find out...

--
http://www.boddie.org.uk/david/Projects/

[Stuart Winsor]

In article <4c1073e07fjohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote: What can a RISC OS machine do that a [Windows] PC can't? Answer: Help in the development of RISC OS 6?

Q. What can a Windows Pc do that a Risc OS machine can't.

A. Heat up the room

:-)

--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | /
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
___________________________/ stuartwinsor@argonet.co.uk

101 uses for a Pentium: No1 - A slow cooker.

[Simon Challands]

In message <4c1073e07fjohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In article <da4464104c.3dfrontier.fsnet.co.uk@3dfrontier.fsnet.co.uk>, Simon Challands <pleasedontuse@hotmail.com> wrote: Help in the development of RISC OS 6? I don't find that a particularly good argument. Putting money into a company to help it develop, and hopefully get something back from that money, is what the stock market is for. Not an option in this case. That's the second person who has totally misread the line - even though it is quite clear. The question was: What can a RISC OS machine do that a [Windows] PC can't? Answer: Help in the development of RISC OS 6? I opted out of the chance to produce the usual long list and gave the one answer that no-one could possibly argue about! ;-) [unless of course you know better? ;-)) ]

I don't see how that means I've misread the line. You were putting it
forward as an argument for buying an Iyonix, I was saying why I didn't
think it's a particularly good argument. Yes, the money *will* probably
help in the development of Castle's next RO (whatever number they'll
give it), but it's hardly a good reason alone for buying a new machine,
which is what the discussion was about.

If you weren't putting it forward as an argument about buying an Iyonix
then it's a misleading statement, since it could then be interpreted as
meaning that a Windows PC can't be used in the devlopment of RISC OS,
which is probably untrue, although you might not want to.

--
Simon Challands, creator of
The Acorn Elite Pages: http://elite.acornarcade.com/
Three Dimensional Encounters: http://www.3dfrontier.fsnet.co.uk/

[John Cartmell]

In article <183e7e104c.3dfrontier.fsnet.co.uk@3dfrontier.fsnet.co.uk>,
Simon Challands <pleasedontuse@hotmail.com> wrote: I don't see how that means I've misread the line. You were putting it forward as an argument for buying an Iyonix

No I wasn't! ;-)

The question *wasn't* "Why buy an Iyonix?" but "What can an Iyonix do that
a PC can't?"

Presumably all the feedback that Castle and RISC OS Ltd get from RO5 and
Select users will go to help develop RO6.

I didn't even mention money!

--
John Cartmell john@cartmell.demon.co.uk FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Acorn Publisher magazine & FD Games www.acornpublisher.com

[Simon Challands]

In message <4c107fc2edjohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In article <183e7e104c.3dfrontier.fsnet.co.uk@3dfrontier.fsnet.co.uk>, Simon Challands <pleasedontuse@hotmail.com> wrote: I don't see how that means I've misread the line. You were putting it forward as an argument for buying an Iyonix No I wasn't! ;-) The question *wasn't* "Why buy an Iyonix?" but "What can an Iyonix do that a PC can't?" Presumably all the feedback that Castle and RISC OS Ltd get from RO5 and Select users will go to help develop RO6. I didn't even mention money!

The discussion was all about money, so whilst yes, it is an assumption I
made that you were also referring to the finanicial situation, it was a
fairly reasonable one, in the same way that if I said "I'm going to buy
a RISC OS computer" in this thread you would probably assume I meant an
Iyonix, but I could be meaning a third hand A305.

The questions were, summed up:
"Why buy an Iyonix?", which lead to
"What can it do that a PC can't?", which seemed to me to be saying there
isn't much point in buying one, i.e. "buying" and therefore "money" is
still involved.

--
Simon Challands, creator of
The Acorn Elite Pages: http://elite.acornarcade.com/
Three Dimensional Encounters: http://www.3dfrontier.fsnet.co.uk/

[Adam Richardson]

In a message on 11 Jul, Garry wrote: Erm, you *are* saying that the prices are too high -- if they weren't, there wouldn't be any scope to reduce them.
always room to reduce price. I don't know what scope there is to reduce Iyonix prices, but I don't believe they are selling them at cost (or that close to it). I think all computer companes leave

Cost? What /exactly/ do you mean by cost?

- The price of the individual components? (What about the in-house ones?)

- The cost of the components and the labour required to assemple them?

- The cost of the components, the assembly and the labour costs for admin
staff?

- The cost of components, assembly, admin and rent for the building?

- The cost of components, assembly, admin, rent and the money that Castle's
owner must make in order to eat?

- The cost of components, assembly, admin, rent and the money that Castle's
owner makes in order to live a comfortable life? (How much, exactly do you
think that is?)

- The cost of components, assembly, admin, rent, owner salary and
advertising?

- The cost of components, assembly, admin, rent, owner salary, advertising
and the money spent on development? (How much, precisely, do you think that
was?)

- The cost of components, assembly, admin, rent, owner salary, advertising,
development and money put aside for product support?

- The cost of components, assembly, admin, rent, owner salary, advertising,
development, support and money for future product development?


I could clearly go on forever. My point? Arguing about whether or not an
Iyonix is cheap/expensive/whatever and what price Castle /ought/ to sell them
for is an almost completely pointless exercise in futility. The only possible
valued judgement one can make as a consumer is whether or not you wish to
purchase the product in question. Yes or No.

Adam

P.S. To stir things up a little more: where do you think the word "profit"
would come into my list above?
--
Adam Richardson Phone:
Carpe Diem Email:

Do one thing every day that scares you.

[Steve Fryatt]

On 11 Jul, Garry wrote in message
<b5652016.0307110228.7eb1cb5c@posting.google.com>:
Maybe it seems a bit off to be scrounging a better deal out of these companies who are doing their best to support the market, but maybe this would encourage sales they would not otherwise have had (of Iyonixes or Omegas). If it does, then Castle/MD may lower the prices for everyone and get more sales. This argument comes up every time: "if it was a bit cheaper, I'd buy one." It isn't a bit cheaper and it probably can't realistically be so while still covering the costs of development against the small number of sales that are going to result. One could argue that the low sales are due to the relatively high price, I don't know what Castle's costs and margins are, but they have the right to make a profit, and as a potential customer, I have the right to try reduce their profit by haggling for a bargain.

Despite the popular misconception that profit goes into the pockets of
"fat cat" directors, much of that profit (if you're using the term
correctly) will be going back into the business. That's into things like
securing the future of RISC OS from Pace, developing the OS, etc.

You /can/ try and reduce that profit, but it might not help the market too
much in the longer term.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying the prices are too much, but even if you see a bargain in a shop, you still want to get it a little bit cheaper. :-) Erm, you *are* saying that the prices are too high -- if they weren't, there wouldn't be any scope to reduce them. With respect (I'm being super polite because I know how debates can turn into slanging matches), I am not saying that, I believe there is always room to reduce price.

I think you're wrong there. There will come a point where it ceases to be
worth developing, building and selling the things and that point can be
with a remarkably high 'profit' at first glance. If you've ever had the
chance to see the initial budgeting process on a design project (ie. how
much do we sell for, so how much can the bits cost after unit manufacture
and development and therefore is it actually worth bothering?) you'll know
what I mean.

Take the cost of the physical components in the Iyonix. Add the cost of
building the motherboard (I don't know if this is UK, Asia or elsewhere),
assembling the bits, testing and packing. Then add the general overhead
costs (sales, admin, support). Now take the hardware development cost,
divide by your potential sales and add that in. Do the same for the cost
of getting a 32-bit RISC OS to use with all the changes to make it work on
the new hardware. Be surprised at the total you've reached...

I think you've either ignored or seriously underestimated the size of all
the non-hardware items in the above. It wouldn't surprise me too much if
they were in the area of 30% to 50% of the total system cost; maybe more.
I don't know what scope there is to reduce Iyonix prices, but I don't believe they are selling them at cost (or that close to it). I think all computer companes leave themselves room to move on price, just in case they have to do a bulk discount, or maybe a special offer at christmas or something.

Based on hardware alone, no. Add in all the 'hidden' costs and I don't
think they can be that far off.

--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/

* Jul 11 1274 - Robert the Bruce was born at Turnberry, Ayrshire.

[David Boddie]

Steven Pampling wrote:
Sorry, but if you buy cheap you forfeit many rights.

I dispute that. Where in the consumer legislation does it say that the
consumer forfeits any of their rights based on the price of the goods
they have bought?

--
http://www.boddie.org.uk/david/Projects/

[Ian Molton]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 23:26:00 +0000 (UTC)
David Boddie <davidb@mcs.st-and.ac.uk> wrote:
Sorry, but if you buy cheap you forfeit many rights. I dispute that. Where in the consumer legislation does it say that the consumer forfeits any of their rights based on the price of the goods they have bought?

You're right but I dont think thats what he meant - Im sure he wasnt suggesting you would lose your statutory rights. I think the point was that you shouldnt expect mych in the way of a 'customer hotline' for a PC costing 50ukp ;-)

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

[John Cartmell]

In article <benh27$b4q$1@titan.btinternet.com>,
David Boddie <davidb@mcs.st-and.ac.uk> wrote: Steven Pampling wrote:
Sorry, but if you buy cheap you forfeit many rights.
I dispute that. Where in the consumer legislation does it say that the consumer forfeits any of their rights based on the price of the goods they have bought?

Section 52 subsection 25iiie:
Where a company has gone out of business because it sold its goods at too
low a price the customer is entitled to all the support described in
Section 12 subsection xviis (d).

Section 12 subsection xviis (d):
None.

--
John Cartmell john@cartmell.demon.co.uk FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Acorn Publisher magazine & FD Games www.acornpublisher.com

[John Cartmell]

In article <4c108c4961mfox@argonet.co.uk>, Martyn Fox <mfox@argonet.co.uk>
wrote: In article <dab3e751.0307111015.1d1678e4@posting.google.com>, Annraoi <ams@globalcafe.ie> wrote:
I agree £999 would be a nice "round" price, but you'd still have someone (or other) carping on about how they could get an Athlon PC for £400 or whatever.
ISTR that the BBC Model B was priced at 399 ukp in 1982.
How much would that be at today's prices?

Well houseprices have gone up over 10-fold since then ;-)
People said it was too expensive.
How many did it sell?

We'd put up with those miserable numbers ;-))

--
John Cartmell john@cartmell.demon.co.uk FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Acorn Publisher magazine & FD Games www.acornpublisher.com

[David Boddie]

John Cartmell wrote:
In article <benh27$b4q$1@titan.btinternet.com>, David Boddie <davidb@mcs.st-and.ac.uk> wrote:
I dispute that. Where in the consumer legislation does it say that the consumer forfeits any of their rights based on the price of the goods they have bought? Section 52 subsection 25iiie: Where a company has gone out of business because it sold its goods at too low a price the customer is entitled to all the support described in Section 12 subsection xviis (d). Section 12 subsection xviis (d): None.

References?

--
http://www.boddie.org.uk/david/Projects/

[Eddie Lord]

In NG message <4c108c4961mfox@argonet.co.uk>
Martyn Fox <mfox@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
In article <dab3e751.0307111015.1d1678e4@posting.google.com>, Annraoi <ams@globalcafe.ie> wrote: I agree £999 would be a nice "round" price, but you'd still have someone (or other) carping on about how they could get an Athlon PC for £400 or whatever. ISTR that the BBC Model B was priced at 399 ukp in 1982. How much would that be at today's prices? People said it was too expensive. How many did it sell?
Just had a rummage in my loft and found a pay cheque from 1982. Looking
at a comparitive salary today the price of the beeb would be £999, give
or take a bit. So I guess you could say that £250 is the premium you are
paying to keep the RiscOS show on the road. Of course this says nothing
about the relative performance of the two machines.

If you want a cheaper deal, wait to the next RiscOS show and take one of
the special offers that are usually in effect.
--
Regards

Eddie
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. - Napoleon

[Dave Symes]

In article <4c109cd671john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Well houseprices have gone up over 10-fold since then ;-)

Mmnn! not really applicable in the computer sense, considering in real
terms, computers are a lot less costly than they would be if the house
price rule had been applied by the manufacturers.

Dave S

--

[Michael Gilbert]

In article <b5652016.0307110216.55a172c4@posting.google.com>, Garry
<URL:mailto:banditstan2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: Michael Gilbert <mgilbert@eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message news:<ant1021531cb9GWx@riscp c.local>... In article <4c0fcffd1bjohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk>, John Cartmell <URL:mailto:john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote: In article <b5652016.0307100304.5d4d09b6@posting.google.com>, Garry <banditstan2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: [Snip] >maybe we could all get together to cut ourselves a better deal with a > dealer or Castle/MD directly. [Snip] Before doing that it may be worthwhile checking just how much a dealer actually gets and whether it's worth losing all your retail support. [it isn't] It really isn't. If a school came to me tomorrow wanting 30 Iyonix, I'd not be able to afford to discount the price at all. It's good that we can resell the machines, but margins are very tight. TBH, the basic discount Castle can offer on Iyonix is about the level I'd take on a big sale of Windows tin. I don't know what margins are on PCs, but I appreciate they are not great.

They are, in general, substantially better than on Iyonix. And even if 30, or even 100, people got together, how much do you think you'd save? Seriously. I have not the slightest idea, but I think that Castle will be selling these at profit, and if they have made enough money to buy RISC OS (for an undisclosed sum, granted), then the cashflow situation at Castle must be at least 'OK'. In their press release about buying RISC OS, they state 10 years of year-on-year growth, so I think they are probably alright.

The purchase of the rights to RISC OS does not indicate that they have
spare cash. It indicates that it is something they can justify
commercially as an investment over time. Businesses don't really
function in the same way as people when it comes to money. This seems to be a contentious issue, but I don't think it should be. For a lot of people, including myself, £1000 is a mental barrier and £1250 for an Iyonix is just too much for some people,
[snip]

I think that if Jack Lillingstone had been able to price Iyonix at £999,
he would have. Some people in the market might lack sales savvy, but
he isn't one of them. Ditto David Atkins; whatever MD's faults, poor
sales skills aren't among them.
A sale at low profit, is generally better than no sale at all.

You're making a common mistake of confusing profit with markup. The
profit on something is not the sale price less the cost. It's part of a
whole business concept. For instance, I use about 250 quid in fuel a
month. If (for the sake of the sum) we got 10% discount on a product we
sold at 1250 quid ex VAT, we'd need to sell two just to pay for that
fuel.

Please note the "ex VAT" bit too. You're talking about 999 quid
including VAT. Excising the duty (sorry) gives a real sale price of 850
quid. 999 ex VAT is 1175(ish) inc VAT, which would still, I guess, be
too much for you. Cheers Garry

--
Michael Gilbert: in his own write

OK, so there's the Trident in Bangor

[Michael Gilbert]

In article <benh27$b4q$1@titan.btinternet.com>, David Boddie
<URL:mailto:davidb@mcs.st-and.ac.uk> wrote: Steven Pampling wrote: Sorry, but if you buy cheap you forfeit many rights. I dispute that. Where in the consumer legislation does it say that the consumer forfeits any of their rights based on the price of the goods they have bought?
If an item is sold cheaply, then caveat emptor still applies. A judge
will take the view that the purchaser is aware that said item
normally is valued much higher than the price paid, and the low price
must indicate a lower quality or something.

Also, resold items are not subject to the same warranty as new items.

Also, you are only entitled to support on the hardware itself, rather
than on how you use it.

--
Michael Gilbert: in his own write

OK, so there's the Trident in Bangor

[John Cartmell]

In article <f073b5104c.eddie@eddie.brookhaven.plus.com>,
Eddie Lord <eddielord@onetel.net.uk> wrote: In NG message <4c108c4961mfox@argonet.co.uk> Martyn Fox <mfox@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
In article <dab3e751.0307111015.1d1678e4@posting.google.com>, Annraoi <ams@globalcafe.ie> wrote: I agree £999 would be a nice "round" price, but you'd still have someone (or other) carping on about how they could get an Athlon PC for £400 or whatever. ISTR that the BBC Model B was priced at 399 ukp in 1982. How much would that be at today's prices? People said it was too expensive. How many did it sell? Just had a rummage in my loft and found a pay cheque from 1982. Looking at a comparitive salary today the price of the beeb would be £999, give or take a bit. So I guess you could say that £250 is the premium you are paying to keep the RiscOS show on the road. Of course this says nothing about the relative performance of the two machines.
£399 didn't include the disk drive. Sit down before you check the price of
them in 1982 ;-)
I think the CD drive at the time could be best estimated at 3 or 4 times
the cost of the Beeb (assuming you could get Philips to release one of
their early CD-precursor players!

--
John Cartmell john@cartmell.demon.co.uk FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Acorn Publisher magazine & FD Games www.acornpublisher.com

[Steve Fryatt]

On 12 Jul, David Boddie wrote in message
<benh27$b4q$1@titan.btinternet.com>:
Steven Pampling wrote: Sorry, but if you buy cheap you forfeit many rights. I dispute that. Where in the consumer legislation does it say that the consumer forfeits any of their rights based on the price of the goods they have bought?

Nowhere, I shouldn't think. However, that's scant consolation when you
try and get support only to find that the company went out of business
because it tried to offer too much support for bargain-basement PCs.

Buying cheap doesn't remove you *consumer* rights. However, in the normal
world inhabited by the non "ambulance-chasers", it does remove any
realistic "right" to unlimited free technical support if you hit problems
that aren't due to faulty product. You may think otherwise, but pressing
that view may be counter productive in the end.

--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/

* "Christmas to a child is the first terrible proof that to travel hopefully
is better than to arrive." - Stephen Fry

[Steve Fryatt]

On 11 Jul, David Boddie wrote in message
<ben1hj$cqd$1@sparta.btinternet.com>:
John Cartmell wrote: What can a RISC OS machine do that a [Windows] PC can't? Answer: Help in the development of RISC OS 6? If you're one of the developers of RISC OS 6 then I can perhaps see your point, or are you suggesting that it should be an open source project?

More likely, it provides some funds towards developing the next generation
of RISC OS.
Maybe you're suggesting that lucky users will get to beta test it and report bugs to the development team.

That's Select for those who download the pre-CD images from the website,
isn't it? :-)

--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/

* Jul 12 1998 - France upset the pundits by winning the World Cup 3-0 against
Brazil in Paris.

[Steven Pampling]

In article <20030712003053.6f5b659b.spyro@f2s.com>, Ian Molton
<spyro@f2s.com> wrote: On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 23:26:00 +0000 (UTC) David Boddie <davidb@mcs.st-and.ac.uk> wrote:
Sorry, but if you buy cheap you forfeit many rights. I dispute that. Where in the consumer legislation does it say that the consumer forfeits any of their rights based on the price of the goods they have bought?
You're right but I dont think thats what he meant - Im sure he wasnt suggesting you would lose your statutory rights. I think the point was that you shouldnt expect mych in the way of a 'customer hotline' for a PC costing 50ukp ;-)

Quite right.

I cited the example of the "sold as seen" stuff we did as an example of
people wanting something for damned near nothing but with all the after
sales support of a 300 pound purchase.

These days we do things differently:-

Wipe the H/D. Open case of H/D and severely wreck the platter(s) and other
components.
Remove useful items like expansion slot blanking plates, links and some
screws, throw remainder in skip.

Number of troublesome "second user" issues = 0

I think those second user bods shot themselves in the foot. No more
cheapies.

[Steven Pampling]

In article <b25d02104c.news@itworkshop.invalid>,
Jess <phantasm_39@hotmail.com> wrote:
If a suitable up to date ICA client existed, something like a RISC Station with it in ROM too would be ideal for their needs. (Or slym with an HD)
I think an up to date ICA client is vital for any hope of RO regaining ground or even holding steady in education.

It's possible Castle are listening.
The ICA client included with the Iyonix had additional work for the updated
version (dated 21 Mar 2003) and don't forget that the Slym is based around
a Castle board.

[Steven Pampling]

In article <bep746$2g1$1@hercules.btinternet.com>,
David Boddie <davidb@mcs.st-and.ac.uk> wrote:
If you don't pay for the service then maybe you can't expect much beyond a product that works as advertised.

Yes.
I was just reacting to a statement which was probably quite specifically aimed at a particular issue but which could have been interpreted in a more general sense.

Yes. I was trying to be reasonably brief - the whole thing was long anyway.

[Garry]

> I think that if Jack Lillingstone had been able to price Iyonix at £999, he would have. Some people in the market might lack sales savvy, but he isn't one of them. Ditto David Atkins; whatever MD's faults, poor sales skills aren't among them.

I don't know Jack or David, nor do I know their thoughts on this.
However if were in Jack's position of having a computer that at least
a few hundred people *really* want, I'd charge as much as I could get
away with because I know there are a lot of people out there who would
pay more for it.
A sale at low profit, is generally better than no sale at all. You're making a common mistake of confusing profit with markup. The profit on something is not the sale price less the cost. It's part of a whole business concept. For instance, I use about 250 quid in fuel a month. If (for the sake of the sum) we got 10% discount on a product we sold at 1250 quid ex VAT, we'd need to sell two just to pay for that fuel.

I'm not confusing the the two, but I suspect Castle would have an idea
in their heads about what kind of price an Iyonix could be sold at and
it still be worthwhile.
Please note the "ex VAT" bit too. You're talking about 999 quid including VAT. Excising the duty (sorry) gives a real sale price of 850 quid. 999 ex VAT is 1175(ish) inc VAT, which would still, I guess, be too much for you.

I used 1000 pounds as an example, as it is the 'benchmark' for a lot
of people.

A couple of people in this thread have pointed out that I could buy a
PC for the same price and it would be so much faster, better etc. The
fact is, if we look at the Iyonix with an open mind, and attach no
more value to RISC OS than to Windows XP, the Iyonix would sell for a
few hundred pounds in PC World. I'm not suggesting for a second that
Castle should or could do this. What I am suggesting is this: Most
people don't care what costs are involved with creating a computer,
and selling it. Most people only care about the nice computer they are
getting and how much it will cost them. For me this is not about what
the Iyonix is 'worth' but it's about getting a better price in the
same way I would if I were buying a Mac or PC.

Incidentally, 1175 pounds is not too bad.

On a different note, Castle could probably reduce costs by selling a
bare bones system for those of us with PC components hanging around,
allowing them to sell for less but with the same profit. I know
they've stated that they won't due to the fact that they cannot
support lots of different video cards etc. But if they simply take out
the generic stuff like hard disks,case,PSU,CD,floppy etc. Then that
would be less of a problem.

Anyway, to get back OT, I guess nobody is interested in my little
scheme, so I shall investigate other options.

Cheers

Garry

[Michael Gilbert]

In article <b5652016.0307120923.3e025a11@posting.google.com>, Garry
<URL:mailto:banditstan2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

[Having snipped all the attributions. This is bad, Garry, and prolly as
irritating to many as spelling your name with one "r" is to you.]
I think that if Jack Lillingstone had been able to price Iyonix at £999, he would have. Some people in the market might lack sales savvy, but he isn't one of them. Ditto David Atkins; whatever MD's faults, poor sales skills aren't among them. I don't know Jack or David, nor do I know their thoughts on this. However if were in Jack's position of having a computer that at least a few hundred people *really* want, I'd charge as much as I could get away with because I know there are a lot of people out there who would pay more for it.

The sale price of an item is generally set to ensure maximum return.
This involves selling as many units as possible, so you set the price
as low as possible. A sale at low profit, is generally better than no sale at all. You're making a common mistake of confusing profit with markup. The profit on something is not the sale price less the cost. It's part of a whole business concept. For instance, I use about 250 quid in fuel a month. If (for the sake of the sum) we got 10% discount on a product we sold at 1250 quid ex VAT, we'd need to sell two just to pay for that fuel. I'm not confusing the the two, but I suspect Castle would have an idea in their heads about what kind of price an Iyonix could be sold at and it still be worthwhile.

They do. It's the price they're asking for it. Please note the "ex VAT" bit too. You're talking about 999 quid including VAT. Excising the duty (sorry) gives a real sale price of 850 quid. 999 ex VAT is 1175(ish) inc VAT, which would still, I guess, be too much for you. I used 1000 pounds as an example, as it is the 'benchmark' for a lot of people.
[snip]
Incidentally, 1175 pounds is not too bad.

It's not actually that far away from Iyonix' price, either. On a different note, Castle could probably reduce costs by selling a bare bones system for those of us with PC components hanging around, allowing them to sell for less but with the same profit. I know they've stated that they won't due to the fact that they cannot support lots of different video cards etc. But if they simply take out the generic stuff like hard disks,case,PSU,CD,floppy etc. Then that would be less of a problem.

Again, you're confusing profit and markup. Taking the low price bits
out of the system would not reduce the price by much. Moreover, it
would make the box look more expensive than it does already. Supplying
a complete system is the only way to keep support costs manageable.
Selling naked motherboards, which you have just suggested, is a path to
perdition. Anyway, to get back OT, I guess nobody is interested in my little scheme, so I shall investigate other options. Cheers Garry

--
Michael Gilbert: in his own write

OK, so there's the Trident in Bangor

[Eddie Lord]

In NG message <4c10cab98ejohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In article <f073b5104c.eddie@eddie.brookhaven.plus.com>, Eddie Lord <eddielord@onetel.net.uk> wrote: In NG message <4c108c4961mfox@argonet.co.uk> Martyn Fox <mfox@argonet.co.uk> wrote: In article <dab3e751.0307111015.1d1678e4@posting.google.com>, Annraoi <ams@globalcafe.ie> wrote: > I agree £999 would be a nice "round" price, but you'd still have someone > (or other) carping on about how they could get an Athlon PC for £400 or > whatever. ISTR that the BBC Model B was priced at 399 ukp in 1982. How much would that be at today's prices? People said it was too expensive. How many did it sell? Just had a rummage in my loft and found a pay cheque from 1982. Looking at a comparitive salary today the price of the beeb would be £999, give or take a bit. So I guess you could say that £250 is the premium you are paying to keep the RiscOS show on the road. Of course this says nothing about the relative performance of the two machines. £399 didn't include the disk drive. Sit down before you check the price of them in 1982 ;-)

Well thats true of everything in the machine. Memory, hard drive,
processor etc. Its the total marketed package that counts. In those
days we didn't need a CD. I seem to remember I was quite happy with a
tape recorder as storage and thats certainly not included with the
Iyonix!!!
I think the CD drive at the time could be best estimated at 3 or 4 times the cost of the Beeb (assuming you could get Philips to release one of their early CD-precursor players!

I think that makes the point even more. On those terms the Iyonix is
good value, if thats what you want.

--
Regards

Eddie
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. - Napoleon

[Philip Ludlam]

On 11 Jul, in message <4c107c611fstuartwinsor@argonet.co.uk>
Stuart Winsor <stuartwinsor@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
In article <4c1073e07fjohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk>, John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote: What can a RISC OS machine do that a [Windows] PC can't? Answer: Help in the development of RISC OS 6?Q. What can a Windows Pc do that a Risc OS machine can't.A. Heat up the room

A PC (as in IBM clone) will heat up the room if it's on (!) regardless
of whether it's running Windows, Linux, BeOS, ANOther-OS, or waiting at
the BIOS prompt asking for a system disk to be put in :-) .

Yours,

Phil L.
--
http://www.philipnet.com http://director.sourceforge.net
i ou a uea i e a o ie e a o a a oue oae

[Steve Fryatt]

On 12 Jul, Garry wrote in message
<b5652016.0307120923.3e025a11@posting.google.com>:
Please note the "ex VAT" bit too. You're talking about 999 quid including VAT. Excising the duty (sorry) gives a real sale price of 850 quid. 999 ex VAT is 1175(ish) inc VAT, which would still, I guess, be too much for you. I used 1000 pounds as an example, as it is the 'benchmark' for a lot of people. A couple of people in this thread have pointed out that I could buy a PC for the same price and it would be so much faster, better etc. The fact is, if we look at the Iyonix with an open mind, and attach no more value to RISC OS than to Windows XP, the Iyonix would sell for a few hundred pounds in PC World.

If a few equals 500 or 600, then I'd agree. RISC OS != WindowsXP though:
per user, the cost of developing it is significantly higher.
I'm not suggesting for a second that Castle should or could do this. What I am suggesting is this: Most people don't care what costs are involved with creating a computer, and selling it. Most people only care about the nice computer they are getting and how much it will cost them. For me this is not about what the Iyonix is 'worth' but it's about getting a better price in the same way I would if I were buying a Mac or PC.

Indeed, but what it's worth is quite an important piece of information.
You can't get an Iyonix for less than that, because by supplying you
Castle would be losing money. That doesn't seem like good business sense.
Incidentally, 1175 pounds is not too bad.

The mid-range Iyonixes on sale at Wakefield were 1299ukp. The
bottom-range machines were obviously less than that (1199ukp or 1249ukp, I
forget which). That isn't far off 1175ukp. You could always upgrade the
CD to a CDR from your collection of scrap bits (and hope it works) and add
a bit more RAM at a later date. At the show, Castle also seemed to be
willing to negotiate on what was included for the price (so you wouldn't
get a discount, but you could possibly walk away with more than you'd
expected to for the same amount).
On a different note, Castle could probably reduce costs by selling a bare bones system for those of us with PC components hanging around, allowing them to sell for less but with the same profit. I know they've stated that they won't due to the fact that they cannot support lots of different video cards etc. But if they simply take out the generic stuff like hard disks,case,PSU,CD,floppy etc. Then that would be less of a problem.

You've suggested this already, and I think you're still being rather
naive about the compatibility issues. RISC OS is very bad at working
with different CD ROM drives. It's also not that good when it comes to
different HDDs, though it's better than it was. I would also imagine that
the PSU is a potential minefield of compatibility issues: the one in the
Iyonix has probably had its load chart carefully selected so that it will
work with the non-standard power requirements (I doubt they're exactly
like those of a standard Intel/AMD system). You've no guarantee that any
old ATX PSU will work, though any problems may be fairly subtle in their
nature (ie. random crashes that you would probably attribute to a faulty
motherboard, as people seem to be quick to do already).

Given these issues, the potential support nightmare would be huge. It
would also be necessary to give this support from the reduced margins that
you want. Or would you be happy to find your motherboard wouldn't work
with the bits you had and that you could get no support from Castle (other
than "buy the recommended bits from us and use them")? How many people
would claim publicly that "their Iyonix is crap", without bothering to
mention that they were using various out of spec components in it?

What's in it for Castle (aside from, allegedly, a few more sales that
could be significant trouble)?

--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/

* "It is better to deserve honours and not have them than to have them and
not deserve them." - Mark Twain

[Steven Pampling]

In article <f88801114c.eddie@eddie.brookhaven.plus.com>,
Eddie Lord <eddielord@onetel.net.uk> wrote: Well thats true of everything in the machine. Memory, hard drive, processor etc. Its the total marketed package that counts.

Out of interest, and since you're not relying on your memory for the salary
info, are you comparing your salary then with your salary now OR are you
comparing your salary then with the salary of a person *now* in the grade
you were in then?

Seems trivial but it distorts the figures used for comparison.

[John Cartmell]

In article <355b49114c.philip@philipnet.com>, Philip Ludlam
<news@philipnet.com> wrote: On 11 Jul, in message <4c107c611fstuartwinsor@argonet.co.uk> Stuart Winsor <stuartwinsor@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
In article <4c1073e07fjohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk>, John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote: What can a RISC OS machine do that a [Windows] PC can't? Answer: Help in the development of RISC OS 6?
Q. What can a Windows Pc do that a Risc OS machine can't.
A. Heat up the room
A PC (as in IBM clone) will heat up the room if it's on (!) regardless of whether it's running Windows, Linux, BeOS, ANOther-OS, or waiting at the BIOS prompt asking for a system disk to be put in :-) .

Which is a reason why you will find that some will argue that Linux or
Virtual Acorn is not an answer - even if the're a better alternative than
Windows. ARM + RISC OS together make sense.

--
John Cartmell john@cartmell.demon.co.uk FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Acorn Publisher magazine & FD Games www.acornpublisher.com

[Reg Hems]

In article <b5652016.0307110216.55a172c4@posting.google.com>,
Garry <banditstan2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]
This seems to be a contentious issue, but I don't think it should be. For a lot of people, including myself, £1000 is a mental barrier and £1250 for an Iyonix is just too much for some people, particularly if they have to buy software and a monitor. I can only speak for myself, but a lower price would encourage me to buy an Iyonix or Omega.

Mental barriers only exist in the mind. One either wants the m\c or not.
One should examine one's reasons for wanting\needing this specific m\c but
if one is already prepared to fork out £999.99 :-\ than a difference of
say £100-200 more can't be an excuse for not buying. It compares to this
silly question when deciding to buy e.g. a fitted kitchen: "What is your
budget?" I then usually find that for a few hundred pounds more I get much
more than the perceived difference.

On the subject of 'special prices\reduced margins' this would only be valid
if one were to deal in supermarket quantities where cost savings are
achieved by the number of times that the stock is turned around in any one
time period. However, in the end of the day any company must measure its
commercial viability on the basis of its annual profit after tax.

[Snip]

* Victory belongs to the most persevering - Napoleon
--
Reg Hems ZFC LXX2 \_
BBC B Micro Iss.3&7 \_
Atomwide Serial board \_
Diamond SupraExpress 56 \_
ARM3 PC A420 IDE-SCSI 8Mb \_
reghems@argonet.co.uk |
Uploaded on Sun,13 Jul 2003.13:24

[Jess]

In message <ant110625b499GWx@riscpc.local>
Michael Gilbert <mgilbert@eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
In article <b25d02104c.news@itworkshop.invalid>, Jess <URL:mailto:phantasm_39@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]
I was speaking to an ICT co-ordinator at junior school. They would love a simple to use low maintenance system with a citrix client to allow access to off site windows servers. They *really* want to stick two fingers up at RM. RM are not synonymous with Windows in education. Citrix systems are not

You don't do much in Kent do you?
low maintenance. It's incredibly easy (especially at Primary) to deploy secure, low maintenance PC installations. You need to start with the

When the server is off site at another school it is (for the primary
school that is.)
right baseline, though. It's also incredibly easy to totally trash a Citrix installation. An example from my own recent experience had the ITCo at a primary totally blitzing an NT 4 server somehow; no Citrix left at all. Citrix is super, but. If a suitable up to date ICA client existed, something like a RISC Station with it in ROM too would be ideal for their needs. (Or slym with an HD) However good the ICA client was, the box would hold it back. In my (quite long) experience of this stuff, you need a decent graphics capability to make Citrix work well. None of the 7500-powered machines has this. Their performance (on the current client) is okay, but dire compared with even a 2 year old PC running Windows natively.

I've not actually used a Riscstation, but the reports I've heard place
it a somewhat faster than an A7000+, which is equivalent to what I know
is too slow (NC).

I found that a 486-100 with a reasonable graphics card (VL min) was
about where things started working well. A Riscstation couldn't match
that?
I think an up to date ICA client is vital for any hope of RO regaining ground or even holding steady in education. I think it's wholly irrelevant. If you're running an ICA client, you're running Windows. You might as well be using an eLux powered purpose-built device as anything else. You have no incentive to start running RISC OS software

Acorn Draw for one. Also a simple alternative computer for the odd
occasions the link fails.
An NC style arrangement is still a good idea, but now Citrix is taking hold in education, RO has an opening, but only if a decent ICA client is created. My experience is absolutely the reverse of this. The demand we had for Citrix was from Acorn schools wanting parallel Windows capability. That was half a decade ago. Now, most of them have had to bite the bullet and buy new hardware, and it's going to be running Windows. They would like to keep on with RISC OS, so we install VA5000. Which is, of course, not good for the image of the platform, as the GUI is horrid.

VA5000 can be made to look good easily. (eg Use tools etc from the clear
theme and set an AA desktop font)

--
Jess icq: 91353267 msn: phantasm_39@hotmail.com http://www.kentwebnet.com
Hotmail is my spam trap - don't use for email
mailto:nospam@itworkshop.uklinux.net
RISC OS 4.36 kinetic 64+128+2M Castle Storm DMA + 17GB 586-133 I-3 ADSL


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[Michael Gilbert]

In article <0fc38f114c.news@itworkshop.invalid>, Jess
<URL:mailto:phantasm_39@hotmail.com> wrote: In message <ant110625b499GWx@riscpc.local> Michael Gilbert <mgilbert@eclipse.co.uk> wrote: In article <b25d02104c.news@itworkshop.invalid>, Jess <URL:mailto:phantasm_39@hotmail.com> wrote: [snip] I was speaking to an ICT co-ordinator at junior school. They would love a simple to use low maintenance system with a citrix client to allow access to off site windows servers. They *really* want to stick two fingers up at RM. RM are not synonymous with Windows in education. Citrix systems are not You don't do much in Kent do you?

No, Jess, I don't. However, I do an increasing amount in Cornwall and I
have colleagues who work in Kent. low maintenance. It's incredibly easy (especially at Primary) to deploy secure, low maintenance PC installations. You need to start with the When the server is off site at another school it is (for the primary school that is.)

Why should the server be off site? Why should the Primary be locked
into someone else's ICT solution? right baseline, though. It's also incredibly easy to totally trash a Citrix installation. An example from my own recent experience had the ITCo at a primary totally blitzing an NT 4 server somehow; no Citrix left at all. Citrix is super, but. If a suitable up to date ICA client existed, something like a RISC Station with it in ROM too would be ideal for their needs. (Or slym with an HD) However good the ICA client was, the box would hold it back. In my (quite long) experience of this stuff, you need a decent graphics capability to make Citrix work well. None of the 7500-powered machines has this. Their performance (on the current client) is okay, but dire compared with even a 2 year old PC running Windows natively. I've not actually used a Riscstation, but the reports I've heard place it a somewhat faster than an A7000+, which is equivalent to what I know is too slow (NC).

I've rolled out suites of both, and both are less quick than one
expects. Also, the sound is poor and colour very limited. I found that a 486-100 with a reasonable graphics card (VL min) was about where things started working well. A Riscstation couldn't match that? I think an up to date ICA client is vital for any hope of RO regaining ground or even holding steady in education. I think it's wholly irrelevant. If you're running an ICA client, you're running Windows. You might as well be using an eLux powered purpose-built device as anything else. You have no incentive to start running RISC OS software Acorn Draw for one. Also a simple alternative computer for the odd occasions the link fails.

Aspex Draw does the job very nicely, thank you. Changing GUI totally to
use a vector graphics package is, however, deranged in the school
context. An NC style arrangement is still a good idea, but now Citrix is taking hold in education, RO has an opening, but only if a decent ICA client is created. My experience is absolutely the reverse of this. The demand we had for Citrix was from Acorn schools wanting parallel Windows capability. That was half a decade ago. Now, most of them have had to bite the bullet and buy new hardware, and it's going to be running Windows. They would like to keep on with RISC OS, so we install VA5000. Which is, of course, not good for the image of the platform, as the GUI is horrid. VA5000 can be made to look good easily. (eg Use tools etc from the clear theme and set an AA desktop font)

All of which add load to the thing and slow it down. NewLook was crap
when Acorn launched it, and it still is. To achieve any level of
impressiveness, we need at least to be able to use 1996's GUI rather
than 1992's.
--
Michael Gilbert: in his own write

OK, so there's the Trident in Bangor

[druck]

On 11 Jul 2003 Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote: Despite the popular misconception that profit goes into the pockets of "fat cat" directors, much of that profit (if you're using the term correctly) will be going back into the business. That's into things like securing the future of RISC OS from Pace, developing the OS, etc.

If you want proof of this stay behind in the carpark after a RISC OS show,
and see what exhibitors are driving. You'll see a huge difference between
those who earn most of their living from the RISC OS market, and those that
do it voluntarily.

---druck

--
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/

[James Scholes]

Theorising that one could timetravel within his own lifetime,
Liam Gretton <ljg@star.le.ac.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, John Cartmell wrote: In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307110047000.3235-100000@dms1>, Liam Gretton <ljg@star.le.ac.uk> wrote: (not meaning to shoot the Iyonix down: it's an awesome achievement to get a new RO box out to market, but it's a very expensive machine and I can't think of ONE THING it can do that a PC half the price can't do). Help in the development of RISC OS 6? I must have missed the OS development roadmap somewhere. What will RO6 do, exactly? (I have a CD somewhere showing a concept of the 3D desktop that RO4 would have...).

If you're talking about the Rooms demo, there was never any mention of
its inclusion in a new OS, as it wasn't done by Acorn or RISC OS Ltd (my
memory says ARM Club, and I've mislaid it on my HD at the moment). It's a
great concept, but a radical redesign of the UI would be needed (ie: ease of
movement in 3D space). Also worth factoring in is that we'd all end up
looking like Johnny Mnemonic...

IF, of course, you're talking about something else, then none of the above
applies (o:

James

--
Jymbob: remove . from between names to reply direct, or be spam trapped.
"I honestly think you ought to calm down; take a stress pill and think things
over." - HAL 9000

[Reg Hems]

In article <355b49114c.philip@philipnet.com> Philip Ludlam wrote: In message <4c107c611fstuartwinsor@argonet.co.uk> Stuart Winsor wrote:
Q. What can a Windows PC do that a Risc OS machine can't.
A. Heat up the room
A PC (as in IBM clone) will heat up the room if it's on (!) regardless of whether it's running Windows, Linux, BeOS, ANOther-OS, or waiting at the BIOS prompt asking for a system disk to be put in :-) .

;-))))

Two years ago I collected a dodgy scanner from somebody who used to post
here. I made a comment that the upstairs room was so much warmer than the
rest of the house. He then showed me a battery of PCs running continuously
gathering data for the SETI project.

A couple of weeks I emailed him and asked a tongue-in-cheek question:
"PS How is the SETI project going? Installed airconditioning yet?"

He replied:

"Funny you should mention that. I got a small air-con unit last month -
it started getting a bit hot with 14 Seti systems in the house, although
most of those are now running diskless Linux instead of the nasty Darth
Gatesware stuff."

* Treat people in your debt like family. Exploit them.
Ferengi rule 111 of acquisition
--
Reg Hems ZFC LXX2 \_
BBC B Micro Iss.3&7 \_
Atomwide Serial board \_
Diamond SupraExpress 56 \_
ARM3 PC A420 IDE-SCSI 8Mb \_
reghems@argonet.co.uk |
Uploaded on Mon,14 Jul 2003.12:53

[Jess]

In message <ant1322043459GWx@riscpc.local>
Michael Gilbert <mgilbert@eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
In article <0fc38f114c.news@itworkshop.invalid>, Jess <URL:mailto:phantasm_39@hotmail.com> wrote: In message <ant110625b499GWx@riscpc.local> Michael Gilbert <mgilbert@eclipse.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]
RM are not synonymous with Windows in education. Citrix systems are not You don't do much in Kent do you?
No, Jess, I don't. However, I do an increasing amount in Cornwall and I

Hmm that's nice and close :)
have colleagues who work in Kent.

Then you should know that RM until recently were synonymous with
computers in schools, not just windows, round here. There are still
schools tied into their stuff.
low maintenance. It's incredibly easy (especially at Primary) to deploy secure, low maintenance PC installations. You need to start with the When the server is off site at another school it is (for the primary school that is.) Why should the server be off site? Why should the Primary be locked into someone else's ICT solution?

Why should they be locked into this year's solution?


[snip]
I've not actually used a Riscstation, but the reports I've heard place it a somewhat faster than an A7000+, which is equivalent to what I know is too slow (NC). I've rolled out suites of both, and both are less quick than one expects. Also, the sound is poor and colour very limited.

Given the relative performance of other apps, (eg Kino) my guess is
most of that is the client rather than the RS.

[snip]
I think it's wholly irrelevant. If you're running an ICA client, you're running Windows. You might as well be using an eLux powered purpose-built device as anything else. You have no incentive to start running RISC OS software Acorn Draw for one. Also a simple alternative computer for the odd occasions the link fails. Aspex Draw does the job very nicely, thank you. Changing GUI totally to use a vector graphics package is, however, deranged in the school context.

Given that most\all a primary curricullum could be taught on RISC OS, I
think that it would be a very attractive solution. Also Skill learnt on
RO transfer very easily to other systems. With MS sometimes skills don't
even transfer to next years OS or office suite.
> An NC style arrangement is still a good idea, but now Citrix is taking > hold in education, RO has an opening, but only if a decent ICA client > is created. > My experience is absolutely the reverse of this. The demand we had for Citrix was from Acorn schools wanting parallel Windows capability. That was half a decade ago. Now, most of them have had to bite the bullet and buy new hardware, and it's going to be running Windows. They would like to keep on with RISC OS, so we install VA5000. Which is, of course, not good for the image of the platform, as the GUI is horrid. VA5000 can be made to look good easily. (eg Use tools etc from the clear theme and set an AA desktop font) All of which add load to the thing and slow it down. NewLook was crap when Acorn launched it, and it still is. To achieve any level of impressiveness, we need at least to be able to use 1996's GUI rather than 1992's.

My VA5000 looks fine (not sure it uses newlook) - I use the tools
and palette from the clear theme from Iconbar and trinity desktop font.

--
Jess icq: 91353267 msn: phantasm_39@hotmail.com http://www.kentwebnet.com
Hotmail is my spam trap - don't use for email
mailto:nospam@itworkshop.uklinux.net
RISC OS 4.36 kinetic 64+128+2M Castle Storm DMA + 17GB 586-133 I-3 ADSL


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[druck]

On 14 Jul 2003 James Scholes <james.scholes@ntlworld.com> wrote: If you're talking about the Rooms demo, there was never any mention of its inclusion in a new OS, as it wasn't done by Acorn or RISC OS Ltd (my memory says ARM Club, and I've mislaid it on my HD at the moment).

Not guilty. AFAIK it was written by Acorn, but just as something they were
playing with rather than a serious new style desktop.
It's a great concept, but a radical redesign of the UI would be needed (ie: ease of movement in 3D space). Also worth factoring in is that we'd all end up looking like Johnny Mnemonic...

Just wait until you see what a pigs ear Microsoft are making of this.

---druck

--
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/

[Michael Gilbert]

In article <e57cf9114c.news@itworkshop.invalid>, Jess
<URL:mailto:phantasm_39@hotmail.com> wrote: In message <ant1322043459GWx@riscpc.local> Michael Gilbert <mgilbert@eclipse.co.uk> wrote: In article <0fc38f114c.news@itworkshop.invalid>, Jess <URL:mailto:phantasm_39@hotmail.com> wrote: In message <ant110625b499GWx@riscpc.local> Michael Gilbert <mgilbert@eclipse.co.uk> wrote: [snip] > RM are not synonymous with Windows in education. Citrix systems are not You don't do much in Kent do you? No, Jess, I don't. However, I do an increasing amount in Cornwall and I Hmm that's nice and close :) have colleagues who work in Kent. Then you should know that RM until recently were synonymous with computers in schools, not just windows, round here. There are still schools tied into their stuff.

Cornwall was also RM territory. We had Devon and Somerset as Acorn
LEAs. There was little point in crossing the Tamar unless you were an
RM salesdroid. > low maintenance. It's incredibly easy (especially at Primary) to deploy > secure, low maintenance PC installations. You need to start with the When the server is off site at another school it is (for the primary school that is.) Why should the server be off site? Why should the Primary be locked into someone else's ICT solution? Why should they be locked into this year's solution?

I have no idea what you mean. As a reseller, my object in life is to
provide the customers with what they want and need. If I don't they
don't stay as my customers. Citrix is a delivery method for Windows.
The client is irrelevant. Except that ARM7500 boxes are dog slow with
bad graphics capability. [snip] I've not actually used a Riscstation, but the reports I've heard place it a somewhat faster than an A7000+, which is equivalent to what I know is too slow (NC). I've rolled out suites of both, and both are less quick than one expects. Also, the sound is poor and colour very limited. Given the relative performance of other apps, (eg Kino) my guess is most of that is the client rather than the RS.

The client app is bad, but so is the box. [snip] > I think it's wholly irrelevant. If you're running an ICA client, you're > running Windows. You might as well be using an eLux powered > purpose-built device as anything else. You have no incentive to start > running RISC OS software Acorn Draw for one. Also a simple alternative computer for the odd occasions the link fails. Aspex Draw does the job very nicely, thank you. Changing GUI totally to use a vector graphics package is, however, deranged in the school context. Given that most\all a primary curricullum could be taught on RISC OS, I think that it would be a very attractive solution. Also Skill learnt on RO transfer very easily to other systems. With MS sometimes skills don't even transfer to next years OS or office suite.

Whether RISC OS can deliver the QCA guidelines is not the point. You're
suggesting a solution costing large amounts per seat on old, slow
hardware. If someone is going to invest the time and money needed to
deploy Citrix, it is unlikely that any but the most rabid RISC OS fan
would suggest RISC OS client boxes as matters stand. Major
manufacturers can supply either eLux or embedded MS powered boxes at
substantially better performance and lower price. Maybe running VA
across that is viable.

And the mantra about the non-transferability of skills is rubbish. RISC
OS is different in lots of ways to MacOS and Windows. Mouse buttons for
a start.

I use RISC OS because I like it, it works, and it's fairly stable. I'm
quite happy to tell my customers I use it, even when they're placing
orders for PC kit. And I'll tell them why. But in 2003 they are no
longer going to order suites of RS7500 or A7000 boxes. And those who
would love to are highly unlikely to order suites of Iyonix boxes. > > An NC style arrangement is still a good idea, but now Citrix is taking > > hold in education, RO has an opening, but only if a decent ICA client > > is created. > > > My experience is absolutely the reverse of this. The demand we had for > Citrix was from Acorn schools wanting parallel Windows capability. That > was half a decade ago. Now, most of them have had to bite the bullet > and buy new hardware, and it's going to be running Windows. They would > like to keep on with RISC OS, so we install VA5000. Which is, of > course, not good for the image of the platform, as the GUI is horrid. VA5000 can be made to look good easily. (eg Use tools etc from the clear theme and set an AA desktop font) All of which add load to the thing and slow it down. NewLook was crap when Acorn launched it, and it still is. To achieve any level of impressiveness, we need at least to be able to use 1996's GUI rather than 1992's. My VA5000 looks fine (not sure it uses newlook) - I use the tools and palette from the clear theme from Iconbar and trinity desktop font.

RISC OS 3.1 is over a decade old. Why the fsck should it attract anyone
to the OS? Do we want it to?
--
Michael Gilbert: in his own write

OK, so there's the Trident in Bangor

[Jess]

In message <ant142119b499GWx@riscpc.local>
Michael Gilbert <mgilbert@eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
In article <e57cf9114c.news@itworkshop.invalid>, Jess <URL:mailto:phantasm_39@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]
Why should the server be off site? Why should the Primary be locked into someone else's ICT solution? Why should they be locked into this year's solution? I have no idea what you mean. As a reseller, my object in life is to

You sell a fat client MSoffice Windows PC, it is this year's solution,
next year either the OS or the Office suite will be obsolete.
provide the customers with what they want and need. If I don't they don't stay as my customers. Citrix is a delivery method for Windows. The client is irrelevant. Except that ARM7500 boxes are dog slow with bad graphics capability.

The client is irrelevant (if it works properly), I agree that a
current cytrix system based on ARM7500 would not be acceptable, however
I put most of the blame on the client software (As I said I have seen
perfectly acceptable performance on good 486 boxes on NT4 metaframe, in
most other situations a 7500 machine performs as well or better than a
good 486)

[snip]
Whether RISC OS can deliver the QCA guidelines is not the point. You're suggesting a solution costing large amounts per seat on old, slow hardware. If someone is going to invest the time and money needed to deploy Citrix, it is unlikely that any but the most rabid RISC OS fan would suggest RISC OS client boxes as matters stand. Major

I didn't suggest they would, what I suggested was that _if_ a viable
RISC OS based system were available (eg Slym with an efficient client)
there would be a market.
manufacturers can supply either eLux or embedded MS powered boxes at substantially better performance and lower price. Maybe running VA across that is viable.

That would be interesting if it worked.
And the mantra about the non-transferability of skills is rubbish. RISC OS is different in lots of ways to MacOS and Windows. Mouse buttons for a start.

It is the pricipals that RO teaches you. The most basic one is filing
systems - RO is not usable without understanding them, and is easy to
pick up. Most windows users I have met have very little idea of filing
systems. Starting with RO is a big benefit.
I use RISC OS because I like it, it works, and it's fairly stable. I'm quite happy to tell my customers I use it, even when they're placing orders for PC kit. And I'll tell them why. But in 2003 they are no longer going to order suites of RS7500 or A7000 boxes. And those who would love to are highly unlikely to order suites of Iyonix boxes.

The cost of an Iyonix is a killer for education.

[snip]
RISC OS 3.1 is over a decade old. Why the fsck should it attract anyone to the OS? Do we want it to?

Still a better UI than anything from M$

--
Jess icq: 91353267 msn: phantasm_39@hotmail.com http://www.kentwebnet.com
Hotmail is my spam trap - don't use for email
mailto:nospam@itworkshop.uklinux.net
RISC OS 4.36 kinetic 64+128+2M Castle Storm DMA + 17GB 586-133 I-3 ADSL


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[Michael Gilbert]

In article <129f1b124c.news@itworkshop.invalid>, Jess
<URL:mailto:phantasm_39@hotmail.com> wrote: In message <ant142119b499GWx@riscpc.local> Michael Gilbert <mgilbert@eclipse.co.uk> wrote: In article <e57cf9114c.news@itworkshop.invalid>, Jess <URL:mailto:phantasm_39@hotmail.com> wrote: [snip] > Why should the server be off site? Why should the Primary be locked > into someone else's ICT solution? Why should they be locked into this year's solution? I have no idea what you mean. As a reseller, my object in life is to You sell a fat client MSoffice Windows PC, it is this year's solution, next year either the OS or the Office suite will be obsolete.

That's not a real argument. That's Microsoft's argument. We've got
users still happily, successfully and productively using systems we
supplied five or more years ago. Both RISC OS and Windows. provide the customers with what they want and need. If I don't they don't stay as my customers. Citrix is a delivery method for Windows. The client is irrelevant. Except that ARM7500 boxes are dog slow with bad graphics capability. The client is irrelevant (if it works properly), I agree that a current cytrix system based on ARM7500 would not be acceptable, however I put most of the blame on the client software (As I said I have seen perfectly acceptable performance on good 486 boxes on NT4 metaframe, in most other situations a 7500 machine performs as well or better than a good 486)

Jess, I've been selling and rolling out this stuff for years. Please
accept that I know what I'm talking about.

[snip]



--
Michael Gilbert: in his own write

OK, so there's the Trident in Bangor

[Jess]

In message <ant1505148689GWx@riscpc.local>
Michael Gilbert <mgilbert@eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
In article <129f1b124c.news@itworkshop.invalid>, Jess <URL:mailto:phantasm_39@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]
You sell a fat client MSoffice Windows PC, it is this year's solution, next year either the OS or the Office suite will be obsolete. That's not a real argument. That's Microsoft's argument. We've got users still happily, successfully and productively using systems we supplied five or more years ago. Both RISC OS and Windows.

That is the entire arguement for having an MS system as opposed to a
different one (Not just RO) - it's "standard".

--
Jess icq: 91353267 msn: phantasm_39@hotmail.com http://www.kentwebnet.com
Hotmail is my spam trap - don't use for email
mailto:nospam@itworkshop.uklinux.net
RISC OS 4.36 kinetic 64+128+2M Castle Storm DMA + 17GB 586-133 I-3 ADSL


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[Jess]

In message <b5652016.0307150150.7ad5808d@posting.google.com>
banditstan2000@yahoo.co.uk (Garry) wrote:

[snip]

Maybe with all the hype around Linux, NCs ar better off being used as a combo of RISC OS and an Xterm for Linux or a type of UNIX. Not sure if performance would be better or worse, but I would think licenses would be either cheaper or sometimes free.

if the arguement was purely based on common sense rather than the
output of clever salesmen. :(

--
Jess icq: 91353267 msn: phantasm_39@hotmail.com http://www.kentwebnet.com
Hotmail is my spam trap - don't use for email
mailto:nospam@itworkshop.uklinux.net
RISC OS 4.36 kinetic 64+128+2M Castle Storm DMA + 17GB 586-133 I-3 ADSL


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[Michael Gilbert]

In article <ad297f124c.news@itworkshop.invalid>, Jess
<URL:mailto:phantasm_39@hotmail.com> wrote: In message <b5652016.0307150150.7ad5808d@posting.google.com> banditstan2000@yahoo.co.uk (Garry) wrote: [snip] Maybe with all the hype around Linux, NCs ar better off being used as a combo of RISC OS and an Xterm for Linux or a type of UNIX. Not sure if performance would be better or worse, but I would think licenses would be either cheaper or sometimes free. if the arguement was purely based on common sense rather than the output of clever salesmen. :(
As opposed to what? Stupid geeks? As I've said severally, thin client
systems are generally available with eLux on them. If you want to run
StarOffice under some remote Unix desktop, or under Windows using
Citrix, then fine. Or whatever.

TBH, things are not decided by salesmen, clever or otherwise. It's
stupid purchasers who don't ask questions at all sorts of levels that
cause problems.

--
Michael Gilbert: in his own write

OK, so there's the Trident in Bangor

[Samuel Kock]

In nuus:3F1519B1.605B289A@marutan.net,
Peter Howkins <ng.howkins@marutan.net> het getik: Michael Gilbert wrote: 3.1 can be made to look quite modern, I believe the only major difference between this screenshot (http://www.marutan.net/SCREEN.gif) and RISC OS 4 is the missing 3d effect on the menus.

And even that can be done with Matthew BUllock's 3DPatch... :)

Samuel
--
Samuel Kock
Pretoria, South Africa
Bio: http://go.to/skock/bio.htm
The queue you've just joined slows down.

[Michael Gilbert]

In article <3F1519B1.605B289A@marutan.net>, Peter Howkins
<URL:mailto:ng.howkins@marutan.net> wrote: Michael Gilbert wrote: In article <0fc38f114c.news@itworkshop.invalid>, Jess <URL:mailto:phantasm_39@hotmail.com> wrote: <snip> VA5000 can be made to look good easily. (eg Use tools etc from the clear theme and set an AA desktop font) All of which add load to the thing and slow it down. NewLook was crap when Acorn launched it, and it still is. To achieve any level of impressiveness, we need at least to be able to use 1996's GUI rather than 1992's. 3.1 can be made to look quite modern, I believe the only major difference between this screenshot (http://www.marutan.net/SCREEN.gif) and RISC OS 4 is the missing 3d effect on the menus. This is roughly a 1998 (3.8) GUI. The speed is also quite reasonable on an Arm3, though changing to a 16 colour mode would be recommended (thus losing some of the niceness of 3.8/4.0 256 colour sprites). It just takes a bit of effort. Would anyone else be interested if I wrote up how to make things look newer ?

It's not just the look, though, is it? There was a fundamental change
in the OS between 3.1 and 3.5 (although it took until 3.7 to get it
right).

--
Michael Gilbert: in his own write

OK, so there's the Trident in Bangor

[Philip Ludlam]

On 16 Jul, in message <bf39l0$kbq$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>
"Samuel Kock" <samuelk@depsammed.com> wrote:
In nuus:3F1519B1.605B289A@marutan.net,Peter Howkins <ng.howkins@marutan.net> het getik: Michael Gilbert wrote: 3.1 can be made to look quite modern, I believe the only major difference between this screenshot (http://www.marutan.net/SCREEN.gif) and RISC OS 4 is the missing 3d effect on the menus.And even that can be done with Matthew BUllock's 3DPatch... :)

Which doesn't work with the Newer WIMP.
Who says you can get something for nothing :-)

Yours,

Phil L.
--
http://www.philipnet.com http://director.sourceforge.net
i ou a uea i e a o ie e a o a a oue oae

[Jess]

In message <ant161759e619GWx@riscpc.local>
Michael Gilbert <mgilbert@eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
In article <3F1519B1.605B289A@marutan.net>, Peter Howkins <URL:mailto:ng.howkins@marutan.net> wrote: Michael Gilbert wrote:

[snip]
All of which add load to the thing and slow it down. NewLook was crap when Acorn launched it, and it still is. To achieve any level of impressiveness, we need at least to be able to use 1996's GUI rather than 1992's. 3.1 can be made to look quite modern, I believe the only major difference between this screenshot (http://www.marutan.net/SCREEN.gif) and RISC OS 4 is the missing 3d effect on the menus. This is roughly a 1998 (3.8) GUI. The speed is also quite reasonable on an Arm3, though changing to a 16 colour mode would be recommended (thus losing some of the niceness of 3.8/4.0 256 colour sprites). It just takes a bit of effort. Would anyone else be interested if I wrote up how to make things look newer ? It's not just the look, though, is it? There was a fundamental change in the OS between 3.1 and 3.5 (although it took until 3.7 to get it right).

OS yes - GUI no

--
Jess icq: 91353267 msn: phantasm_39@hotmail.com http://www.kentwebnet.com
Hotmail is my spam trap - don't use for email
mailto:nospam@itworkshop.uklinux.net
RISC OS 4.36 kinetic 64+128+2M Castle Storm DMA + 17GB 586-133 I-3 ADSL


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[Samuel Kock]

In nuus:d5f312134c.philip@philipnet.com,
Philip Ludlam <news@philipnet.com> het getik: And even that can be done with Matthew BUllock's 3DPatch... :) Which doesn't work with the Newer WIMP. Who says you can get something for nothing :-)

I've got a version that works with Windowmanager 3.98... :)

Samuel
--
Samuel Kock
Pretoria, South Africa
Bio: http://go.to/skock/bio.htm
You will need something shortly after throwing it away.

[druck]

On 16 Jul 2003 Michael Gilbert <mgilbert@eclipse.co.uk> wrote: In article <3F1519B1.605B289A@marutan.net>, Peter Howkins <URL:mailto:ng.howkins@marutan.net> wrote: 3.1 can be made to look quite modern, I believe the only major difference between this screenshot (http://www.marutan.net/SCREEN.gif) and RISC OS 4 is the missing 3d effect on the menus. This is roughly a 1998 (3.8) GUI. The speed is also quite reasonable on an Arm3, though changing to a 16 colour mode would be recommended (thus losing some of the niceness of 3.8/4.0 256 colour sprites). It just takes a bit of effort. Would anyone else be interested if I wrote up how to make things look newer ? It's not just the look, though, is it? There was a fundamental change in the OS between 3.1 and 3.5

Window manager 3.98 gives RISC OS 3.1 much of the RISC OS 3.5 GUI gloss,
but unlike the RISC OS 3.22 development version it does not update the filer
to allow it to handle filenames longer than 10 characters.
(although it took until 3.7 to get it right).

Would you be refering to the inclusion of the BorderUtils module which
stopped the desktop font dissappearing after clicking on a slabbed icon
results in the window being closed before it slaps out?

---druck

--
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/

[Stefan Bellon]

Samuel Kock wrote: In nuus:d5f312134c.philip@philipnet.com, Philip Ludlam <news@philipnet.com> het getik: And even that can be done with Matthew BUllock's 3DPatch... :) Which doesn't work with the Newer WIMP. Who says you can get something for nothing :-)
I've got a version that works with Windowmanager 3.98... :)

That's not really a "Newer WIMP":

*help windowmanager
==> Help on keyword WindowManager
Module is: Window Manager 4.90 (31 Mar 2003)

--
Stefan Bellon

[Jess]

In message <d0491e134c.druck@druck.freeuk.net>
druck <news@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:

[snip]
Window manager 3.98 gives RISC OS 3.1 much of the RISC OS 3.5 GUI gloss, but unlike the RISC OS 3.22 development version it does not update the filer to allow it to handle filenames longer than 10 characters.

By handle I take it you mean display correctly?

--
Jess icq: 91353267 msn: phantasm_39@hotmail.com http://www.kentwebnet.com
Hotmail is my spam trap - don't use for email
mailto:nospam@itworkshop.uklinux.net
RISC OS 4.36 kinetic 64+128+2M Castle Storm DMA + 17GB 586-133 I-3 ADSL


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[Peter Howkins]

Michael Gilbert wrote: In article <d0491e134c.druck@druck.freeuk.net>, druck <URL:mailto:news@druck.freeuk.com> wrote: On 16 Jul 2003 Michael Gilbert <mgilbert@eclipse.co.uk> wrote: It's not just the look, though, is it? There was a fundamental change in the OS between 3.1 and 3.5 Window manager 3.98 gives RISC OS 3.1 much of the RISC OS 3.5 GUI gloss, but unlike the RISC OS 3.22 development version it does not update the filer to allow it to handle filenames longer than 10 characters. (although it took until 3.7 to get it right). Would you be refering to the inclusion of the BorderUtils module which stopped the desktop font dissappearing after clicking on a slabbed icon results in the window being closed before it slaps out? No, 'cos I missed that one (:-). It was more the way the whole thing worked, and I suppose I'm thinking of the OS as a total experience.

There are only a few things that make it difficult to run 3.5+ programs
on 3.1 hardware. Of course there is code that makes assumptions about
hardware, eg that you have a 16 or 32 bit colour mode available. But
the biggest sticking point is Dynamic Areas, these get used a lot more
on 3.5+, I believe that Apps were able to use them for the first time.



Peter