Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.acorn.misc > #2165 > unrolled thread

VRPC on a USB pen

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.acorn.misc

Contents

  VRPC on a USB pen druck <news@druck.freeuk.com> - 2011-10-29 16:33 +0100
    Re: VRPC on a USB pen David Pitt <pittdj@pittdj.co.uk> - 2011-10-29 16:52 +0100
      Re: VRPC on a USB pen Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-10-29 18:12 +0100
      Re: VRPC on a USB pen patric <patric@invalid.net> - 2011-10-29 18:11 +0000
        Re: VRPC on a USB pen Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> - 2011-10-30 22:25 +0000
          Re: VRPC on a USB pen Folderol <folderol@ukfsn.org> - 2011-10-30 22:37 +0000
            Re: VRPC on a USB pen Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2011-10-31 01:00 +0000
          Re: VRPC on a USB pen Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> - 2011-10-30 22:36 +0000
          Re: VRPC on a USB pen Chris Hughes <news@noonehere.co.uk> - 2011-10-31 18:53 +0000
            Re: VRPC on a USB pen Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-10-31 20:09 +0100
              Re: VRPC on a USB pen fwibbler <thedoctor@thedeathzone.free-online.co.uk> - 2011-11-01 11:20 +0000
                Re: VRPC on a USB pen Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> - 2011-11-01 12:02 +0000
                  Re: VRPC on a USB pen Jess <phantasm_39@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 12:31 +0000
                    Re: VRPC on a USB pen Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> - 2011-11-01 15:52 +0100
                      Re: VRPC on a USB pen "Ste (news)" <steve@revi11.plus.com> - 2011-11-01 18:12 +0000
                        Re: VRPC on a USB pen Jess <phantasm_39@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 22:14 +0000
                        Re: VRPC on a USB pen Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-11-02 18:02 +0100
                          Re: VRPC on a USB pen Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-11-02 18:04 +0100
                          Re: VRPC on a USB pen Jess <phantasm_39@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 22:08 +0000
                  Re: VRPC on a USB pen Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> - 2011-11-01 12:54 +0000
                Re: VRPC on a USB pen Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-11-01 12:23 +0000
                  Re: VRPC on a USB pen fwibbler <thedoctor@thedeathzone.free-online.co.uk> - 2011-11-01 16:47 +0000
                Re: VRPC on a USB pen Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-11-01 21:06 +0100
              Re: VRPC on a USB pen Michael Gerbracht <nospam@cityweb.de> - 2011-11-04 17:12 +0000
                Re: VRPC on a USB pen Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-11-04 20:00 +0100
                  Re: VRPC on a USB pen Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2011-11-04 20:36 +0000
                    Re: VRPC on a USB pen Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-11-05 06:20 +0100
                      Re: VRPC on a USB pen Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2011-11-05 06:24 +0000
                  Re: VRPC on a USB pen Michael Gerbracht <nospam@cityweb.de> - 2011-11-05 16:19 +0000
                    Re: VRPC on a USB pen Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-11-05 17:54 +0100
                      Re: VRPC on a USB pen Michael Gerbracht <nospam@cityweb.de> - 2011-11-06 16:37 +0000
                        Re: VRPC on a USB pen Ron Briscoe <ron.briscoe@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-11-06 20:09 +0000
                          Re: VRPC on a USB pen Michael Gerbracht <nospam@cityweb.de> - 2011-11-13 10:51 +0000
                            Re: VRPC on a USB pen Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-11-19 10:12 +0000
                    Re: VRPC on a USB pen Ron Briscoe <ron.briscoe@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-11-05 21:44 +0000
                      Re: VRPC on a USB pen Dr Peter Young <pnyoung@ormail.co.uk> - 2011-11-06 09:24 +0000
                        Re: VRPC on a USB pen Ron Briscoe <ron.briscoe@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-11-06 19:59 +0000
                          Re: VRPC on a USB pen Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-11-07 04:04 +0100
                            Re: VRPC on a USB pen cferris@freeRemoveuk.com.invalid - 2011-11-07 10:04 +0000
                              Re: VRPC on a USB pen Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-11-07 18:06 +0100
                              Re: VRPC on a USB pen Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2011-11-07 18:59 +0000
                                Re: VRPC on a USB pen SG nws <nwsgrp@ntlworld.com> - 2011-11-07 19:24 +0000
                                  Re: VRPC on a USB pen Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2011-11-07 21:25 +0000
                          SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen David Pitt <pittdj@pittdj.co.uk> - 2011-11-07 05:33 +0000
                            Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen Dr Peter Young <pnyoung@ormail.co.uk> - 2011-11-08 21:54 +0000
                              Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen Doug Webb <doug.j.webb@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-08 22:11 +0000
                                Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen David Pitt <pittdj@pittdj.co.uk> - 2011-11-09 06:38 +0000
                              Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen David Pitt <pittdj@pittdj.co.uk> - 2011-11-09 06:20 +0000
                              Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen Richard Ashbery <basura@invalid.addr.uk> - 2011-11-09 13:29 +0000
                                Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-11-09 16:34 +0100
                                  Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen Jess <phantasm_39@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 16:59 +0000
                                    Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen Richard Ashbery <basura@invalid.addr.uk> - 2011-11-09 19:40 +0000
                                      Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen Chris Hughes <news@noonehere.co.uk> - 2011-11-09 21:45 +0000
                                Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen Dr Peter Young <pnyoung@ormail.co.uk> - 2011-11-09 14:56 +0000
                                Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen druck <news@druck.freeuk.com> - 2011-11-09 20:32 +0000
                                  Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen Dr Peter Young <pnyoung@ormail.co.uk> - 2011-11-09 22:03 +0000
                                    Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2011-11-09 22:32 +0000
                                    Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> - 2011-11-09 23:02 +0000
                                      Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen Vince M Hudd <vinceh@softrock.co.uk> - 2011-11-10 15:44 +0000
                                        Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> - 2011-11-10 20:13 +0000
                                          Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen Martin Bazley <martin.bazley@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-11-10 23:36 +0000
                                            Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-11-11 05:45 +0100
                                              Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> - 2011-11-11 16:40 +0100
                                                Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-11-12 02:10 +0100
                                                  Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen Matthew Phillips <spam2011m@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-11-12 07:48 +0000
                                                  Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen Jess <phantasm_39@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-12 09:18 +0000
                                                  Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> - 2011-11-12 11:44 +0100
                                          Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen Vince M Hudd <vinceh@softrock.co.uk> - 2011-11-11 09:32 +0000
                                            Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen Martin Bazley <martin.bazley@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-11-13 12:22 +0000
                                              Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> - 2011-11-13 13:30 +0000
                                                Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen Martin Bazley <martin.bazley@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-11-15 01:20 +0000
                                              Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-11-13 22:11 +0100
                                                Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> - 2011-11-14 19:08 +0100
                                                Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen David Pitt <pittdj@pittdj.co.uk> - 2011-11-14 19:25 +0000
                                        Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-11-11 05:38 +0100
                                    Re: SmartMenu - was: VRPC on a USB pen Richard Ashbery <basura@invalid.addr.uk> - 2011-11-12 13:31 +0000
                  Re: VRPC on a USB pen Jess <phantasm_39@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-06 12:56 +0000
            Re: VRPC on a USB pen Jess <phantasm_39@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 10:50 +0000
      Re: VRPC on a USB pen druck <news@druck.freeuk.com> - 2011-10-29 19:39 +0100
        Re: VRPC on a USB pen Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-10-29 20:24 +0100
    Re: VRPC on a USB pen Sion <s.cleaver@mail.com> - 2011-10-29 09:46 -0700
      Re: VRPC on a USB pen Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-10-29 20:40 +0200
      Re: VRPC on a USB pen druck <news@druck.freeuk.com> - 2011-10-29 19:41 +0100
        Re: VRPC on a USB pen "Ste (news)" <steve@revi11.plus.com> - 2011-10-30 21:49 +0000
    Re: VRPC on a USB pen Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-10-29 20:26 +0200
      Re: VRPC on a USB pen Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-10-29 20:47 +0200
        Re: VRPC on a USB pen Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-10-29 20:28 +0100
          Re: VRPC on a USB pen druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2011-10-29 23:40 +0100
            Re: VRPC on a USB pen Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-10-29 23:45 +0100
              Re: VRPC on a USB pen druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2011-10-30 00:00 +0100
                Re: VRPC on a USB pen Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-10-30 00:03 +0100
                Re: VRPC on a USB pen Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2011-10-30 06:38 +0000
        Re: VRPC on a USB pen Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-10-29 23:52 +0100
        Re: VRPC on a USB pen Andrew Hodgkinson <ahodgkin@rowing.org.uk> - 2011-10-31 17:22 +0000
          Re: VRPC on a USB pen Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-10-31 20:12 +0100
          VRPC on a USB pen Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2011-10-31 21:21 +0000
            Re: VRPC on a USB pen Andrew Hodgkinson <ahodgkin@rowing.org.uk> - 2011-11-14 13:15 +0000
      Re: VRPC on a USB pen Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-10-29 21:21 +0200
        Re: VRPC on a USB pen druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2011-10-29 23:52 +0100
          Re: VRPC on a USB pen Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-10-31 00:07 +0100
            Re: VRPC on a USB pen Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2011-10-31 01:05 +0000
      Re: VRPC on a USB pen Chris Hughes <news@noonehere.co.uk> - 2011-10-31 18:48 +0000
        Re: VRPC on a USB pen Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-11-01 20:23 +0100

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

#2168

On Oct 29, 4:33 pm, druck <n...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> I've just read on the show twitter feed that ROL are doing a RISC OS
> emulator on a USB pen - only 5 1/2 years after I suggested it.

<snip>

> Of ROL and VA weren't interested in the idea at all, preferring to
> stick with the excruciating process of installing VRPC from CD and
> having to phone up for licence keys. Something was mumbled something
> the RO licence not allowing it to be used on more than once machine,
> even if it was only one machine at time. But as with emulation in the
> first place, things aren't allowed until PM and AT suddenly decided
> they are.
>
> I haven't bothered using VRPC in about 5 years, and I just don't need
> it now. All these years they've sat around watching RISC OS decline
> and resisting any ideas of their enhancing products, until it's just
> too bloody late to make any difference.

I can see why you're a little peeved off, but you've got to bare in
mind that the people involved with ROL and Virtual Acorn are
completely different to those involved with RISC OS Open. ROL and VA
are both commercial endeavors, and are run by people that still have
their heads back in the glory days of RISC OS, where having a CD-RW
drive was cutting edge technology.

The guys over at RISC OS Open however are a little more modern-minded
and are concentrating on moving RISC OS forward instead of wasting
their time with licensing wars and plumping up their bank balance.
Hence why they've gone ahead with a RISC OS emulator on a USB pen.

Cheers,
Sion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2177

On 29/10/2011 18:46, Sion wrote:

> their heads back in the glory days of RISC OS, where having a CD-RW
> drive was cutting edge technology.

;-) And CD readers wouldn't touch CD-RW discs. Halcyon days?


> The guys over at RISC OS Open however are a little more modern-minded
> and are concentrating on moving RISC OS forward instead of wasting
> their time with licensing wars and plumping up their bank balance.

Well, new machines run a new generation of ARM processors. It's a case 
of keep up or get outta the way.

All who read El Reg will know that 64 bit ARMs are on the way. Can RISC 
OS evolve? It's a possibility, yes.


Best wishes,

Rick.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2183

On 29 Oct 2011 Sion <s.cleaver@mail.com> wrote:

> I can see why you're a little peeved off, but you've got to bare in
> mind that the people involved with ROL and Virtual Acorn are
> completely different to those involved with RISC OS Open. ROL and VA
> are both commercial endeavors, and are run by people that still have
> their heads back in the glory days of RISC OS, where having a CD-RW
> drive was cutting edge technology.

Sorry, I appreciate that, but I read it as ROL not ROOL on the web 
page. It's disappeared now so I can't check.

> The guys over at RISC OS Open however are a little more modern-minded
> and are concentrating on moving RISC OS forward instead of wasting
> their time with licensing wars and plumping up their bank balance.
> Hence why they've gone ahead with a RISC OS emulator on a USB pen.

I'm glad to hear it, and apologies to ROOL, as I didn't suggest it 
them 5 1/2 years ago, as they weren't around then!

---druck

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2208

In article <fde9e52952.druck@druck.freeuk.net>,
   druck <news@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> I'm glad to hear it, and apologies to ROOL, as I didn't suggest it 
> them 5 1/2 years ago, as they weren't around then!

No offense taken. We incorporated the company on 20/6/2006 so it's _nearly_
5.5 years :)

Anyway, this has been our plan since the beginning (well we have a bit more
yet to do) and we've been banging on about it at nearly every show talk
since then so it feels great to finally be hitting the major milestones
we've been promising.

Ta,

Steve

-- 
Steve Revill @ Home
Note: All opinions expressed herein are my own.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2176

On 29/10/2011 17:33, druck wrote:

> I've just read on the show twitter feed that ROL are doing a RISC OS
> emulator on a USB pen - only 5 1/2 years after I suggested it.

Yeah, well now it's a case of "big whoo". Where do you think RPCEmu and 
RISC OS 5 are installed on my system? A USB flash drive...

Before that, I used RedSquirrel for *years* on a similar unit, it is 
useful to just plug it into whatever system I'm using at the time.


Maybe the fact that a working, usable, version of an emulator and RO5 is 
available and can be easily installed prompted them to do this action? I 
will agree that there is a *lot* that needs to be fixed on RPCEmu to 
improve speed and stability and feature set, however, it does work. If I 
want something better than my RO3.7 ROM dump, I can get it set up from 
scratch in around five minutes. ROL's answer is...


> Back then I would have found the ability to take a fully set up RISC
> OS system withanywhere I went to use on any PC I happened to be at
> extremely useful,

Indeed. Any machine capable of running the software will do the job. 
Some may be slower than others, some may need minor tweaks (my current
setup defines a 1024x600 mode for the netbook display), but it's all 
pretty minor.


> stick with the excruciating process of installing VRPC from CD and
> having to phone up for licence keys.

*PHONE* *UP*!?!? You're kidding. That's so Y2K era.


> Something was mumbled something the RO licence not allowing it to be
> used on more than once machine, even if it was only one machine at time.

Do you have a licence document or file? Is this *written*? That isn't to 
say it shouldn't be - provided it isn't unlawful, companies can put a 
lot of rubbish into licence files [*] and you're expected to be bound by 
that guff; however if it is *NOT* written in the licence that *you* have 
*with* the software, such terms will not apply.

I'm fed up with certain products that give their Ts&Cs on a website, and 
arbitrarily alter them expecting users to comply with new terms. No, I 
look out such Ts&Cs and save a copy. Those are the ones I'll follow 
regardless of subsequent modifications (that I did not agree to).


> things aren't allowed until PM and AT suddenly decided they are.

Wwwaaayyy   tttoooooo   lllaaattteee!!!


Best wishes,

Rick.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2179

On 29/10/2011 20:26, Rick Murray wrote:

> ROL's answer is...

I appear to owe an apology to ROL for implying their use of a USB pen 
install is too little too late as it apparently isn't their kit. A lot 
of the rest of the points stand, however. ;-)


As for ROOL supplying RO+em on a USB device - what exactly is it? 
RPCEmu, or something more advanced? If RPCEmu, I'm not sure why as it 
isn't hard to set up up manually...
...unless it is something to give out at trade shows to get running 
versions of the operating system into people's hands?


> say it shouldn't be - provided it isn't unlawful, companies can put a
> lot of rubbish into licence files

Wasn't there a game manufacturer that claimed your soul (as an exercise 
to show how many people don't bother to read licences)?


> Wwwaaayyy tttoooooo lllaaattteee!!!

Or at least it would be if ROL put VA/RO onto USB drives. ;-)


Best wishes,

Rick.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2187

In article <4eac4a2b$0$18793$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr>, Rick Murray
<heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 29/10/2011 20:26, Rick Murray wrote:

[Snip]

> > say it shouldn't be - provided it isn't unlawful, companies can put a
> > lot of rubbish into licence files

> Wasn't there a game manufacturer that claimed your soul (as an exercise
> to show how many people don't bother to read licences)?

We shouldn't need to read licences as they should be 'fair'. Any deemed
to be 'unfair' will not stand up in court.

-- 
Tim Hill of timil.com . . .
* supports TFT & shares in cheaper ethical telecoms http://tjrh.eu/phone
* has a genuine & spam-proof address for Usenet http://www.invalid.org.uk/
* accepts incoming email: substitute postmaster@ for tim@

... "The private wound is deepest" Two G of V, Act v, Sc.4

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2189

On 29/10/2011 20:28, Tim Hill wrote:
> We shouldn't need to read licences as they should be 'fair'. Any deemed
> to be 'unfair' will not stand up in court.

...And they all lived happily every after.

Unfortunately life isn't a fairy tail, licences are unfair, and only 
lawyers ever win from court action.

---druck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2190

In article <j8hvdo$19p$1@dont-email.me>, druck <news@druck.org.uk> wrote:
> On 29/10/2011 20:28, Tim Hill wrote:
> > We shouldn't need to read licences as they should be 'fair'. Any
> > deemed to be 'unfair' will not stand up in court.

> ...And they all lived happily every after.

> Unfortunately life isn't a fairy tail, licences are unfair, and only
> lawyers ever win from court action.

You can say that but I don't remember any celebrated cases of licensors
winning with stupid clauses. Perhaps you could give examples?

-- 
Tim Hill of timil.com . . .
* supports TFT & shares in cheaper ethical telecoms http://tjrh.eu/phone
* has a genuine & spam-proof address for Usenet http://www.invalid.org.uk/
* accepts incoming email: substitute postmaster@ for tim@

... "Defend your reputation, or bid farewell to your good life for ever" M W of W Act iii, Sc.2

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2193

On 29/10/2011 23:45, Tim Hill wrote:
> In article<j8hvdo$19p$1@dont-email.me>, druck<news@druck.org.uk>  wrote:
>> Unfortunately life isn't a fairy tail, licences are unfair, and only
>> lawyers ever win from court action.
>
> You can say that but I don't remember any celebrated cases of licensors
> winning with stupid clauses. Perhaps you could give examples?

I'm sure you could find them yourself if you could be bothered.

The point is 99.99% of customers can't afford to risk the cost of going 
up against large corporations over licenses. They either suck it up or 
go elsewhere.

---druck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2194

In article <j8i0hu$80h$1@dont-email.me>, druck <news@druck.org.uk> wrote:
> On 29/10/2011 23:45, Tim Hill wrote:
> > In article<j8hvdo$19p$1@dont-email.me>, druck<news@druck.org.uk> 
> > wrote:
> >> Unfortunately life isn't a fairy tail, licences are unfair, and only
> >> lawyers ever win from court action.
> >
> > You can say that but I don't remember any celebrated cases of
> > licensors winning with stupid clauses. Perhaps you could give
> > examples?

> I'm sure you could find them yourself if you could be bothered.

Cop-out.

[Snip]

-- 
Tim Hill of timil.com . . .
* supports TFT & shares in cheaper ethical telecoms http://tjrh.eu/phone
* has a genuine & spam-proof address for Usenet http://www.invalid.org.uk/
* accepts incoming email: substitute postmaster@ for tim@

... "There was never yet philosopher that could endure the toothache patiently" Much Ado, Act v, Sc.1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2197

I wouldn't want you folks to have a nasty shock, so prepare yourselves,
but...  ;-)

I *do* look at the EULA of much PC software I use, granted I only have a
quick scan down the document, but it can be worth the effort.

Some software prohibits the installation on anything other than one device.

But by carefully reading of the first few sections of some EULA, you'll
find that you can install on one desktop, and additionally, on one
portable computer owned by the desktop owner.

A few examples are Corel PSP, Some Serif Apps, and what really surprised
me, MS Word 2007 can be installed on two devices as noted above.

What has this to do with Acorn?

If you are a user of Select versions of RISC OS, the license does permit
you to install on a multiple number of computers (I can't remember how
many now) so in that respect, they are up there with the rest of the world
in realising things have changed.

Perhaps it is time VRPC had a re-think... 
I'm not looking to install on a whole fleet of machines, just one desktop
PC and a Laptop... And ATM I have to do that with two full price copies of
VRPC.

Dave

-- 

Dave Triffid

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2192

In article <4eac4a2b$0$18793$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr>,
   Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> As for ROOL supplying RO+em on a USB device - what exactly is it? 
> RPCEmu, or something more advanced? If RPCEmu, I'm not sure why as it 
> isn't hard to set up up manually...

For some I'm sure but not everyone is that able.

I have been a suscriber to the RPCEmu mailing list for some time and what
I've been reading makes me glad that someone has got it already sorted on
a USB stick I can just plug into a computer of my choice and know it will
work.

-- 
Stuart Winsor

Only plain text for emails
http://www.asciiribbon.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2223

On 2011-10-29 19:47:10 +0100, Rick Murray said:

> As for ROOL supplying RO+em on a USB device - what exactly is it? 
> RPCEmu, or something more advanced? If RPCEmu, I'm not sure why as it 
> isn't hard to set up up manually...

Technically adept people could of course do this, but the less 
technically astute find it useful to have something packaged up. When 
you look at the number of ReadMe style files that had to be put 
together and (especially for Linux) their length, you see that it's a 
non-trivial process.

It doesn't help that the RPCEmu 0.8.8 release can't run RISC OS 5. You 
need to build your own from newer source.

All in all it took a lot of time to put together the USB sticks - even 
just getting the disc image sorted and tested for the 'native' USB 
stick was something of a faff, even before adding RPCEmu - and that's 
work which someone who bought a stick doesn't have to do themselves.

> ...unless it is something to give out at trade shows to get running 
> versions of the operating system into people's hands?

That too.

-- 
TTFN, Andrew Hodgkinson
Find some electronic music at:     Photos, wallpaper, software and more:
http://pond.org.uk/music.html                        http://pond.org.uk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2229

On 31/10/2011 18:22, Andrew Hodgkinson wrote:

> It doesn't help that the RPCEmu 0.8.8 release can't run RISC OS 5. You
> need to build your own from newer source.

? The one I'm using is v0.8.8...?
Just needed to tell the thing to be a SA110 processor.

Or am I in for a gotcha down the line? :-)


Best wishes,

Rick.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2234

In article <2011103117223629869-ahodgkin@rowingorguk>,
   Andrew Hodgkinson <ahodgkin@rowing.org.uk> wrote:
> On 2011-10-29 19:47:10 +0100, Rick Murray said:

> > As for ROOL supplying RO+em on a USB device - what exactly is it? 
> > RPCEmu, or something more advanced? If RPCEmu, I'm not sure why as it 
> > isn't hard to set up up manually...

> Technically adept people could of course do this, but the less 
> technically astute find it useful to have something packaged up. When 
> you look at the number of ReadMe style files that had to be put 
> together and (especially for Linux) their length, you see that it's a 
> non-trivial process.

> It doesn't help that the RPCEmu 0.8.8 release can't run RISC OS 5. You 
> need to build your own from newer source.

> All in all it took a lot of time to put together the USB sticks - even 
> just getting the disc image sorted and tested for the 'native' USB 
> stick was something of a faff, even before adding RPCEmu - and that's 
> work which someone who bought a stick doesn't have to do themselves.

> > ...unless it is something to give out at trade shows to get running 
> > versions of the operating system into people's hands?

> That too.

This is of course all excellent news, and I hope the networking aspect of
Emu has been made easier in your version.

I'd like to ask a question... To assuage my confusion.  ;-)
Maybe I'm just reading what's written wrong...

I have a RPCEmu 0.8.8 running RO 5.17 on my Win 7 laptop, and as I
couldn't build anything software wise ever... How is this working on my
machine?

Thanks
Dave

-- 

Dave Triffid

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2485

On 2011-10-31 21:21:54 +0000, Dave Symes said:

> I have a RPCEmu 0.8.8 running RO 5.17 on my Win 7 laptop, and as I
> couldn't build anything software wise ever... How is this working on my
> machine?

There's no one 5.17. It's a continuous evolving release. The 
even-numbered releases are stable and tested. So while your 5.17 ROM 
might work, you may well find the latest IOMD ROM would crash. It 
certainly crashed for me, so we used newer RPCEmu sources.

Whether or not dynarec is enabled is also a factor.

-- 
TTFN, Andrew Hodgkinson
Find some electronic music at:     Photos, wallpaper, software and more:
http://pond.org.uk/music.html                        http://pond.org.uk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2185

On 29/10/2011 20:26, Rick Murray wrote:

> lot of rubbish into licence files [*]

Forgot footnote: A common piece of rubbish in old licence files is to 
specify the software can only be installed on a single CPU (sometimes 
phrased as a single CPU machine). I've always thought this a bit stupid 
in the case of RISC OS software, given Acorn's history of co-processors. 
I guess it was cut'n'paste from somebody else's licence file.

Anyway, said software would be fine on my A5000, but unable to be used 
on my RiscPC. Why? ARM710+80486.


I guess it is moot and outdated these days - how literal do you take 
"single CPU"? Is a quad-core one or four? How about the GPU? Or the 
sound hard? Or the harddisc? A lot of this sort of stuff has custom ARM 
processing onboard.


To give an example of something I'm more familiar with, the Neuros OSD 
(SD) video recorder. The heart is a TI TMS320DM320 chip which is an 
ARM9. But then there's a load of hardware processing units (DSP, image 
resizer, preview engine, etc). There's a AIC23 sound encoder/decoder 
(with internal firmware and unknown processor). The composite/s-video 
signal is converted to digital form using a tvp5150 chip with its own 
internal firmware and (again unknown) processing unit. I don't know much 
about the DM9000 ethernet chip, but given its capabilities, I'd not be 
surprised if it doesn't have some sort of processing unit onboard. And 
finally there's an MSP430 microcontroller to handle the infra-red 
functions and real time clock.
So, in a device about the size of a reasonable hardback which is 
intended to record and play back video, we're looking at nearly a dozen 
processors of various types.
How many d'you think are in the average modern home computer?


Best wishes,

Rick.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2191

On 29/10/2011 20:21, Rick Murray wrote:
> Forgot footnote: A common piece of rubbish in old licence files is to
> specify the software can only be installed on a single CPU (sometimes
> phrased as a single CPU machine). I've always thought this a bit stupid
> in the case of RISC OS software, given Acorn's history of co-processors.
> I guess it was cut'n'paste from somebody else's licence file.

For any platform it's only ever meant those CPUs capable of running the 
software, not any asymmetric or purely ancillary units.

> Anyway, said software would be fine on my A5000, but unable to be used
> on my RiscPC. Why? ARM710+80486.

Only if it was capable of running on both CPUs.

> I guess it is moot and outdated these days - how literal do you take
> "single CPU"? Is a quad-core one or four?

Large commercial applications such as databases are licensed on a per 
CPU core basis. 4 cores may mean paying 4x as much for some CPU 
families. Multipliers may be applied to adjust for absolute performance, 
such as x0.25, x0.5 or x0.75 for less capable CPUs.

> How about the GPU?

That already applies to specialist rending software, but with general 
purpose CPU+GPU combinations coming on to market such as AMDs APU range, 
in future licensing for major applications may include adjustments for 
their performance too.

> To give an example of something I'm more familiar with, the Neuros OSD
> (SD) video recorder. The heart is a TI TMS320DM320 chip which is an
> ARM9. But then there's a load of hardware processing units (DSP, image
> resizer, preview engine, etc). There's a AIC23 sound encoder/decoder
> (with internal firmware and unknown processor). The composite/s-video
> signal is converted to digital form using a tvp5150 chip with its own
> internal firmware and (again unknown) processing unit. I don't know much
> about the DM9000 ethernet chip, but given its capabilities, I'd not be
> surprised if it doesn't have some sort of processing unit onboard. And
> finally there's an MSP430 microcontroller to handle the infra-red
> functions and real time clock.
> So, in a device about the size of a reasonable hardback which is
> intended to record and play back video, we're looking at nearly a dozen
> processors of various types.
> How many d'you think are in the average modern home computer?

Now you are just being silly!

---druck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2213

On 30/10/2011 00:52, druck wrote:

> For any platform it's only ever meant those CPUs capable of running the
> software, not any asymmetric or purely ancillary units.

While this makes logical sense...


>> Anyway, said software would be fine on my A5000, but unable to be used
>> on my RiscPC. Why? ARM710+80486.
> Only if it was capable of running on both CPUs.

...a licence that states it can only be used on a "single CPU" machine 
should really only be used on a machine with *one* CPU regardless of 
compatibility *unless* the licence explicitly specifies it is talking of 
compatible processors.

Why? Because if the terms do not specify, both possibilities are equally 
valid and the one that prevails will depend upon which side has the more 
expensive legal representation.

[otherwise known as "Make No Assumptions"]


> Large commercial applications such as databases are licensed on a per
> CPU core basis.

Erk.


>> How many d'you think are in the average modern home computer?
> Now you are just being silly!

Yes, I am. But read the above...


Best wishes,

Rick.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.acorn.misc

csiph-web