| |
January bits |
| |
This is a long thread. Click here to view the threaded list. |
| |
|
John Hoare |
Message #89762, posted at 18:16, 7/1/2002 |
| Unregistered user
|
The System 1 info is very interesting. Will this be continued to provide into on Systems 2-5, etc...? |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Guest |
Message #89763, posted at 18:19, 7/1/2002, in reply to message #89762 |
| Unregistered user
|
Looking at the System 1 makes my StrongARM RISC PC not look quite so dated. ;) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Guest |
Message #89764, posted at 18:56, 7/1/2002, in reply to message #89763 |
| Unregistered user
|
Correction: cdparanoia does not encode MP3s, although it does rip CDs. At least, as far as I can tell from the press release. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Guest |
Message #89765, posted at 20:34, 7/1/2002, in reply to message #89764 |
| Unregistered user
|
Hmm... so how does the Slym (SLYM?) compare to the brand-new flat-panel Apple iMac? What do people think? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Guest |
Message #89766, posted at 23:15, 7/1/2002, in reply to message #89765 |
| Unregistered user
|
"I'd say RiscStation but..."
... it'd be completely wrong because the RiscStation is based on the A7000+, rather than the other way around. Since nothing of the development of the RiscStation has any relation whatsoever to that machine even mentioning it in association with it seems spurious and misleading.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Guest |
Message #89767, posted at 09:21, 8/1/2002, in reply to message #89766 |
| Unregistered user
|
The RiscStation isn't based on the A7000(+). I've been corrected on this point in the past. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Guest |
Message #89768, posted at 09:46, 8/1/2002, in reply to message #89767 |
| Unregistered user
|
cdparanoia is a disturbingly good CD ripper - it's the only one I trust to actually get the audio off intact, and I'm also very glad that it doesn't encode, thanks :) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #89769, posted at 10:11, 8/1/2002, in reply to message #89768 |
| Unregistered user
|
I said "A7000+ ... type machine", not that it was in any way an actual re-working of any other machine. It's not as fast as a StrongARM RiscPC, and it's more than likely going to be aimed at the same markets as the A7000(+) and RiscStation computers, so it's an A7000+(/RiscStation) type machine. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Guest |
Message #89770, posted at 11:25, 8/1/2002, in reply to message #89769 |
| Unregistered user
|
Despite the ARM 7500FE being a 'computer on a chip', there are significant performance differences between the different machines. Would iconbar.com like to see some ARMSI results?
For what it's worth:
Castle/Acorn A7000+
Castle A7000 Odyssey
MicroDigital Mico
RiscStation 7500
RiscStation 7500+ (faster RAM)
(speed increases as the list progresses downwards)
Where does SLYM fit in to the above list?
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Guest |
Message #89771, posted at 12:13, 8/1/2002, in reply to message #89770 |
| Unregistered user
|
I wrote:
>> The RiscStation isn't based on the A7000(+).
>> I've been corrected on this point in the past.
Rich wrote:
> I said "A7000+ ... type machine", not that it
> was in any way an actual re-working of any other
> machine. It's not as fast as a StrongARM RiscPC,
> and it's more than likely going to be aimed at
> the same markets as the A7000(+) and RiscStation
> computers, so it's an A7000+(/RiscStation) type
> machine.
I agree. I was correcting "Guest 23:15, 7/1/2002".
DB |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Chris Bazley |
Message #89772, posted at 12:14, 8/1/2002, in reply to message #89771 |
| Unregistered user
|
I tested an RS7500 (don't remember whether or not it was '+') against my Mico using ARMsi, and the results indicated that although the RS7500 was marginally faster in certain areas, any difference was completely negligable. Far more insignificant than what would be noticeable to any human in normal usage.
In fact, any real performance advantage that the RS7500 might have had in the comparitive tests was completely wiped out by the fact that the owner generally ran it in a high bandwidth screenmode (lots of colours/high frequency). This will completely destroy the performance of any ARM7500-based machine.
My only other experience of a RiscStation was on a stand at the RISC OS southwest show - where it seemed to me to be distinctly sluggish in the desktop. Of course this may have been just because of the contrast with the various SA/Kinetic machines about. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew P Harmsworth |
Message #89773, posted at 16:23, 8/1/2002, in reply to message #89772 |
| Unregistered user
|
How does Slym compare to the new iMac?
The new iMac is 978 ex VAT. (1149 inc VAT).
The Slym is 300 and something as a base unit, or 600 and something with a screen. Plus VAT.
The Slym is meant for different markets, and will save you a fortune in electricity bills if you're wanting a network of them. However the new iMac has an 800 MHz Power G4 processor, and that's just the start of it!
Hmmm. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Guest |
Message #89774, posted at 19:03, 8/1/2002, in reply to message #89773 |
| Unregistered user
|
The new imac also just looks ugly. And as I designer, I feel I'm qualified to say that.
If I'm a good designer of course, well that depends on how much people agree I guess!
Ian |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Matthew Somerville |
Message #89775, posted at 19:08, 8/1/2002, in reply to message #89774 |
| Unregistered user
|
Chris: the faster RAM in my RiscStation has made a significant difference - I can run 1024x768x32000 @ 70Hz for one thing, although that is 'sluggish' as you put it. It has sped up the whole computer though. Running at 1024x768x256 @ 75Hz is not at all sluggish, from my viewpoint anyway. My RiscStation is capable of playing up to 192kps MP3s using AMPlayer or StupidPlayer in 1024x768x256 (see my recent csa.apps posting), which I'm amazed about! :) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Lee Johnston |
Message #89776, posted at 09:32, 9/1/2002, in reply to message #89775 |
| Unregistered user
|
Try running the RiscStation with faster RAM at 1024*768 in 256 cols at 65hz on an LCD monitor - nice ;) (I would take it down to 50hz if I had the time to play with make modes)
I know some people will go "huh, only 1024*768 and only 256 colours" but then I only use mine for wordprocessing and writing code. Anything requiring more oomph is done on my PC.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Guest |
Message #89777, posted at 12:01, 9/1/2002, in reply to message #89776 |
| Unregistered user
|
I use my StrongARM Risc PC for word processing, some diagramming, web browsing, email/news and writing/compiling code. I use 1280x1024 in 256 colours. Anything less is just not acceptable. I'd like to be able to use 32000 colours in that res, but not so much that I can afford to buy a ViewFinder!
I'd like to try an RS7500+, cos I think the fast disc (and network?) access would be very nice, but I think that overall, it's probably significantly slower than my Risc PC.
Those of you with ARM 7500FE machines who play MP3s: can you do anything else at the same time? I like to play MP3s whilst I do other things! |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
John Duffell |
Message #89778, posted at 13:10, 9/1/2002, in reply to message #89777 |
| Unregistered user
|
Urrr no Riscstations can't play mp3s, AMPlayer 1.38 by default on FE machines only plays part of the mp3 and ignores part(half?) of the mp3 data. Don't ask me on the exact details, but it sounds ok, but certainly not as good as it should.
As for RiscStations, I'll have one going spare in about a week if anyone's interested. It's got one of those optical mice with a working wheel too. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
John Duffell |
Message #89779, posted at 13:11, 9/1/2002, in reply to message #89778 |
| Unregistered user
|
add 192kbps 44khz before "mp3s" in that posting, of course they can play lower bitrate ones and lower frequency :) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Weston |
Message #89780, posted at 14:04, 9/1/2002, in reply to message #89779 |
| Unregistered user
|
Lee - "huh, only 1024*768 and only 256 colours"
John - I'll give you my address
;-) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Guest |
Message #89781, posted at 11:44, 10/1/2002, in reply to message #89780 |
| Unregistered user
|
Aww... John! You're not selling your RS, are you?!
Let me guess: You've been to Universoty, looked around, and seen some proper computers? :-)
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Guest |
Message #89782, posted at 12:13, 10/1/2002, in reply to message #89781 |
| Unregistered user
|
So they've got Risc PCs there then?? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
John Duffell |
Message #89783, posted at 16:03, 10/1/2002, in reply to message #89782 |
| Unregistered user
|
To guest 11:44 10/1/02: No I wont let you guess, seeing as your too lazy to even log in, or is it that you think you're clever making anonymous comments. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Guest |
Message #89784, posted at 18:19, 10/1/2002, in reply to message #89783 |
| Unregistered user
|
I don't think "Guest" is clever. I just can't be bothered to create an account. In fact, I don't want an iconbar.com account. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
John Hoare |
Message #89785, posted at 21:25, 10/1/2002, in reply to message #89784 |
| Unregistered user
|
You don't have to log in to leave a name at the bottom. Anyone with a vague amount of sense knows that. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Guest |
Message #89786, posted at 10:45, 11/1/2002, in reply to message #89785 |
| Unregistered user
|
But leaving a name isn't an identity, is it? Look at this post for proof of that.
John Hoare.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
John Duffell |
Message #89787, posted at 10:52, 11/1/2002, in reply to message #89786 |
| Unregistered user
|
So? You can create an account under whatever name you like, the point is that poeple usually create it with their name, or sign off with their name. The fact that you didn't bother to show who you were means that we can't attach person to comments so we can't interpret them as much. Furthermore, since they were rather rude comments, there was the possibility that you were attempting to make rude comments without people knowing who you were. Of course the real reason, so you say, is that you feel the fact that you can type whatever you like into a computer means that nothing should be taken with any surity, so, as I do, I hold little weight of opinion on unattributed postings. Putting someone else's name is impersonation, putting no name is easier, so if there's a name there, it's more likely to be valid than not. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Guest |
Message #89788, posted at 12:25, 11/1/2002, in reply to message #89787 |
| Unregistered user
|
To the guest posing as John Hoare: You're an ASSHOLE. Get a life.
Mike (Who is not afraid to put his name)
p.s. Any chance of having his lame posts removed? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #89789, posted at 14:10, 11/1/2002, in reply to message #89788 |
| Unregistered user
|
C'mon guys, don't make me come in there with a big stick - or change the comments script so only registered users can post.
Leave a name, don't leave a name, I don't really mind - I'd personally prefer if you all used proper logins but I know that's not going to happen voluntarily either. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
John Hoare |
Message #89790, posted at 19:32, 11/1/2002, in reply to message #89789 |
| Unregistered user
|
Fair enough Richard. I suppose I shouldn't let my annoyance about anonymous postings spill over into shouting at anyone who does it! :-)
Paul Middleton |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Guest |
Message #89791, posted at 21:32, 11/1/2002, in reply to message #89790 |
| Unregistered user
|
The login script doesn't work properly with Oregano. It still comes up as 'not logged in'
Robert (not the imposter)
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
| Pages (2): 1
> >|
|
