|
|
The Icon Bar: General: Xscale mini-itx board
| |
Xscale mini-itx board |
| |
sk (02:13 3/11/2003)
monkeyson2 (03:44 3/11/2003)
ilcook (23:20 3/11/2003)
stdevel (11:47 4/11/2003)
Loris (17:56 12/11/2003)
stdevel (20:04 12/11/2003)
Chris (11:24 13/11/2003)
mavhc (21:03 13/11/2003)
stdevel (22:08 13/11/2003)
mavhc (00:32 14/11/2003)
stdevel (01:27 14/11/2003)
mavhc (22:44 15/11/2003)
johnstlr (08:19 14/11/2003)
|
| |
|
Sam |
Message #47678, posted by sk at 02:13, 3/11/2003 |
Member
Posts: 3
|
Hi all,
Take a look at this site http://www.compulab.co.il/atxbase-arm.htm
Xscale based mini-itx. Note the I/O ports, pcmcia slots etc... also has flash disk.
What do you think?
SK
________
email: s-k@blueyonder.co.uk
web: www.s-k.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Phil Mellor |
Message #47679, posted by monkeyson2 at 03:44, 3/11/2003, in reply to message #47678 |
 Please don't let them make me be a monkey butler
Posts: 12380
|
Interesting.
"Availability: December 2003" - what, before the finished Omega?  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Ian Cook |
Message #47701, posted by ilcook at 23:20, 3/11/2003, in reply to message #47679 |
 Resident idiot
Posts: 1075
|
Interesting.
"Availability: December 2003" - what, before the finished Omega?
Does seem very interesting indeed  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Stuart Tyrrell |
Message #47713, posted by stdevel at 11:47, 4/11/2003, in reply to message #47678 |
www.stdevel.co.uk
Posts: 279
|
Looks like fun, but gets expensive when you go for "reasonable" quantities. All those extras are options and cost $$$.
If I put my embedded eng hat on, I think I'd prefer to go the Samsung ARM9 route (a la Simtec) with a lot more on them as default and available now. It's difficult to get a "processor+motherboard" combination (like the ATXBase) as efficient and cost-effective as a single-board solution.
Edit: Heck, I'd only worked through ordering the base boards - I hadn't seen the full eval board pricing! US$1600 for the compulab kit. Even the Gold-support Simtec EB2410 kit is less than a quarter of that.
[Edited by stdevel at 11:52, 4/11/2003] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Tony Haines |
Message #47924, posted by Loris at 17:56, 12/11/2003, in reply to message #47713 |
 Ha ha, me mine, mwahahahaha
Posts: 1025
|
Stuart, what would you actually need if you wanted, say, a small (palmtop or laptop or notebook) Risc OS-ish computer?
OK, I realise there might be problems with sourcing the case, but suppose I'd be happy with a shoebox, or something knocked up in plywood..
() |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Stuart Tyrrell |
Message #47929, posted by stdevel at 20:04, 12/11/2003, in reply to message #47924 |
www.stdevel.co.uk
Posts: 279
|
Realistically.... hardware already exists in finished (eg most of the ARM-based PocketPC machines) and OEM (eg the eval boards above) versions which is /capable/ of running RISC OS. There's also lots of hardware in development with embedded applications which again might be sensible.
Any of these options would require a modified version of RISC OS, which could /in theory/ be licensed.....
However, there is a(nother) split within RISC OS. The "owners" (CTL/Tematic) most suitable to supply a suitably abstracted version happen to have spun-off a company aiming to look at the embedded market. This makes any negotiation with regards to what would be competing embedded devices nigh on impossible.
The company who were given the /mandate/ to develop and distribute RISC OS (ROL) were leap-frogged with regards to abstraction by one of their major shareholders. Although from commercial "safety"'s sake they might be the preferred option, there would need to be a huge impetus in order to fund the equivalent of the work that CTL obtained from Pace.
At the MAUG meeting on Monday, we were told that ROL were possibly outside their license with regards to VRPC and some other IPR issues, and that me paying my UKP80 or so for each A6 I ship to ROL (the people mandated etc etc, and who pay CTL a proportion of this) was somehow robbing the RISC OS market of development cash. I'm sure any potential negotiations would be completely non-judgemental then....
So, from going from a situation of trying to increase the market with a simple-to-understand-for-non-RISC-OS-users machine (the A6), and maintaining numbers in the software market (which /isn't/ happening with existing ARM-based hardware offerings), with a longer-term view with regards to other true ARM-based hardware (has anyone really thought why, as a hardware developer, we're making diddly squat on a machine for which we'll never sell USB cards, Network interfaces etc etc) To..... (sorry, stop to draw breath...). To... either negotiation with people to whom we couldn't disclose what we actually needed and who certainly had "issues" with their perculiar view of the RO market, or to negotiation with other people who need heaps more cash and have an axe hanging over their head.
All we can do in the meantime is put things on ice until the politicking shakes itself out. Which is regrettable. Or we can hope that CTL do the work themselves based on what /they/ consider is "exciting" ARM hardware.
[Edited by stdevel at 20:06, 12/11/2003] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Chris |
Message #47947, posted by Chris at 11:24, 13/11/2003, in reply to message #47929 |
Member
Posts: 283
|
Stuart,
As an ordinary user of a RISC OS machine (a shrinking band, I fear), the continuing feud between the companies involved in the hardware and OS development is both bewildering and depressing. I would love to support new ARM hardware and new versions of RISC OS (i.e. Select), but can't at the moment without having two machines.
I can understand rival developers being angry with each other for agreements breaking down, but are the divisions so great that we're going to be stuck with rival standards for good? If so, there doesn't seem much hope for the platform - I don't think either CTL or ROL are big enough to go it alone in competition with each other over a dwindling band of enthusiasts. A unified platfom, however, with one OS and faster ARM processors, would do wonders.
With reference to points you make, while I don't pretend to understand all the disagreements between the parties involved, it does seem to me that ROL have a case to answer as well as CTL. After all, their mission statement was to bring a 32-bit OS to market within twelve months of starting-up (IIRC). Years later, the lack of progress and gloomy public announcements made it look as if we were never going to get it. I don't meant to denigrate Select, which from what I can see looks like a major development. But surely the priority was to get RISC OS on newer hardware, and weren't CTL justified in going it alone if ROL couldn't or wouldn't do so?
I respect your opinions as someone much closer to the action than me, and don't mean to direct any criticism at you in particular. But I must admit that every time I read about the differences between the major RISC OS developers, it makes me less and less inclined to stay with the platform.
I hope there will be some resolution to the current mess. Any chance of one? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Mark Scholes |
Message #47974, posted by mavhc at 21:03, 13/11/2003, in reply to message #47947 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
But surely the priority was to get RISC OS on newer hardware, and weren't CTL justified in going it alone if ROL couldn't or wouldn't do so?
The priority was not dying. No point in ROL spending all their time making a 32bit HAL'd OS if a) they'd run out of money before finishing it, or b) they'd not by able to sell it to anyone.
RiscStation complained at one point that they couldn't agree with ROL to pay for HAL work when other companies would benefit. One could assume Castle had the same problem.
So it all boils down to the 4 companies not sitting down and working out a plan together. How did they think ROL was going to work if they couldn't work together?
Acorn got back the cost of OS development by selling hardware at a great profit, apparently RiscPCs cost 1/3 the selling price to make, that's about 800ukps "profit" per machine, compared to maybe 40ukps profit ROL makes. (Or 80ukps per emulator).
How many VRPC copies have been sold? Post your serial numbers here. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Stuart Tyrrell |
Message #47979, posted by stdevel at 22:08, 13/11/2003, in reply to message #47974 |
www.stdevel.co.uk
Posts: 279
|
Acorn got back the cost of OS development by selling hardware at a great profit, apparently RiscPCs cost 1/3 the selling price to make, that's about 800ukps "profit" per machine, compared to maybe 40ukps profit ROL makes. (Or 80ukps per emulator). The RPC certainly didn't cost a third of retail. Possibly in terms of raw device costs, but we shouldn't forget development costs etc (which includes the OS) - let's not get into the comp.sys.acorn.naive pricing comparison challenge
Similarly the comments elsewhere about the Iyonix pricing being too high are, I think, pretty unfounded.
I'm not sure that the current situation is the result of any dispute, but rather that the "independant" option (ROL) did not flourish as it might, possibly as a result of commercial nervousness.
My concern is that we're being encouraged to head back into the realms of a single monolithic partisan commercial body. Whilst this might bring back the nostalgic feelings of "old Acorn", the current environment is very different to that which even saw Acorn struggle. Although of late there has perhaps been a realisation in some quarters that a closed market would be unsustainable, there are still decisions made which might concern people who are closer to the "coal face".
Meanwhile, those who are in a position to provide innovation and diversity are faced with commercial impossibilities, and are playing a waiting game in a market which needs to be widened as a matter of urgency.
I'm sure there is a solution somewhere..... |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Mark Scholes |
Message #47980, posted by mavhc at 00:32, 14/11/2003, in reply to message #47979 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
Acorn got back the cost of OS development by selling hardware at a great profit, apparently RiscPCs cost 1/3 the selling price to make, that's about 800ukps "profit" per machine, compared to maybe 40ukps profit ROL makes. (Or 80ukps per emulator). The RPC certainly didn't cost a third of retail. Possibly in terms of raw device costs, but we shouldn't forget development costs etc (which includes the OS) - let's not get into the comp.sys.acorn.naive pricing comparison challenge
That was my point, they paid for the large development costs with the large profit.
How much was OS and how much hardware? Suppose the best guess would be to compare the number of people working in each department.
ROL have no large profit sales to pay for OS development. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Stuart Tyrrell |
Message #47981, posted by stdevel at 01:27, 14/11/2003, in reply to message #47980 |
www.stdevel.co.uk
Posts: 279
|
Acorn got back the cost of OS development by selling hardware at a great profit, apparently RiscPCs cost 1/3 the selling price to make, that's about 800ukps "profit" per machine, compared to maybe 40ukps profit ROL makes. (Or 80ukps per emulator). The RPC certainly didn't cost a third of retail. Possibly in terms of raw device costs, but we shouldn't forget development costs etc (which includes the OS) - let's not get into the comp.sys.acorn.naive pricing comparison challenge
That was my point, they paid for the large development costs with the large profit.
Yes, OK - I realised that's what you were saying, sorry I didn't make that clear.
Just the word "profit" makes me nervous. Profit's what you have left when you've paid for everything, including development, software, gas for the heating etc. The difference between the component cost of part of what constitutes a product and the retail price of that final product is something else.
I think we should be keen to curtail the "hard drive UKP50, case UKP20, graphics card UKP30.... Iyonix==ripoff" brigade. To do this we have to be clear about what bits of costs and profits we mean.
I think by definition, Acorn didn't make any appreciable net profit in their latter years.
Although ROL don't have any high-value individual sales, a significant proportion of their "mark up" might be allocated to OS development. I might conject, based on contemporary profit margins, that UKP10,000 spent on VRPC based machines releases more money direct into the OS development channel than UKP10,000 spent on some other machines. Work through the numbers and think about it. For a user-group to be told the exact opposite, with an emotive issue passed off as fact without reference to background numbers or facts was wrong, hence my distain and reference to this in a previous post. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Lee Johnston |
Message #47982, posted by johnstlr at 08:19, 14/11/2003, in reply to message #47974 |
Member
Posts: 193
|
The priority was not dying. No point in ROL spending all their time making a 32bit HAL'd OS if a) they'd run out of money before finishing it, or b) they'd not by able to sell it to anyone.
IMHO if the will to do it had been there, and the business case for it could have been made, then the money could have been found. Therefore either the will wasn't there or, more likely, the business case couldn't be made.
RiscStation complained at one point that they couldn't agree with ROL to pay for HAL work when other companies would benefit. One could assume Castle had the same problem.
So it all boils down to the 4 companies not sitting down and working out a plan together. How did they think ROL was going to work if they couldn't work together?
But did the companies really have to sit down and work it out together? I don't believe so. ROL knew that for RISC OS to have any future it had to run on newer processors. They also knew that if they had such a version then (in theory) the hardware developers would have had to license the OS from them (although, as we've since found out, that wasn't necessarily the case).
The question then becomes whether the projected income from licensing an appropriate version of the OS would outweigh the development costs. If it did then the business case is easy to make and funding could have been found. As I say, I suspect the business case couldn't be made. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Mark Scholes |
Message #48014, posted by mavhc at 22:44, 15/11/2003, in reply to message #47981 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
I might conject, based on contemporary profit margins, that UKP10,000 spent on VRPC based machines releases more money direct into the OS development channel than UKP10,000 spent on some other machines. But which OS development channel? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
The Icon Bar: General: Xscale mini-itx board | |
|
