Talk:Risc PC

Better illustration required?

The clipart-like image looks suspiciously like an ad for RISC OS 4, which is an optional, non-Acorn component released long after Acorn's disintegration (and can be used on machines other than the RiscPC).

Wouldn't it be better to use a photograph of an actual Acorn-manufactured RiscPC, which demonstrates the key features of the machine?

eg. a photo of a four-slice system as shown on the promotional ads back in the day. Obviously not THOSE photos exactly, but ones LIKE them.

I'll take some photos of my RiscPC with various numbers of slices. Anything is better than that clipart...

This edit added the current photo, which is also used in Allen Boothroyd. Although it seems a shame to suggest replacing it, this image is IMO a superior depiction of the subject. It includes a monitor with applications shown running, as well as the three-button mouse. It may qualify as being free content in the public domain. I'm therefore considering pursuing its inclusion as a replacement. What do people think? --Trevj (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that as the comment is 7 years old and refers to a long since deleted image it doesn't matter anymore. I think the current stacked images are fine. a_man_alone (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think the previous image was File:Acorn RiscPC with RISC OS4.png. It's true that the current dual slice image shows an aspect not shown in the alternative I linked to. --Trevj (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm at home and can access files without a corporate firewall, I've had a look at the suggested replacement image, and actually, it's not bad is it? The only flaw I can see is that it most certainly won't be public domain - I can't remember exactly, but I've seen images like that, if not possibly the same ones as part of Acorn's publicity machine, when such a thing existed. I doubt anybody would be banging on Wiki's door over the use of such an image, but even so, I doubt it qualifies as PD. a_man_alone (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right - it probably wouldn't qualify as PD. Maybe we could somehow organise a reconstructed free equiavalent. We'd need an original CRT monitor and some fancy lighting! -- Trevj (talk) 10:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just been round my mates house, and stuck under the stairs was an AKF81 monitor. He reckons he has an RPC somewhere as well. Next time I'm round, and if we can find it, I'll grab a shot. a_man_alone (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Note that we should also have access to RiscPCs at Chris's Acorns soon (Commons:Chris's Acorns). A light tent produces good results but hopefully you can compose a good photo even if you don't have one. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

PC card

i'm sure both the risc pcs we had at a school i used to go to had a second processor card with a 486 on it. Should this be mentioned in the aricle and if so does anyone have any more info on this card? Plugwash 23:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a brief start. More info certainly needed, and then a suggested split to Acorn PC card. -- Trevj (talk) 10:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I would personally not worry about the PC Card apart form a brief mention. The card was not a major selling point - a selling point certainly - but not to the extent where it was lauded in the same way as the expandable VRAM, for example. The RPC's we had at school were slightly mocked in fact for having a PC card - they were viewed rather like having a very clever turbocharger that was designed to run things slower, not faster. a_man_alone (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but the PC in RiscPC was surely a reference to this ability. The machine is obviously notable anyway, but I'd say that this feature is particuarly noteworthy. However, I guess there are greater priorities for RISC OS coverage here. -- Trevj (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I think you're headed into speculative territory there by assuming that the term PC in the computer name is a reference to its ability to have a PC card plugged into it. A major selling point was that it had the ability to have additional processors plugged in, regardless of what the processor actually was - hence the codename "Medusa" - a multi headed beast. I'm not disputing the machine's notability, just that there may be undue weight being given to the PC daughterboard addition compared to some of the other features - VRAM, extra slices - and of course RiscOS itself. a_man_alone (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

How many podules were supported?

presumablly there was a limit or could you just keep adding slices to get more bays?

I think the maximum addressable number of podules was 16. Whether this was a software or hardware limit I dont know though.

The OS and motherboard supported 8 podules (or "expansion cards" - Acorn had deprecated the term "podule" by that time), plus the network card slot. Acorn sold 2- and 4-slot backplanes, and third parties sold 6- and 8-slot backplanes.

Obviously there was nothing stopping you adding more slices beyond 4 for more drive bays, or whatever. This was at one Acorn show: http://www.john-ward.org.uk/personal/john/computers/html/rocket.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.96.140 (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Article title

Are you certain its official name was RISC PC? It is almost always called the Risc PC or RiscPC. Crusadeonilliteracy 03:59, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

RiscPC redirects here. I know that technically there is supposed to be a small space between Risc and PC. However, there seem to be more online references to RiscPC than Risc PC. Therefore, I propose moving the contents of this article to RiscPC and having this Risc PC article as the one with the redirection. --trevj (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at the article traffic statistics for both Risc PC and RiscPC. They indicate that Risc PC receives much more traffic. However, that's at least a partial consequence of the number of internal wikilinks. Perhaps it really doesn't matter, but IMO 'Risc PC' implies a type of PC clone, whereas 'RiscPC' implies a possibly different and separate entity. While the Risc PC/RiscPC is usable as a PC clone when fitted with the appropriate second processor card, under normal operation it isn't a PC clone. (And something else to check, is how the Acorn media referred to the machine, and whether usage has changed over the years.) --trevj (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Comparing Crusadeonilliteracy's group searches with those for non-group:

	Risc PC	RiscPC
Groups	111 000	284 000
Iconbar	830	12 500
Drobe	1 650	5 650
Global	105 000	133 000

Per WP:COMMONNAME, Risc PC should be moved to RiscPC. --Trevj (talk) 11:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Trevj (talk) 08:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I know it's tinkering rather than actually doing anything very useful, but to work around the naming conventions (technical restrictions) (using thinsp; and {{DISPLAYTITLE}}) we can actually attempt a half-space: Risc PC. WP:MOSTM indicates that this shouldn't be used throughout... which I was erroneously about to do! I hope no one objects too strongly.[1] -- Trevj (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure why I'm not getting the DISPLAYTITLE thing to work correctly. It worked in the sandbox earlier. Any ideas? -- Trevj (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The above methodology of Google searching and choosing the most common name is rather questionable: this is a product with a specific name, and Google searching does not provide a single, verifiable collection of observations (not even in 2011). Acorn's own publicity uses "Risc PC" throughout. Even the case has "Risc PC" on it, albeit with a narrow space between the words (which is just a styling issue, not a fundamental part of the name). So, I propose renaming the page to use the actual product name, not what some people wrote in their online messages and on random Web sites. (Also, concerns about generic RISC-based personal computers should not intrude, not least because something "PC-compatible" with a RISC chipset was not really a significant phenomenon, or at least nothing that would preoccupy people finding this page by chance.) --PaulBoddie (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

So, I moved this page to use the actual product name, and I also went to the trouble of fixing references to the Risc PC in other articles. --PaulBoddie (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Acorn Computers Medusa project dev team.png

The lead section probably isn't the best place for this, especially as its placement on the page is constrained by the infobox and contents list! Once it's established whether the copyright tag etc. is acceptable, then hopefully it can be incorporated more usefully in the article. --trevj (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Replaced with File:Acorn Computers Medusa project dev team.jpg
• Currently up for deletion in accordance with NFCC#8

--trevj (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Acorn computers#Proposed move/new title

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Acorn computers#Proposed move/new title. Trevj (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Performance figures

The introduction mentions an eight-fold performance increase for the StrongARM relative to the ARM610, whereas the limitations section notes a five-fold increase, which need not be contradictory if referring to an ARM710 or employing a different comparison method, but it is nevertheless confusing. Acorn's StrongARM-related brochures provide some useful data: The StrongARM Risc PC provides a convenient table comparing the Risc PC 700 to the StrongARM Risc PC and also a couple of Intel-based systems, indicating an almost seven-fold increase in terms of Dhrystone MIPS. The StrongARM™ Upgrade for Risc PC brochure gives "real-world" performance comparisons between the ARM710-based Risc PC 700 and a Risc PC upgraded with StrongARM, indicating almost eight-fold improvements. Initial performance indications for the StrongARM were more modest as described by the Acorn's Latest Arrival Packs a Punch press release. PaulBoddie (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)