RISC OS is an operating system used in Acorn/Castle machines. It had some good GUI features, but was poor in other areas. ROX seeks to bring these good UI features to Unix-type platforms.
No - ROX is not an emulator, it's just another Unix desktop. RISC OS applications need to be ported to run under ROX (at least until riscose gets good enough to run graphical applications). You can, however, run a RISC OS desktop in a window using an emulator such as ArcEm.
Under X, you can choose to run any window manager with any desktop. Many of the screenshots show the xfwm4 or OroboROX window managers in a more-or-less default configuration. In this, clicking the middle mouse button anywhere on the window frame will send a window to the back. Other window managers may offer an explicit back button, or you can configure them to have one.
There are several things you can do:
Take a look at this screenshot:
On RISC OS (eg, using a task window or wimp2), yes. On systems designed for it, like Linux, it actually makes the system faster and more responsive.
In the rare case when you have several runnable processes, the type of multi-tasking matters. Cooperative systems (like RISC OS) run one process, and won't let any other process run until that one says it's OK. Preemptive systems (like Linux) can switch between runnable processes whenever they please. RISC OS users will note that the case of, say, formatting a floppy, printing a document and checking your email is a situation where RISC OS performs poorly (the system becomes unresponsive). Linux does not become less responsive in this situation.
Another effect of the RISC OS system is that processes using some resource other than the CPU can still prevent others from running, because a process can't do something and tell the system to run another process at the same time. This doesn't happen on Linux.
Here's an example of what happens on RISC OS:
The same thing on Linux:
Although it can do it in a limited form, fast and reliable support requires the whole system to be designed with this in mind.
Consider something as simple as redrawing a window. On RISC OS:
On a system which can switch between processes at any point in time, the user might open another window, or move Edit's window, between Edit finding its location and doing the drawing. Then the drawing would appear in the wrong place, or over another window!
On Linux:
Notice that if Edit's window is moved or covered then the final drawing operation is still correct, because the drawing is done relative to a window, not to the screen. It's little changes like this that are needed throughout the system. As another example, consider the case of loading a file. On RISC OS:
On Linux:
Because the file (perhaps a log file) may grow in size between Edit checking the size and Edit loading it, the size must be passed to the load operation to avoid overwriting other memory and crashing. Linux therefore does not provide any system call to 'load a whole file'.
Of course, RISC OS's lack of PMT also means it can't easily support machines with multiple processors, and it may be unreliable when using network filesystems (a remote log file can still grow).
Because there's no point. X has a few problems, but they're not the things people usually blame on it. X is a graphics system that works on a huge range of graphics cards (laptops, desktops, mobile devices), has excellent backwards compatibility (decade-old software still works with modern X servers), 3D acceleration (for some cards) and support from many hardware vendors. X's policy is to have no policy about style (e.g., what a menu should look like, or which side of the window the scroll bar goes on). People therefore like to blame X for the fact that there are several different interface styles used on X (ROX, GNOME, KDE, etc).
When people suggest replacing X, they don't really want to replace X. They want to force people to use their preferred interface style by hard-coding it into the graphics system. In fact, this would just lead to people creating new graphics systems, one for each interface (after which everyone would complain that they couldn't run ROX applications under KDE's new graphics system, or that they couldn't run firefox under ROX, etc). In fact, the reason X is still here (and the older graphics systems aren't) is probably because it didn't enforce policy. Amusingly, after proposing that differing interface styles be made impossible by replacing X, there is then the problem that many useful X applications won't be available on the new system. No problem; the plans for the new graphics system gain an X-emulation layer. And we're back where we started...