Morning Marcel, > Actually I prefer "not a frigging chance" ;-) Not from me, anyway. I thought something like that would be the reaction - and I can't say I blame you!
> Well, step 1 would be to get the whole assembler stuff compiling > under linux, which given that linux uses a completely different > syntax for everything assembler (AT&T style versus Intel style) > would be quite a feat in itself. Not to say practically impossible. Well, that's today's "something new" then. I had no idea that assembly under Linux would be so different to Windows. (Which assembler do you use on Windows by the way?) > It might be more sensible to continue using a Windows assembler and > hoping that the Linux linker can cope with the resulting object > format. Not sure how well that would work out. I suspect it wouldn't like it one little bit. Too different from the ELF format used on Linux. If it could use the Windows files, we wouldn't need Wine and so on, we could just do a LoadLibrary() or similar system call I suppose. <snip> > All in all many things would probably have to be rewritten from > scratch. If I rewrote QPC today it would be much different, but many > of the design decisions were done when I was 15 or so, for much less > powerful machines. Yes I remember an early version that I had worked fine on an old PC of mine. When I upgraded the PC, it failed with a divide by zero error because of some timing loop configuration whatsname was running far too fast on the new PC! > If you want to give it a try, that could probably be arranged. It > would certainly be fun to have a Linux version, at least if I have > nothing to do with it whatsoever. But quite frankly I think life is > too short to even try. I think you are probably right about life being too short, but, on the other hand, I would like to have a native QPC running under Linux, so yes, I would like to at least try! I can't promise to actually produce anything, but at least I will have tried and failed rather than never having tried at all! If you are willing, then so am I. > Yes, wine is still a bit overwhelmed with QPC. You might have a bit > more luck with Cedega. Aye, but then again, there's no guarantee that it will work any better! I've had a quick look at Cedga's web site, but here at work it's banned and the best I could get to was an Ubuntu web page telling me about it. Seems I have to pay $5 per month to 'own' it! (Minimum 3 months). I may be able to use the CVS version for free though - but I cannot get to that URL from here. Will try later at home if Alison gives me some play time! > But I guess that best performance is achieved by running Windows in a > virtual machine like VMWare. Not on my laptop I'm afraid. It's older, has a P4 chip and only 512 MB of RAM which has to be shared with the video card - the more RAM the graphics get, the less I have for the system. At work I have a similar PC with 2G of RAM and that struggles to run VMWare as well. With a Windows build it takes 20 minutes to load Windows. Completely unworkable I'm afraid. Thanks for taking the time to reply. Cheers, Norman. _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
