At 01:47 ðì 31/1/2001, But anyway, I am NOT suggesting that buying a PC
just for QPC is a
>>better solution than buying a Q40 or anything (or did I write that
>>anywhere? I don't think so). At
No you didn't but others did ;-)
>> least not if you don't use the other
>>features a PC can which a Q40 can't.
The Q40 can't because for several reasons it is not supported by the
community when it should. There are limits a man (Peter) can do in his own
time :-)
And don't forget, Q40 may not support several things but neither does QPC
and its not either's fault. Both have their limitations and its SMSQ/E's
fault.The ancient file system and the FS commands that need a secretary to
be typed (!) could and should be permanently eliminated is one of them. Or
the scheduler that when it comes to I/O it goes back to the stone age
(supervisor mode) and works like a Spectrum ;-). And as for the HIT and
DO.... well Ox and Plough are more user friendly but that's ok ;-) hehe
Now imagine the possibility of employing your intimate knowledge of SMSQ/E
in Q40. I believe that you could work miracles there. Sure the DOS device
is nice in QPC but I do believe that given the time and devotion you shown
in your work with QPC, if you applied your knowledge of SMSQ/E on Q40 you
could do the difference. If you deny that.... hehe I say you're just modest :-)
>>I just considered your
>>calculation to be quite weird, because you really can get 3 PCs for
>>the mentioned price here.
>
>Yes but with what kinds of hard drives? 10 Gigs? or 40 that I had to buy
>in order to fit software that when it exists (or if it existed on the QL)
>it is at least 100 times larger in terms of space. Not to mention a lot slower.
Doh you know what I mean. I meant software on the QL is smaller :-)
