On 31 Jan 2001, at 23:24, Peter Graf wrote:
> Yes with QPC+PC (+ necessarily M$ Windows!) you get a PC! But when you say
> "also" a PC you imply that you get a QL system when you buy such a PC.
>
> I feel that real QL style hardware users seem to become a minority on this
> list, but at this point I still feel free to say:
>
> For me a Windows PC is never a QL system!!!
I disagree. If it runs Ql software, looks like a QL (on the monitor)
and baves like one, then it is a QL. Never mind whether it is an
elulator or a Q40 (or a "real" Ql, for that matter).
> It is a Windows machine plus SMSQ emulator, not less, not more.
Umm, just like the Q40 is an m68K machine with SMSQ?
> And indeed it is good to have a very good Linux implemetation on a *real*
> 68k QL style computer!
Why?
>
> I have a 300 MHz PC where I think factor 5 is much nearer to the truth. And
> when I compare Linux and XWindows boot times and the real look&feel when
> working: The difference under Linux it is even less. Q40 Linux is
> absolutely usable, stable and quick. Not to mention the Q60.
Agrh, but who wants linux, anyway? (that'll spark'em off, for sure)!
> BTW Linux on a PC has the disadvantage that it can't execute native 68k
> code! There are some very interesting applications like MAC emulation which
> can greatly benefit from a real 68040/68060 CPU under Linux.
What? Linux apps aren't compiled into native code?
> So why don't you write some QL software ;-) ?
>
That's unfair! I would say he does - hence QPC.
By the way, I'm STILL wanting to buy a Q60....
Wolfgang
