Wolfgang wrote:
>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).
There are a lot of reasons why a M$ Windows PC is not a QL system. One of
them you have given yourself: It would have to behave like a QL! When I
need minutes to boot the machine and my emulator crashes because of a
Windows graphic driver problem I really don't have the impression it is a QL.
>> It is a Windows machine plus SMSQ emulator, not less, not more.
>
>Umm, just like the Q40 is an m68K machine with SMSQ?
Obviously not. Among other things the Q40 has similar memory layout,
directly hardware compatible screen layout with the original QL modes,
similar interrupt handling. And, what is very important: Like the QL it
has a easy to program hardware and you have full control over it.
BTW even *if* the Q40 was, lets say only a Milan with SMSQ, I would still
find it a lot nearer to the QL than a Windows PC.
>> And indeed it is good to have a very good Linux implemetation on a *real*
>> 68k QL style computer!
>
>Why?
Well, imagine you were 80% a QL user and only 20% a PC user. Then you can
have the best possible QL system without the extra space and costs of a PC
and M$ Windows! Under Q40 Linux you do everything from Web-Surfing over
Graphics to CD-Writing.
With Linux on the Q40/Q60 many former QLers can no longer say "I *need* to
be a Windows User". They have to say "I *want* to be a Windows user". Linux
on a QL style machine gives you a choice.
>> 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?
It was just an example. Lets say I want to use MAC software. Under Q60
Linux it can run native and fast (because of the 68060), but on PC Linux I
need to emulate a MACs CPU so I lose 95% of the speed.
>> So why don't you write some QL software ;-) ?
>>
>That's unfair! I would say he does - hence QPC.
See the ;-)
It is fine by me that Marcel improves QPC. It is fun for him, so why should
he do anything else. But I think he would not call his work QL software.
IIRC he freely said that he is a Windows user and has no (or not much)
interest in writing QL software.
AFAIK QPCII is a pure M$ Windows application, can not run on any QL system,
and is of not much use for everybody who doesn't want M$ Windows. QL
software can run on an expanded black box, on a Goldcard, a QXL, a
SuperGoldcard, a Q40, a Q60 and more. (Of course restrictions depending on
size and features, but in general it can.)
>By the way, I'm STILL wanting to buy a Q60....
Fine. Please remember this discussion came up because someone talked about
buying a PC and M$ Windows only to run SMSQ/E.
All the best
Peter
