On 1 Feb 2001, at 21:04, Peter Graf wrote:
> Wolfgang wrote:
>
> 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.
>
I agree that windows takes longer to boot (unless it crashes, but
that's another story). But I generally only boot it once a day, and
then when I'm doing something else, so I don't wait.
As to the emulator crashing because of a graphics driver problem,
all I can say is that, yes it happened, but Marcel was very quick in
issuing a fix. Many new Ql progs that come out also have theur
bugs.... and that is all they are: bugs, not some fundamental flaw
in the software (emulator) itself.
> >> 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.
Well, to me that is not so obvious. When you run in emulator
mode, you too have similar memry layout, screen layout etc...
When writing an app, I wouldn't see any difference at all...(ok,
except for speed maybe, but that is entirely different question).
The only differences lie in the OS, in that SMSQ/E IS different from
QDOS (if only because of different screen resolutions - but that is
also true for the Q40).
> 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.
I'm not so sure I would. I used an Atari with emulator for years. Do I
feel it is "nearer" to the QL than W£+QPC? No. But that, of course,
is just my own "feeling".
> 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.
I don't agree At ALL. I don't like W$, but I like Linux even less. And
just to be provocative, here is what I think of Unix in general
(including Linux):
Unix is like a shark: it is something out of the prehistory of
computing, that by any rights should have died off a long time ago.
Instead it poliferated and gave rise to many different subspecies,
which often try to eat each other - and if you turn your back, it'll
bite you....
> 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.
>
A rather bad example, because I could say the same for PC
programs
" It was just an example. Lets say I want to use PC software.
Under a PC with windows (and QPC) it can run native and fast
(because of the 86xx), but on a Q40 Linux I
need to emulate a PC CPU so I lose 95% of the speed. "
And there is quite a chance that I'd rather want to run a PC prog
than a mac one...
I still believe that QPC and the Q40 have their own places in the QL
world. I wuld agree with you that buying a PC "only" to run SMSQ
on QPC is not a hot idea. I fyou "only" want to run QL software,
buy a QL machine - but nowadays, are there really any people who
only use QLs? (I'd be delighted to learn that thre are!)
Wolfgang
