Nasta wrote:
>Also, let me give a small
>contribution to the developing hardware vs developing software debate:
>people who have never tried jumping through hoops while bending backwards
>in order to get the parts they need, at reasonable quantity and reasonable
>price, will only understand the nerve-wrecking nature of that persuit, when
>they try it themselves.
Oh yes. Hardware development itself is already so nerve-wrecking that it
can't be compared to software development. (I have the comparison because I
develop software in my daytime job.) And then, even if you "survive"
hardware development, you get the problem called production.
On the Q40 I minimized the availability problems by restricting myself to
components especially chosen for that reason. But I had a price to pay: The
chips are not cheap (because I use 4 of them) and so small that it was
endless work to squeeze the logic into them. And I had almost no
flexibility for changes left. (For example Lattice has an example design
for a Video controller, but they use two big chips were I need only one
small chip.)
That you live in Eastern Europe makes hardware development more difficult.
But even here in Germany I would have problems to get some of your chips,
for example the MCF5102PV40.
>Problem 2:
>There is simply no way I can do the work on the initialization software and
>QDOS/SMSQ modifications involved in getting the GoldFire to work.
>From my own experience I am sorry to have to say: There is probably no
other way but to write the initialization and some simple driver software
on your own.
For the Q40 I wrote harddisk, parallel, serial and keyboard driver, color
test, serial software update, sound driver, and more - all without any
help. All were only simple and not directly of use for QDOS / SMSQ. But
they were needed to show others that the hardware really works without
problems, the new features like sound and highcolor can be programmed easy
enough, and give an impression of speed of course. *After* that, I had a
chance to encourage others to port an OS. I am very thankful for what Mark,
Richard and Tony Tebby did. But I doubt that anything at all would have
happened if I had not written basic drivers and presentation software for
the Q40.
>This is NOT easy. Unfortunately, this also means that the design
>itself is really obsolete when it's finished. The MCF 5102 has already been
>superceeded by two newer CPUs and we can't use it because it's such a
>problem writing and modifying the necessary software - in fact, it's
>unlikely that most of the features I've lost a whole lot of time thinking
>out and designing will ever be used.
I can only underline this. Many users think: If a hardware feature is
integrated, it will take time, but eventually there will be software for it.
It isn't true. Several possibilities of the Q40 will remain unused under
SMSQ. This is not pessimistic. It is realistic. Very important is that I
don't spend too much time on features that are not essential. And that the
essential features are as easy to program as possible. A simple example: 8
bit 20 kHz Stereo sound didn't seem very exiting for me as a hardware
developer. I could have used a complex sound chip with much better
features. But looking back I must say: The right decision! Q40 users now
have sound at Radio quality and they like it. With a complex sound chip we
probably still would have no SMSQ/QDOS sampled sound support at all.
>Yet, on the other hand, people complain about not having the features
>on the QL they have on the PC.
And not only this. Many expect PC prices for QL hardware. No joke.
>This attitude makes things even more complicated for the developers,
>as if they were not complicated enough.
Indeed. Sometimes I think the QL scene has lost orientation. In the Atari
scene for example they have spent a million or more to develop a 80 MHz
68060 machine (Milan II, Phenix). A lot of Atari users would be very happy
to be offered such a native hardware. In the end the Milan developers
failed for technical reasons. And the Phenix was vaporware.
In the QL scene we have got (in our own style) what the Atari has not.
Maybe we have the fastest 68K computer there ever was. It is reality and it
works. And now? Are we proud? Is there a lot of interest? A lot of noise?
Not yet. I get some positive response, but I also hear voices like: "Maybe
the Q60 is magnitudes faster under SMSQ than anything else. I might be
interested, but Q60 will be too expensive, I could get a very modern
Windows PC for the same money."
Hard times for QL hard-ware these days.
Peter
