Dave Dexter goes out on a limb and writes: > If I were to go out on a limb, I would specify: > > Capacity: > 68060 - at 50MHz or better > 4MB flash ROM - for QDOS, SMSQ/E etc, plus room to grow. > 32MB RAM - expandable by daughter card[1] > > Interfaces: > Monitor - SVGA, XGA capable > IDE - ATA if possible > Ethernet - 10/100 if possible[2] > Serial - up to 115k > Parallel > Sound - line in, line out, mic > GPA - General Purpose Adaptor[3]
In fact youve just more or less re-invented the Q60! (The flash ROM would have been great!) Yet I dont think that is going to get us much further. The ql-ing community is not a homogenous beast, which may be its strength but is also definitely part of its problem. One of the main divides, as I see it, is the line that runs through those who wish to progress and those who simply require the means not to have to change. Im not disparaging this latter group - most of whom dont read this list anyway - as they are the bread and butter of those few who still make some business out of the QL. With the Q60 this group should be catered for, hardwarewise, for the rest of their natural lives.. Of course, we all have a stake in that position, as it may also fondly be known as 'backward compatibility'. However, what caught me on to the QL in the first place was the fact that it was *inovative*, and contiued to be so at numerous points in its development, thanks mainly to its software (but microdrives were truely great in those days when the only (affordable) alternative was a cassette recorder!) Inferior hardware and software won the processor and OS wars due to commercial astuteness, skulduggery and the force of numbers (Eat shit! Three hundred trillion flies cant be wrong!) and thus the further development and glory of the QL concept was thwarted and its development eventually stunted. If were thinking about a future for the QL in line with its promising beginnings something entirely different is called for than trying to "catch up" with mainstream. The QL isnt a PC; its a computer! We can only move ahead if we make the QL do things other systems cant do, and/or make it more interesting. The idea of the Ibox, an matchbox sized 'embedded' type of QL, mooted by T (8-)# F some years ago was a good idea in the first category - why did it go away? A possible idea to make the QL more 'interesting' is multiprocessing, an idea that also has its roots in ancient QL history viz, the Transputer (whatever happened to all that?) I dont think the QL system is ideally suited to Symetric Multiprocessing (SMP) as that would require a new OS and processors, but how about 'asymetric multiprocessing'? A QL controller board could be used to manage various other 68k-compatible (or not) processors as *'devices'*, running specific tasks indepently of the controller; used for true multitasking, paralellism or controllers of other hardware. New drivers would be required, and modifications/extensions of the OS, but things could be kept relatively simple at first.. It would also be a way of speeding up the 'QL' without departing from the mc68k which is so essential to its affecionados' need for orthogonality.. <> > Anyway, that's about as far from normalcy as I dare drag y'all in one go. > I feel like Marty McFly playing rock guitar on stage in 1957... You can say that again! With all that we are still going to need things like TCP/IP, PPP, etc and, of course, a new FS <sigh> So much for my 0.01 euro's worth Per
