Re: [Ql-Users] Ser-USB Driver running under Q-emuLator
Tony, If you're talking about the drivers built into the USBWiz, there's USB printer support and HID for mice and keyboards. However, nobody should get excited about that because the USB printer support appears to be raw data only so it would need a driver written. Keyboard and mouse might be possible, but I've already covered the problems of running them across the same serial connection as used for the storage devices. Beyond that, it would be possible to talk to just about anything USB ... with a driver. The Ser-USB driver currently supports SD Cards and USB Mass Storage devices; both accessed in native QDOS mode. Adrian -Original Message- From: ql-users-boun...@lists.q-v-d.com [mailto:ql-users-boun...@lists.q-v-d.com] On Behalf Of Tony Firshman Sent: 28 February 2011 00:09 To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Ser-USB Driver running under Q-emuLator On 27 Feb 2011, at 23:49, Adrian Ives adr...@acanthis.co.uk wrote: I was asked this question recently and have only just got around to testing it. Yes, it does work! Tested this evening under Q-emuLator 3.0.2 with a JS ROM image on Windows 7 64 bit with a USB to Serial adapter connecting to the Ser-USB unit. That is really good news. What inbuilt drivers are there of any use? I forget the details but on first reading the specs anything really useful via USB will need QL drivers. Looks like you are making real progress. Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:257/67) +44(1442)-828255 t...@firshman.co.uk http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, Tring, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
[Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is better than QL standard
I know I've seen this somewhere but, as usual, when you really want something it refuses to be found! I'm looking for a function to use in S*BASIC that will tell me if the display driver is capable of providing resolutions greater than the QL's mode 4 8 defaults - it would be enough just to know if the display driver is GD2 or not. It has to run on any QL system, including clones and emulators. Can anyone help? Thanks, Adrian ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is better than QL standard
Adrian, there is (I think) not a single function that allows to retrieve this information, but some strong hints from the system that GD2 is there: - Use SD.EXTOP and check offset $64 of the channel table - this gives you the number of bytes per scanline. - use MT.DMODE to retrieve the screen mode Divide scan line length*8 by the number of colour bits for the detected mode, should give you a hint on screen width when you cannot detect PE (The screen height is, I think not easy to detect when no PE is present) If you can detect PE, use iop.flim to get width and height from the PE directly. The only system with resolutions 512x256 and no PE is, to my knowledge, uQLX. Dilwyn's page has the wonderful display_cde toolkit that incorporates this (and a few other display related calls into a wonderful S*Basic extension. Cheers, Tobias -Original-Nachricht- Subject: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is better than QL standard Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:01:55 +0100 From: Adrian Ives adr...@acanthis.co.uk To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com I know I've seen this somewhere but, as usual, when you really want something it refuses to be found! I'm looking for a function to use in S*BASIC that will tell me if the display driver is capable of providing resolutions greater than the QL's mode 4 8 defaults - it would be enough just to know if the display driver is GD2 or not. It has to run on any QL system, including clones and emulators. Can anyone help? Thanks, Adrian ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is better than QL standard
On 28 Feb 2011, at 14:01, Adrian Ives wrote: I know I've seen this somewhere but, as usual, when you really want something it refuses to be found! I'm looking for a function to use in S*BASIC that will tell me if the display driver is capable of providing resolutions greater than the QL's mode 4 8 defaults - it would be enough just to know if the display driver is GD2 or not. It has to run on any QL system, including clones and emulators. Can anyone help? I look to see if WM_BLOCK is a valid keyword. If so then I assume that GD2 colours are there. By using TURBO I am able to replace WM_BLOCK by a valid keyword even though the real WM_BLOCK is not there. George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is better than QL standard
Yes, display_cde is the one I was thinking of. I think I can get all I want from this. Thanks for jogging my memory and many thanks to Dilwyn for the toolkit in the first place! Adrian -Original Message- From: ql-users-boun...@lists.q-v-d.com [mailto:ql-users-boun...@lists.q-v-d.com] On Behalf Of tobias.froesc...@t-online.de Sent: 28 February 2011 14:50 To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is better than QL standard Adrian, there is (I think) not a single function that allows to retrieve this information, but some strong hints from the system that GD2 is there: - Use SD.EXTOP and check offset $64 of the channel table - this gives you the number of bytes per scanline. - use MT.DMODE to retrieve the screen mode Divide scan line length*8 by the number of colour bits for the detected mode, should give you a hint on screen width when you cannot detect PE (The screen height is, I think not easy to detect when no PE is present) If you can detect PE, use iop.flim to get width and height from the PE directly. The only system with resolutions 512x256 and no PE is, to my knowledge, uQLX. Dilwyn's page has the wonderful display_cde toolkit that incorporates this (and a few other display related calls into a wonderful S*Basic extension. Cheers, Tobias -Original-Nachricht- Subject: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is better than QL standard Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:01:55 +0100 From: Adrian Ives adr...@acanthis.co.uk To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com I know I've seen this somewhere but, as usual, when you really want something it refuses to be found! I'm looking for a function to use in S*BASIC that will tell me if the display driver is capable of providing resolutions greater than the QL's mode 4 8 defaults - it would be enough just to know if the display driver is GD2 or not. It has to run on any QL system, including clones and emulators. Can anyone help? Thanks, Adrian ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is better than QL standard
That's also a good way of doing it. Thanks, George. -Original Message- From: ql-users-boun...@lists.q-v-d.com [mailto:ql-users-boun...@lists.q-v-d.com] On Behalf Of gdgqler Sent: 28 February 2011 15:09 To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is better than QL standard On 28 Feb 2011, at 14:01, Adrian Ives wrote: I know I've seen this somewhere but, as usual, when you really want something it refuses to be found! I'm looking for a function to use in S*BASIC that will tell me if the display driver is capable of providing resolutions greater than the QL's mode 4 8 defaults - it would be enough just to know if the display driver is GD2 or not. It has to run on any QL system, including clones and emulators. Can anyone help? I look to see if WM_BLOCK is a valid keyword. If so then I assume that GD2 colours are there. By using TURBO I am able to replace WM_BLOCK by a valid keyword even though the real WM_BLOCK is not there. George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is better than QL standard
On 28 Feb 2011, at 15:42, Marcel Kilgus wrote: gdgqler wrote: I'm looking for a function to use in S*BASIC that will tell me if the display driver is capable of providing resolutions greater than the QL's mode 4 8 defaults - it would be enough just to know if the display driver is GD2 or not. It has to run on any QL system, including clones and emulators. Can anyone help? I look to see if WM_BLOCK is a valid keyword. If so then I assume that GD2 colours are there. Many things are mixed up here. WM_BLOCK is WMAN2, which I've developed a long time after GD2 has seen the light. OK. I needed WMAN2 in my program anyway. Also, higher resolutions were available long before GD2 came out. GD2 is only necessary for higher *colour depths*. I think the PE was necessary for higher resolutions, so you can test for that first. Afterwards IOP.FLIM should be able to find the screen limits. IOP.FLIM is a good way of finding screen limits. It is slightly annoying if it is not available. I have programs which find the maximum size by trial and error if IOP.FLIM is not there. George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is better than QL standard
gdgqler wrote: IOP.FLIM is a good way of finding screen limits. It is slightly annoying if it is not available. I have programs which find the maximum size by trial and error if IOP.FLIM is not there. In which cases is IOP.FLIM not available and the resolution not 512x256? Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is better than QL standard
Marcel, see my other post. Cheers, Tobias -Original-Nachricht- Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is better than QL standard Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:52:53 +0100 From: Marcel Kilgus ql-us...@mail.kilgus.net To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com gdgqler wrote: IOP.FLIM is a good way of finding screen limits. It is slightly annoying if it is not available. I have programs which find the maximum size by trial and error if IOP.FLIM is not there. In which cases is IOP.FLIM not available and the resolution not 512x256? Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is better than QL standard
On 28 Feb 2011, at 15:52, Marcel Kilgus wrote: gdgqler wrote: IOP.FLIM is a good way of finding screen limits. It is slightly annoying if it is not available. I have programs which find the maximum size by trial and error if IOP.FLIM is not there. In which cases is IOP.FLIM not available and the resolution not 512x256? There must have been some, otherwise I would certainly not have gone to the trouble of testing different sizes! Nor, i suspect, would Mark Knight. I think that QXL did not have PE with SMSQ. What about Aurora? Both have larger screen sizes than 512x256. But, as usual, I'm probably wrong. George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is better than QL standard
tobias.froesc...@t-online.de wrote: -- I think the PE was necessary for higher resolutions, so you can test -- for that first. Afterwards IOP.FLIM should be able to find the screen -- limits. Not quite. UQLX does offer higher resolutions without PE (sure you can run PE on top of it.) From the uQLx manual: The theoretical limit is - because of Pointer Environment's bad habits that the screen must fit with all RAM into 16 MB. Pointer Environment is patched when activated to recognise the new screen parameters - there are 'cleaner' solutions, unfortunately with severe side effects. If you receive the warning could not patch PE, you are in serious trouble.. Are you sure it works without PE? And the original (preliminary) QXL software that came with the card supported higher (I think, EGA) resolutions without PE. Another thing, however is, whether you really want that. That's possible. But then this OS didn't even include BASIC, so isn't that compatible anyway I'd say... Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is better than QL standard
gdgqler wrote: There must have been some, otherwise I would certainly not have gone to the trouble of testing different sizes! Nor, i suspect, would Mark Knight. I'm genuinely curious and don't pretend that I know the whole truth. But except the SMSQ for QXL fringe case I cannot currently imagine any other scenario. I think that QXL did not have PE with SMSQ. What about Aurora? Both have larger screen sizes than 512x256. From the Aurora manual on Dilwyn's site: To properly exploit all the Aurora facilities, you will need to run the SMSQ/E operating system [...] Previously, the Aurora came either bundles with a version of SMSQ/E which works with it, or a patch disc which will unlink the built-in display driver of your existing copy of SMSQ/E and link a new one That's all I know about it. Even though I wrote the GD2 Aurora graphics driver, I've never had or used an Aurora board, I did all that without access to the actual hardware... But, as usual, I'm probably wrong. Usually you're more right than wrong. :-) Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is better than QL standard
Yes, I'm sure ;-) Mostly because I have to re-install PE from Dilwyn's site whenever I set up a new Linux box (I use a common qxl.win-file for all my QDOSSMSQ installations, but uqlx has to pick its WMAN, PTR_GEN and HOT_REXT from mdv1 separately before actually running win1_boot) The citation you made refers to the run-time patch mechanism of uqlx - If you load PE, it's being patched by uqlx, if you don't - it's just not there Cheers, Tobias -Original-Nachricht- Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is better than QL standard Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:07:26 +0100 From: Marcel Kilgus ql-us...@mail.kilgus.net To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com tobias.froesc...@t-online.de wrote: -- I think the PE was necessary for higher resolutions, so you can test -- for that first. Afterwards IOP.FLIM should be able to find the screen -- limits. Not quite. UQLX does offer higher resolutions without PE (sure you can run PE on top of it.) From the uQLx manual: The theoretical limit is - because of Pointer Environment's bad habits that the screen must fit with all RAM into 16 MB. Pointer Environment is patched when activated to recognise the new screen parameters - there are 'cleaner' solutions, unfortunately with severe side effects. If you receive the warning could not patch PE, you are in serious trouble.. Are you sure it works without PE? And the original (preliminary) QXL software that came with the card supported higher (I think, EGA) resolutions without PE. Another thing, however is, whether you really want that. That's possible. But then this OS didn't even include BASIC, so isn't that compatible anyway I'd say... Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is betterthan QL standard
- Original Message - From: Adrian Ives adr...@acanthis.co.uk To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 3:26 PM Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is betterthan QL standard Yes, display_cde is the one I was thinking of. I think I can get all I want from this. Thanks for jogging my memory and many thanks to Dilwyn for the toolkit in the first place! Adrian Adrian - please feel free to use or adapt display_cde in any way you see fit. The sources are I think included in the package on the Toolkits page on my site, if not, just send me a private email and I'll send them. -- Dilwyn Jones ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is better than QL standard
Marcel, George, my QXL originally came with SMS (neither 2 nor Q attached to it). This definitely had no PE. (Today it's on newest SMSQ/E, naturally) Cheers, Tobias -Original-Nachricht- Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is better than QL standard Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:19:09 +0100 From: Marcel Kilgus ql-us...@mail.kilgus.net To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com gdgqler wrote: There must have been some, otherwise I would certainly not have gone to the trouble of testing different sizes! Nor, i suspect, would Mark Knight. I'm genuinely curious and don't pretend that I know the whole truth. But except the SMSQ for QXL fringe case I cannot currently imagine any other scenario. I think that QXL did not have PE with SMSQ. What about Aurora? Both have larger screen sizes than 512x256. From the Aurora manual on Dilwyn's site: To properly exploit all the Aurora facilities, you will need to run the SMSQ/E operating system [...] Previously, the Aurora came either bundles with a version of SMSQ/E which works with it, or a patch disc which will unlink the built-in display driver of your existing copy of SMSQ/E and link a new one That's all I know about it. Even though I wrote the GD2 Aurora graphics driver, I've never had or used an Aurora board, I did all that without access to the actual hardware... But, as usual, I'm probably wrong. Usually you're more right than wrong. :-) Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is betterthan QL standard
Marcel Kilgus wrote: I'm pretty sure that version was called SMSQ (it's the only version that was called SMSQ, actually). Even Wikipedia agrees with me here and I'm pretty sure I didn't write the entry myself ;) It began life as SMSQ, a QDOS-compatible version of SMS2 intended for the Miracle Systems QXL emulator card You're right, it has always been called SMSQ. But yes, it did not include the PE, that was only the case of the /E versions. But I still think this is a fringe case, it didn't even include any BASIC language after all. It was pre-release software and should be ignored for any new development, I think. There is only one hardware, I assume: The so-called Extended QL Emulator Card (NOT QVME!) for the Atari ST series, with (I think) 780xXXX or similar (Jochen may prove). Cheers...Ralf ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is better than QL standard
Marcel, sorry to contradict again ;-) : uqlx can run a JS ROM in 800x600 without PE quite well. But whether that JS ROM then still counts as a Standard QL ROM after being runtime patched heavily by uqlx is highly debatable uqlx has a quite sophisticated (mmap-based) mechanism to detect access to real hardware - even by the OS itself. It then bails out to the host OS (I think, by patching Trap#x with Line-A-and-F instructions) and rewrites large parts of the (here: console) drivers through native code (that's the runtime patching). Don't know how you do that in QPC. But it doesn't expose Minerva's second screen for reasons unknown to me. Cheers, Tobias -Original-Nachricht- Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is better than QL standard Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:37:06 +0100 From: Marcel Kilgus ql-us...@mail.kilgus.net To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com tobias.froesc...@t-online.de wrote: Yes, I'm sure ;-) Mostly because I have to re-install PE from Dilwyn's site whenever I set up a new Linux box Yes, you're right. I already had the suspicion that Minerva was written cleanly enough to support different screen layouts (had to really, because of the dual screen feature). But that's the only case, no standard QL rom can support different resolutions without the PE replacing its CON driver. That I'm pretty sure of ;) Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is better than QL standard
Marcel, -- include any BASIC language after all. It was pre-release software and -- should be ignored for any new development, I think. That's what I did in the 90ies (I mean ignore). You couldn't do much else with it. Cheers Tobias ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is better than QL standard
tobias.froesc...@t-online.de wrote:
Marcel,
sorry to contradict again ;-) :
uqlx can run a JS ROM in 800x600 without PE quite well.
This is right out of the uQLx source code:
if (isMinerva) {
[...]
else /* JS doesn't handle big screen */
{
bsfb:
qlscreen.linel=128;
qlscreen.yres=256;
qlscreen.xres=512;
qlscreen.qm_lo=128*1024;
qlscreen.qm_hi=128*1024+32*1024;
qlscreen.qm_len=0x8000;
}
Don't know how you do that in QPC.
I don't do MMAP based tricks for screen hardware because that's
usually too slow. I only do that for accesses outside of the QL memory
layout.
Cheers, Marcel
___
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is better than QL standard
Marcel,
you're right, tricked myself:
when started with the big screen enabled, it seems that uqlx loads the Minerva
ROM, regardless of what ROM you might have configured in the config file.
Cheers,
Tobias
-Original-Nachricht-
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is better than
QL standard
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:02:43 +0100
From: Marcel Kilgus ql-us...@mail.kilgus.net
To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com
tobias.froesc...@t-online.de wrote:
Marcel,
sorry to contradict again ;-) :
uqlx can run a JS ROM in 800x600 without PE quite well.
This is right out of the uQLx source code:
if (isMinerva) {
[...]
else /* JS doesn't handle big screen */
{
bsfb:
qlscreen.linel=128;
qlscreen.yres=256;
qlscreen.xres=512;
qlscreen.qm_lo=128*1024;
qlscreen.qm_hi=128*1024+32*1024;
qlscreen.qm_len=0x8000;
}
Don't know how you do that in QPC.
I don't do MMAP based tricks for screen hardware because that's
usually too slow. I only do that for accesses outside of the QL memory
layout.
Cheers, Marcel
___
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
___
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is betterthan QL standard
Many thanks, Dilwyn. This all came about because ... I've only just found time to revisit the original Ser-USB File Manager program (now called USBWiz Terminal). It was written over a year ago and needed some updating. Because this program has to be able to run with nothing more than Toolkit 2 loaded, the first thing I had to do was to incorporate any machine code extensions into the Turbo'd task. It was while doing this that I remembered Simon Goodwin's W_STORE and W_SHOW functions, which I'd used for for its popup menus ... and they don't work with the higher screen resolutions! I couldn't find any high resolution replacements, so if the USBWiz Terminal is running on anything greater than Mode 8 it's going to insist that the pointer environment is there to handle its window saves and restores ... unless anyone knows of updated versions of W_STORE and W_SHOW? I don't have time to muck about developing my own at the moment. The PE version - when I get around to writing it - won't have this problem. I now have two volunteers for testing the driver and expect to release the first beta on the 14th March, after myself and my wife have (hopefully) had a nice holiday ;) Adrian -Original Message- From: ql-users-boun...@lists.q-v-d.com [mailto:ql-users-boun...@lists.q-v-d.com] On Behalf Of Dilwyn Jones Sent: 28 February 2011 16:26 To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is betterthan QL standard - Original Message - From: Adrian Ives adr...@acanthis.co.uk To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 3:26 PM Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is betterthan QL standard Yes, display_cde is the one I was thinking of. I think I can get all I want from this. Thanks for jogging my memory and many thanks to Dilwyn for the toolkit in the first place! Adrian Adrian - please feel free to use or adapt display_cde in any way you see fit. The sources are I think included in the package on the Toolkits page on my site, if not, just send me a private email and I'll send them. -- Dilwyn Jones ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
[Ql-Users] Survey update...
Hi all, The survey has now closed, and I have composed and sent the email of the survey answers to the list. The results are in HTML format and use a lot of tables, so the email is quite large - 309K - and is being held in the moderation queue. Hopefully, it will be allowed through shortly. The current limit is a measly 40k ;) If not, I will transcribe it into plain text. I am hoping to avoid that so you all can see the complete original responses, cut and pasted. Dave ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
[Ql-Users] The First Survey - Results!
Hi all, Here are the survey results as promised. I have added some commentary in GREEN. Some surveys had blank lines submitted so I have indicated those in RED. I have deleted entries from the right column of the option tables to protect privacy: I have retained this info and will be happy to dig deeper upon request: for example, in the question about desire for new types of hardware, this can be related to amounts people are willing to pay so I can give a separate chart for each category. I am very impressed with the results, and they show some clear patterns I would not have guessed existed. I hope they inform you and give rise to new questions and discussions. I will be running a new survey on 1st - 31st April - if new questions arise from these answers, I will include them in that survey. Discuss! Dave Survey Answers Total Unique Responses Received:*74* Question 1**What is your primary QL system?* 128K or 640K QL 2 3% QL with expansion card (eg: Floppy Parallel TK2) 9 12% QL with Gold Card 5 7% QL with Super Gold Card 3 4% QXL 3 4% Aurora 3 4% Q40/Q60 7 9% Free software emulator 4 5% Commercial software emulator 33 45% Other: 5 7% *ID**Other:* 4302368Aurora+Super Gold Card+Qbide 4312335QPC 4323266QL2K : As I'm the main author. 4379480Don't really have a primary system any more. Last used was QPC on eeepc running wine 4414132QPCII on W98; QL w/ SGC, more. In this question, some answers fit in the categories above. I have not corrected or moved these answers for transparency. I found it interesting there is a near precise 50/50 split between hardware users and emulators. It will be interesting to repeat the question in a year and see how the balance changes. Combining these answers with others, it seems reasonable to conclude that the single largest QL platform is QPC at around 40% of total primary machines. The Qx0 is the dominant replacement hardware platform = limited I suspect only by quantity made. Very impressive. I neglected to include the Amiga and ST - my bad! Also interesting to note that it's likely only 3% of users don't have access to floppies on their QL... Question 2*Which other systems do you own? (Please mark all that apply)* 128K or 640K QL 44 18% QL with expansion card (eg: Floppy Parallel TK2) 41 17% QL with Gold Card 26 11% QL with Super Gold Card 21 9% QXL 15 6% Aurora 17 7% Q40/Q60 5 2% Free software emulator 38 16% Commercial software emulator 31 13% *ID**Other:* 4302001Note - invalid question - I have no other. 4302278Atari ST/E with hardware QL emulators 4303208Atari STe + SMS2 4304124QDOS on Amiga (no emulator) SMSQ/E on Atari (no emulator) experimental 68060 self-built QL 4307955Also Thor and OPD 4309788A non functioning Thor F2, waiting for repair. 4312335Q-Emulator 4347254QXL card 4303858I regret I put my QL in a heavy DEC case (monitor + keyboard + floppy) and it's not portable anymore (seemed like a good idea at the time, to get better keyboard and monitor instead of TV). Result is it's boxed and I don't use it anymore. 4414132Mini-tower w/ 4x floppies and who knows what else (Aurora, Qbide?) whose details I don't know, it having been put together by my dad before he died. This question was optional. Question 3*How many different QL systems, hardware and emulators, do you own?* No others 3 4% 1 2 3% 2 16 22% 3 16 22% 4 9 12% 5+ 27 37% 93% of QLers have two or more QLs! Question 4*On your primary system, what is the main OS you use? * QDOS 21 28% Minerva 9 12% SMSQ/E 42 57% Other 2 3% *ID**Other* 4379480use all three from time to time 4414132SMSQ on QPC, QDOS on SGC. Question 5*On your primary system, how much memory do you normally have installed or configured?* 128 KB 3 4% 384 - 640 KB 6 9% 896 KB 3 4% 1 MB 4 6% 2 MB 7 10% 4 MB or more 47 67% *ID**Please describe anything about your system not covered above?* 4300920I have a plug-in Romdisk in the top edge extra slot. Loads Xchange (optional) spellcheck (optional) and any of my little facilities that I need for the job, all from memory. Marvelous! 4301197Q-emuLator 1 for Mac set to 4Mb with JS ROM 430227816 or 24 Mb, depending on usage My ST..QPC systems all have HDDs 4303809Running QPC2 configured with 16MB under Windows XP. 4304548I am not sure how much memory was provided in an original Q40 (two DIY boards to be installed in a case and peripherals added) 4314351Standard for QXL 4406414I run QPC configured to use 4 MB RAM. 4414132512MB QPC / W98; 4MB SGC / QDOS. Question 6*On average, how often do you use your QL(s)?* All day every day! 2 3% Daily 19 26% Weekly 23 32% Monthly 11 15% A few times a year 12 16% Not much anymore 6 8% Never 0 0% I find this answer impressive. 61% of QLers use their QLs at least weekly! 76% use them monthly or more. Question 7*Do you expect to buy new QL hardware, if something interesting was released?* No 11 15% Yes if it's under 100 euros 20 28% Yes if it's
Re: [Ql-Users] The First Survey - Results!
Question 14*Can you program in Assembly Language?* Yes 32 44% No 40 56% As I thought, only George and I read my articles on QL Assembly Language! ;-( ... 4340156 do not no, never seen it but people seem to refer to it as ql toady which implies its full of mistakes This is a joke right? Complaining about mistakes with this grammar! ;-) (That was a joke too!) The reason for calling it QL Toady is not because it is full of mistakes, but someone spelt (spelled? Tony which is correct?) it incorrectly once and it stuck as it is somewhat amusing. I can see where this is coming from though, The Guardian often has spelling mistakes and is known as The Gruniard. Mmmm. Very interesting point this person has brought up - should we stop calling it QL Toady? We could be sending out the wrong signals. ... Cheers, Norman. -- Norman Dunbar Dunbar IT Consultants Ltd Registered address: Thorpe House 61 Richardshaw Lane Pudsey West Yorkshire United Kingdom LS28 7EL Company Number: 05132767 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The First Survey - Results!
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Norman Dunbar nor...@dunbar-it.co.ukwrote: Question 14*Can you program in Assembly Language?* Yes 32 44% No 40 56% As I thought, only George and I read my articles on QL Assembly Language! ;-( You read your own articles? Isn't that like laughing at your own jokes? :P 4340156 do not no, never seen it but people seem to refer to it as ql toady which implies its full of mistakes This is a joke right? Complaining about mistakes with this grammar! ;-) (That was a joke too!) The reason for calling it QL Toady is not because it is full of mistakes, but someone spelt (spelled? Tony which is correct?) it incorrectly once and it stuck as it is somewhat amusing. I can see where this is coming from though, The Guardian often has spelling mistakes and is known as The Gruniard. Mmmm. Very interesting point this person has brought up - should we stop calling it QL Toady? We could be sending out the wrong signals. I have never seen a typo in QL Today. But then, the headline on my last copy was Q60 released! QL Today and Quanta are both in the modern struggle to stay relevant when the internet is a more immediate information source. They can't get by just by providing news any more. Quanta does have the advantage of being a club and having many other services. That said, it becomes more important than ever for both to be accessible, informative and a resource. I'd start by putting every past issue of their magazines on their respective websites in a password protected area, and publish the password in the current magazine. Change the password once a year. Next, I'd start properly maintaining the websites to be current and to have local content. I'd get the local clubs to appoint a publicity person to get the local club news to the national site organizer promptly. Finally, I'd do things like this survey, and share the results, then try to act on them by addressing failings of the community like lack of new hardware and software... Also, how about an annual award ceremony for best new h/w, software, utility, lifetime achievement awards - so we can all pat ourselves on the back? *grins* Heck, I might even go to England for that. But that's what I would do. I'm not Quanta or QL Toady. :) Dave ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Ser-USB Driver running under Q-emuLator
Adrian Ives wrote, on 28/Feb/11 11:33 | Feb28: Tony, If you're talking about the drivers built into the USBWiz, there's USB printer support and HID for mice and keyboards. However, nobody should get excited about that because the USB printer support appears to be raw data only so it would need a driver written. Keyboard and mouse might be possible, but I've already covered the problems of running them across the same serial connection as used for the storage devices. Yes exactly as I remembered - printer support is next to useless. Beyond that, it would be possible to talk to just about anything USB ... with a driver. The Ser-USB driver currently supports SD Cards and USB Mass Storage devices; both accessed in native QDOS mode. Those were the two that immediately looked practical. I thought it supported only FAT 8.3? How do you work around that? Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:257/67) +44(0)1442-828255 t...@firshman.co.uk http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Ser-USB Driver running under Q-emuLator
Tony, I don't use the file system access functions, only direct sector access. The SD card or USB hard drive really is formatted as a QLW1 volume. otoh The File Manager (which is a standalone program independent of the driver) does use the file system access functions to let users move files between PCs and QLs using FAT16 format media. This obviously means that QL filenames are truncated to 8.3, but their headers are preserved. Adrian -Original Message- From: ql-users-boun...@lists.q-v-d.com [mailto:ql-users-boun...@lists.q-v-d.com] On Behalf Of Tony Firshman Sent: 28 February 2011 21:58 To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Ser-USB Driver running under Q-emuLator Adrian Ives wrote, on 28/Feb/11 11:33 | Feb28: Tony, If you're talking about the drivers built into the USBWiz, there's USB printer support and HID for mice and keyboards SNIP The Ser-USB driver currently supports SD Cards and USB Mass Storage devices; both accessed in native QDOS mode. Those were the two that immediately looked practical. I thought it supported only FAT 8.3? How do you work around that? Tony ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Help: Function to tell whether display is better than QL standard
Am 28.02.2011 um 17:45 schrieb Marcel Kilgus ql-us...@mail.kilgus.net: It began life as SMSQ, a QDOS-compatible version of SMS2 intended for the Miracle Systems QXL emulator card But yes, it did not include the PE, that was only the case of the /E versions. But I still think this is a fringe case, it didn't even include any BASIC language after all. It was pre-release software and should be ignored for any new development, I think. SMSQ was not pre-release only. Miracle supplied free updates IIRC until version 2.76 which were insync to the the bigger SMSQ/E. Only the very early versions of SMSQ did not have the complete SBASIC interpreter. The others had the same SBASIC as SMSQ/E. But yes, no integrated PE. This had to be LRESPRed. I used SMSQ to continue development of QTop (most parts of it are written in S*BASIC) in 1994/1995 and to test if a piece of software works fine w/o PE. Urs ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
