Re: [ql-users] US QL differences...
*** REPLY SEPARATOR *** On 1/3/02 at 9:00 PM Dexter wrote: >Hi all, > >I've been sat like a hawk on Ebay waiting for a QL to come up for auction. >I recall the US QLs had a different ROM version and PSU, but are their any >other differences? >Is there a PSU and/or power supply section schematic anywhere, so if I got >one shipped over, I could convert it for US 110v 60Hz operation? I'm >competent to do it, *with the right information*... > >Dave You need a 8V DC minimum at 1.8A (1A is more than enough if you don't use any peripherals, but then you'll hardly be able to do anything much) and a 12-15V AC power. The 8V DC goes into a 7805 regulator, the 15V AC is used for a +-12V supply (there is a rectifier and a 78L12/79L12 regulator pair in the QL). If you are willing to modify the QL a bit you can use a +5/+-12V power supply, these are commonly available at various surplus dealers. Also, if you can get a RGB monitor capable at operating at the right synch frequency, don't bother with a US QL, you will likely just give yourself more headaches with incompatibilities. An old Sony 1301/2 or 1401/2, NEC Multisynch 3D and similar are perfect for the QL and it also goes up to SVGA. Again, you should be able to get one for $50 or so at surplus dealers. You might need to do a resistive divider on the RGB lines to get the TTL output voltage down to 1Vpp standard RGB analog input level. Nasta
Re: [ql-users] US QL differences...
At 09:00 PM 1/3/2002 +, you wrote: >Hi all, >I've been sat like a hawk on Ebay waiting for a QL to come up for auction. >I recall the US QLs had a different ROM version and PSU, but are their any >other differences? There should be some US QL's running around from US sources. Jack Boatwright in Oregon or John Rish in Texas (listed as Home Electronic Services on Thierry's web site list) should have some or know where to get some. Also, T/SNUG (T/S North American User Group) might know of some folks that have upgraded to say QPC or Q40 and are willing to get rid of their QL. The NESQLUG would also be source. I don't know if I would trust EBAY for a QL. I would trust other QLers. Tim Swenson A US QLer
Re: Re: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be lea rned) Love Live QLs
Dave Walker writes: > My experience is that as long as you ahve at least 128Mb of memory then Win2K outperformas any of the Win9x variants. I agree (apart from booting and shutdown which are annoyingly slow) It is also much more stable than any other variant of windoze Ive tried. W95OSR2 cant be bought for love or money so its down to W98SE or Me (but I couldnt even install Me on one of my machines..) Pity QPC cant do proper sounds on W2k/NT, but otherwise its as 'great.' as these things go.. Besides memory is dirt cheap at the moment, and if you only use windoze for QPC a 20Gig HD youll still have more than 19+Gig or so for QPC ;) Per
Re: [ql-users] US QL differences...
Dexter writes: > I've been sat like a hawk on Ebay waiting for a QL to come up for auction. Try the Qbox-USA BBS on 810-254-9878, 24 hours (as advertised in QL-Today) Per
Re: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be lea rned) Love Live QLs
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Norman Dunbar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >Well, I'm running QPC2v2 on Win2k - what's wrong with it ? >Win956 is way too flakey for anything - 'real' Windows programmers refer to >it as Windows Play Station due to its inability to be used for anything >other than games. > >Or is it (sorry, the Win2k stuff) only for Laptops ? >We have a couple of Compaq Evos which run Win2k very nicely. I totally agree with this. All versions of the 9x code are just dreadful and 95 was the worst. W2K is stable at least. Since all versions of Windoze have more bugs than a compost heap you may as well use the one that keeps working longest. The primary problem with all versions of w9x is memory fragmentation and only since I changed to W2K have I been able to throw Memturbo away. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 381577 Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be lea rned) Love Live QLs
In article <20020103182853.UAJA1008.fep02-svc.ttyl.com@localhost>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes >> From: Thierry Godefroy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: Thu 03/Jan/2002 16:06 GMT >> To: ql-users <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be lea >rned) Love Live QLs >> >> On Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:27:56 - , Norman Dunbar wrote: >> >> > Well, I'm running QPC2v2 on Win2k - what's wrong with it ? >> >> Apart from being slowest than Win95, > >My experience is that as long as you ahve at least 128Mb of memory then Win2K >outperformas any of the Win9x variants. > >> more bloated (if at all >> possible) and giving you no way to run in TRUE DOS (a MUST on >> desktop PCs for QXL !), nothing is wrong... > >This point I have to give you! > >> >> > Or is it (sorry, the Win2k stuff) only for Laptops ? >> > We have a couple of Compaq Evos which run Win2k very nicely. >> >> It may run "nicely", this is not to say that it makes a good usage >> of the machine ressources: re-install Win95 and compare the speeds >> of the same software under both OSes: you will be _amazed_ by the >> speed difference... > >My laptop is is dual boot (with the OS in separate partitions so they do not >interfer with each other). The performance under Win2K is noticeably faster >than under Win95. I do have 256Mb of memory on the machine and I think Win2K >makes better use of extra memory than Win9x. Trust you to have the luxurious hardware, Dave :-) When are you going to attend a London Quanta Group meeting, we would love to see you with your speedy laptop ? -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] QDOS TCP/IP (was: Welcome to ql-users)
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes >On Wed, 2 Jan 2002 23:20:26 +0100 >Richard Zidlicky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > We have Ethernet! It works fine on Q40/Q60, but under Linux. >> > The development of QDOS/SMS software is (as always) the big bottleneck. >> >> actually it would be easy to get Ethernet and TCP/IP working in QDOS. > >Do you think of a port or writing a driver from scratch? > >> A much bigger problem is 'ppp' support, unfortunately thats what most >> people need to get internet access. > >Yep, that's why Jon's tcp/ip stack cannot be used by most of us. I still haven't >found a slip provider. A few UK providers have it, like Demon. Although not much use to you in Germany :-( Usually it is the 'older' more established providers that have it available, as the newer ones just rent the PPP. >> A Q60 on DSL or cable modem would >> be fun though. -- Malcolm Cadman
[ql-users] OT - Amusing
Hi all, I have just recieved an amusing version of Don McCleans 'American Pie' as a version for computers ... if you haven't come across it, I can mail you a copy. -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be lea rned) Love Live QLs
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thierry Godefroy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >On Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:27:56 - , Norman Dunbar wrote: > >> Well, I'm running QPC2v2 on Win2k - what's wrong with it ? > >Apart from being slowest than Win95, more bloated (if at all >possible) and giving you no way to run in TRUE DOS (a MUST on >desktop PCs for QXL !), nothing is wrong... > >> Win956 is way too flakey for anything > >95 OSR2, once patched appropriately with all bugfixes available >from Microsoft site, is CERTAINLY more stable than 98 or 2K, >stable enough anyway to run QPC2 (which is the ONLY reason why >I keep Win95 on my laptop knowadays... if only QPC2 could run >under Linux !!!). I can confirm that QPC2 is solid with Win95, or is that the other way around ? -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] US QL differences...
Dexter wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been sat like a hawk on Ebay waiting for a QL to come up for auction. > I recall the US QLs had a different ROM version and PSU, but are their any > other differences? US TVs use NTSC (Never Twice Same Color; with 525 lines, Horiz Freq 15.734kHZ) whereas UK TVs use PAL (with 625 lines, Horiz Freq 15.625kHz) (checkout http://www.bnoack.com - a mine of tech data), so the TV output (modulator) MUST be different. Assuming US build QLs had a similar list of screen outputs (TV, Colour monitor, B/W [monocrome] monitor, RGB), then a UK QL's TV & Colour [PAL] monitor will be unusable. I think that ULA ZX8301 generates the 50Hz (vertical sync) interrupt (along with the screen display) and the system (CPU) clock, so I suspect there may be a different US version . Hope I don't sound too much of a killjoy; are there any hardware gurus who can confirm/deny these suspicions?
Re: [ql-users] US QL differences...
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dexter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >Hi all, > >I've been sat like a hawk on Ebay waiting for a QL to come up for auction. >I recall the US QLs had a different ROM version and PSU, but are their any >other differences? > >Is there a PSU and/or power supply section schematic anywhere, so if I got >one shipped over, I could convert it for US 110v 60Hz operation? I'm >competent to do it, *with the right information*... As the organiser for the London Quanta Group, we have several QL's that have been donated to us by now 'lapsed' users. They are in various states of working and non-working ( good for spares ), with various ROM's in them. Obviously they are all of UK specification as regards power requirement, i.e, 240v. I have no experience of shipping to US. -- Malcolm Cadman
[ql-users] US QL differences...
Hi all, I've been sat like a hawk on Ebay waiting for a QL to come up for auction. I recall the US QLs had a different ROM version and PSU, but are their any other differences? Is there a PSU and/or power supply section schematic anywhere, so if I got one shipped over, I could convert it for US 110v 60Hz operation? I'm competent to do it, *with the right information*... Dave
Re: [ql-users] QDOS TCP/IP (was: Welcome to ql-users)
On 1/3/02 at 8:56 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> actually it would be easy to get Ethernet and TCP/IP working in QDOS. >Do you think of a port or writing a driver from scratch? I think what is referred tois the fact that TCP/IP uses Ethernet framing anyway, so getting ethernet hardware to work with it is relatively simple. In fact, even using the QL net protocol over Ethernet would not be any big problem. Of course, not as usefull as TCP/IP but a start for sure. Nasta
[ql-users] QDOS TCP/IP (was: Welcome to ql-users)
On Wed, 2 Jan 2002 23:20:26 +0100 Richard Zidlicky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We have Ethernet! It works fine on Q40/Q60, but under Linux. > > The development of QDOS/SMS software is (as always) the big bottleneck. > > actually it would be easy to get Ethernet and TCP/IP working in QDOS. Do you think of a port or writing a driver from scratch? > A much bigger problem is 'ppp' support, unfortunately thats what most > people need to get internet access. Yep, that's why Jon's tcp/ip stack cannot be used by most of us. I still haven't found a slip provider. > A Q60 on DSL or cable modem would > be fun though. Sure. > Bye > Richard Claus
Re: [ql-users] Interesting Site
On 1/3/02 at 5:24 PM Dexter wrote: >On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, ZN wrote: > >> the PCB design leaves a LOT to be desired. It seems that whoever did it >> is not very experienced. IMHO the board could have been 2/3 or even half >> the size. > > The designer actually said on the site that it was a prototype board and > wasn't optimized for size or cost, and that they could easily reduce the > size by that amount... > Just being fair... True, maybe I did speak out of turn since I only gave it a quick look. >Does anyone here have any experience with Eagle v4? What package do you >folks over at Q60 HQ use? I tried it a long time ago in DOS, I think it was still V1 :-) I used Tango for a long time (great all-rounder there, not the best at anything but extremely usable). And then Accell got bought out by the makers of Protel, which is what I use now. When I started with it, it was absolutely horrible, did everything Protel did if you managed to get around the bugs, but under windows and about 10x slower. Fortunately, they cured a lot of the bugs, and the CPU speed caught up with the slow code :-) Nasta
Re: [ql-users] Interesting Site
On 1/3/02 at 6:25 PM Peter Graf wrote: >Hi Nasta, >>> I'm sorry, but I must destroy any hopes that Coldfire CPU's >>> (version > 1) could execute our existing QL software. >>I would very much appreciate if you could give us some more >>details on this. >Two examples for CF V4e: > >- mov.b xxx,-(sp)' adjusts the stack pointer by -1 >- lsl and lsr set the overflow bit to the same as the carry bit > >Both can not be forced to trap out. What a stupidity. >No way code on the CF core can solve this in general. >(Except emulating the whole 68k CPU, of course.) What stupidity, indeed! I recall the first example being a bug in early 68000 silicon... looks like someone used the old source code! The second is just utterly stupid, there is no reason to do anything with the overflow bit doing LOGICAL shifts (not arithmetic). This has to be a bug. Now I'm glad I didn't go redesigning anything for the V4 coldfire... Even so, the fact remains that we have run out of 68k CPUs for the time being. We can whine about not having 68070 etc, or we can change the software that keeps being incompatible. It doesn't take much to figure out which one is the more doable. Nasta
Re: Re: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be lea rned) Love Live QLs
At 06:28 ìì 3/1/2002 +, you wrote: > > > > From: Thierry Godefroy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Thu 03/Jan/2002 16:06 GMT > > To: ql-users <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be > lea rned) Love Live QLs > > > > On Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:27:56 - , Norman Dunbar wrote: > > > > > Well, I'm running QPC2v2 on Win2k - what's wrong with it ? > > > > Apart from being slowest than Win95, > >My experience is that as long as you ahve at least 128Mb of memory then >Win2K outperformas any of the Win9x variants. True 100% (And I do have 256 Megs) > > more bloated (if at all > > possible) and giving you no way to run in TRUE DOS (a MUST on > > desktop PCs for QXL !), nothing is wrong... > >This point I have to give you! Not true since NT/2K really allows you dual booting on the same drive with REAL dos (even FreeDos) which is by far better than the pi**ing around they call dos under Windows 9x > > > > > Or is it (sorry, the Win2k stuff) only for Laptops ? > > > We have a couple of Compaq Evos which run Win2k very nicely. > > > > It may run "nicely", this is not to say that it makes a good usage > > of the machine ressources: re-install Win95 and compare the speeds > > of the same software under both OSes: you will be _amazed_ by the > > speed difference... > >My laptop is is dual boot (with the OS in separate partitions so they do >not interfer with each other). The performance under Win2K is noticeably >faster than under Win95. I do have 256Mb of memory on the machine and I >think Win2K makes better use of extra memory than Win9x. You GOT to see the DOS C68 version compiling under CMD ;-)) >Dave Walker > > > >___ --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG Anti-Virus 6.0. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.312 / Virus Database: 173 - Release Date: 31/12/2001
Re: Re: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be lea rned) Love Live QLs
> > From: Thierry Godefroy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu 03/Jan/2002 16:06 GMT > To: ql-users <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be lea rned) >Love Live QLs > > On Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:27:56 - , Norman Dunbar wrote: > > > Well, I'm running QPC2v2 on Win2k - what's wrong with it ? > > Apart from being slowest than Win95, My experience is that as long as you ahve at least 128Mb of memory then Win2K outperformas any of the Win9x variants. > more bloated (if at all > possible) and giving you no way to run in TRUE DOS (a MUST on > desktop PCs for QXL !), nothing is wrong... This point I have to give you! > > > Or is it (sorry, the Win2k stuff) only for Laptops ? > > We have a couple of Compaq Evos which run Win2k very nicely. > > It may run "nicely", this is not to say that it makes a good usage > of the machine ressources: re-install Win95 and compare the speeds > of the same software under both OSes: you will be _amazed_ by the > speed difference... My laptop is is dual boot (with the OS in separate partitions so they do not interfer with each other). The performance under Win2K is noticeably faster than under Win95. I do have 256Mb of memory on the machine and I think Win2K makes better use of extra memory than Win9x. Dave Walker ___ Never pay another Internet phone bill! Freeserve AnyTime, for all the Internet access you want, day and night, only £12.99 per month. Sign-up at http://www.freeserve.com/time/anytime
Re: [ql-users] Interesting Site
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, ZN wrote: > the PCB design leaves a LOT to be desired. It seems that whoever did it is > not very experienced. IMHO the board could have been 2/3 or even half the > size. The designer actually said on the site that it was a prototype board and wasn't optimized for size or cost, and that they could easily reduce the size by that amount... Just being fair... Does anyone here have any experience with Eagle v4? What package do you folks over at Q60 HQ use? Dave
Re: [ql-users] Interesting Site
Hi Nasta, >> I'm sorry, but I must destroy any hopes that Coldfire CPU's >> (version > 1) could execute our existing QL software. Not even >> the new announced ones with better 68k compatibility. Important >> instructions which behave different to 68k can not (generally) >> be identified or trapped out by a Coldfire CPU, in order to >> emulate them correctly. Absolutely not. > >I would very much appreciate if you could give us some more details on >this. Two examples for CF V4e: - mov.b xxx,-(sp)' adjusts the stack pointer by -1 - lsl and lsr set the overflow bit to the same as the carry bit Both can not be forced to trap out. What a stupidity. No way code on the CF core can solve this in general. (Except emulating the whole 68k CPU, of course.) Bye, Peter
Re: [ql-users] Interesting Site
On 1/3/02 at 2:58 PM Peter Graf wrote: >>I thought this free Coldfire hardware design might be useful. >>It looks like a PC104 graphics card should plug in. > >Thanks. It is indeed interesting. But unfortunately of no use >for running QL software. Agreed. Wrong ColdFire. Actually, it would be possible to get QL software to work but it would be quite problematic, and not very competitive in performance. Using a 5407 would help that, even so, it is NOT possible to emulate anything more than a 68000 with it. If MMU capability is needed, for now we are limited to 68040 or 68060. That may change with the ColdFire V4e and later with V5. >Simple designs around such Coldfire chips are relatively easy, >especially without graphics. (The Q40 and Q60 designs were >magnitudes more challenging.) Exactly. The 'toast' is what I would call 'connect the dots' designing. Any decent designer could knock one of those up with his/her left foot. Also, the PCB design leaves a LOT to be desired. It seems that whoever did it is not very experienced. IMHO the board could have been 2/3 or even half the size. > I'm sorry, but I must destroy any hopes that Coldfire CPU's > (version > 1) could execute our existing QL software. Not even > the new announced ones with better 68k compatibility. Important > instructions which behave different to 68k can not (generally) > be identified or trapped out by a Coldfire CPU, in order to > emulate them correctly. Absolutely not. I would very much appreciate if you could give us some more details on this. Nasta
Re: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be lea rned) Love Live QLs
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:27:56 - , Norman Dunbar wrote: > Well, I'm running QPC2v2 on Win2k - what's wrong with it ? Apart from being slowest than Win95, more bloated (if at all possible) and giving you no way to run in TRUE DOS (a MUST on desktop PCs for QXL !), nothing is wrong... > Win956 is way too flakey for anything 95 OSR2, once patched appropriately with all bugfixes available from Microsoft site, is CERTAINLY more stable than 98 or 2K, stable enough anyway to run QPC2 (which is the ONLY reason why I keep Win95 on my laptop knowadays... if only QPC2 could run under Linux !!!). > - 'real' Windows programmers Beware, with the "real" word, under Windoze (and more exactly with Intel CPUs), this word has several "unreal" meanings... ;-) > refer to it as Windows Play Station due to its inability to be > used for anything other than games. This is perfect then, because this is exactly for what I use Win95 on my desktop computer ! > Or is it (sorry, the Win2k stuff) only for Laptops ? > We have a couple of Compaq Evos which run Win2k very nicely. It may run "nicely", this is not to say that it makes a good usage of the machine ressources: re-install Win95 and compare the speeds of the same software under both OSes: you will be _amazed_ by the speed difference... Well, let's go back on topic (QDOS/SMS stuff for those who forgot what the topic was ;-), my wish list for 2002 is: - for Marcel: QPC 2 (or 3, or 4...) for Linux. - for Peter : a Q60/100MHz laptop. And YES, I still believe in Santa Claus ! ;-) QDOS/SMS forever ! Thierry ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
RE: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be lea rned) Love Live QLs
>> Win956 ? I think I miss something ;-) Oops, my typo :o( Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.
RE: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be lea rned) Love Live QLs
Win956 ? I think I miss something ;-) I run QPC2 on WinME now and I have no more problems than with W98 (that is far lesser than with virii from Internet). Why WME got such a bad reputation ? Upgrading PC from end user like me includes getting the OS onboard (and there is no more genuine CD, only machine specific software, only for that make) and this is the only way to get more speed : and Athlon 1.2 gives me under QPC 4 times the speed of previous K6/300, as expected, more memorys and huge disk space allowing QXLwin backup directly on disk or on CD Claude -Message d'origine- De : Norman Dunbar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Envoyé : jeudi 3 janvier 2002 16:28 À : '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Objet : RE: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be lea rned) Love Live QLs Well, I'm running QPC2v2 on Win2k - what's wrong with it ? Win956 is way too flakey for anything - 'real' Windows programmers refer to it as Windows Play Station due to its inability to be used for anything other than games. Or is it (sorry, the Win2k stuff) only for Laptops ? We have a couple of Compaq Evos which run Win2k very nicely. Puzzled or Bradford :o) Norman.
RE: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be learned) Love Live QLs
Well, I'm running QPC2v2 on Win2k - what's wrong with it ? Win956 is way too flakey for anything - 'real' Windows programmers refer to it as Windows Play Station due to its inability to be used for anything other than games. Or is it (sorry, the Win2k stuff) only for Laptops ? We have a couple of Compaq Evos which run Win2k very nicely. Puzzled or Bradford :o) Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: Thierry Godefroy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 3:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be learned) Love Live QLs or 2K Pro Not even Win2K: better stay with Win95 OSR2 (only for running QPC2 of course ! ;-) and/or go the Linux way !!! QDOS/SMS forever ! Thierry ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.
Re: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be learned) Love Live QLs
On Thu, 03 Jan 2002 09:07:10 -0500, Phoebus R. Dokos wrote: > DO not install XP on a laptop if you do not have AT LEAST 256 Megs of Ram. > It will crawl like a snail. It will work alright but it will be REALLY > slow better stay with either NT (if you don't require USB ports) or 2K Pro Not even Win2K: better stay with Win95 OSR2 (only for running QPC2 of course ! ;-) and/or go the Linux way !!! QDOS/SMS forever ! Thierry ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
Re: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be learned) Love Live QLs
At 05:29 ðì 3/1/2002 -0500, you wrote: >Hi Phoebus > >Sorry about your PC crash. Same with me. Nothing remains but a hard disk >formatted. Sorry about you too... I just hope it doesn't happen again to either of us anytime soon (Great Expectations.:-) ) >I think to install W-XP which seems OK on a laptop. Hope I can install it >in my unexpert way. >If they give a startup floppy with the CD should work. (right?) DO not install XP on a laptop if you do not have AT LEAST 256 Megs of Ram. It will crawl like a snail. It will work alright but it will be REALLY slow better stay with either NT (if you don't require USB ports) or 2K Pro >OH for QL connections to Internet and email! Could 2002 be the lucky year >for that? The time is here now (provided you have a SLIP connection to the net :-) ... Just ask Jon Dent :-) >Happy New Year. > >Ian Pizer, 49 ch. Machery, 1292 Chambesy, Switzerland >e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel. 41227581410 > > >--- >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.312 / Virus Database: 173 - Release Date: 31/12/2001 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG Anti-Virus 6.0. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.312 / Virus Database: 173 - Release Date: 31/12/2001
Re: [ql-users] Interesting Site
At 11:28 ðì 3/1/2002 -0800, you wrote: >Hi > >I thought this free Coldfire hardware design might be useful. >It looks like a PC104 graphics card should plug in. > >http://www.freeio.org/library/toast.htm > Hmmm what about their names though huh? Their name would be best known as www.breakfast.org :-) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG Anti-Virus 6.0. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.312 / Virus Database: 173 - Release Date: 31/12/2001
Re: [ql-users] Interesting Site
Hi Malcolm, >I thought this free Coldfire hardware design might be useful. >It looks like a PC104 graphics card should plug in. Thanks. It is indeed interesting. But unfortunately of no use for running QL software. E.g. at home I have a more advanced Coldfire board, which includes ISA slot and DRAM as well. Simple designs around such Coldfire chips are relatively easy, especially without graphics. (The Q40 and Q60 designs were magnitudes more challenging.) I'm sorry, but I must destroy any hopes that Coldfire CPU's (version > 1) could execute our existing QL software. Not even the new announced ones with better 68k compatibility. Important instructions which behave different to 68k can not (generally) be identified or trapped out by a Coldfire CPU, in order to emulate them correctly. Absolutely not. Additionally, available QL hardware outperforms any Coldfire board emulating 68k code. So even *if* we accepted incompatibility and crashes of a lot of software, we'd have no overall performace advantage. This status is likely to remain for at least about two years. All the best Peter
[ql-users] Interesting Site
Hi I thought this free Coldfire hardware design might be useful. It looks like a PC104 graphics card should plug in. http://www.freeio.org/library/toast.htm
[ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be learned) Love Live QLs
Hi Phoebus Sorry about your PC crash. Same with me. Nothing remains but a hard disk formatted. I think to install W-XP which seems OK on a laptop. Hope I can install it in my unexpert way. If they give a startup floppy with the CD should work. (right?) OH for QL connections to Internet and email! Could 2002 be the lucky year for that? Happy New Year. Ian Pizer, 49 ch. Machery, 1292 Chambesy, Switzerland e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel. 41227581410
