Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Dilwyn Jones wrote: > Not sure why this would be different on QPC2v2 to the old QPC2, but > still. I did already fix that problem in QPC2, but QPC2v2 got a completely new PAR driver... ;-) > I hope Marcel or Tony will be able to integrate the modification to > SMSQE in time. It is integrated, the next release will incorporate the fix. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
>> GO to SBASIC, enter OPEN#3,PAR and you'll find that seems to flush out >> the printed output, if it's the same problem as I have with >> QPC2v2final. > >It wasnt, but thank you all the same. However, it is now fixed. Yet Im not >the wiser as to when or how that happened. Im not the sort of user who is >accustomed to request help with reading the manual, so although Im pretty >convinced it wasnt me, Im now also pretty convinced that the reported >problem had nothing to do with QPC/SMSQ. Marcel has now fixed the printing problem I had, by delaying closing the printer channel until printing is finished - seems SMSQE needed a physical (software-wise) connection to the hardware's printer port to allow printing to finish. Presumably this wouldn't be a problem with QL serial ports or parallel ports since the port connection was always there on native hardware, but not necessarily so on an emulator, and this is what my workaround did, was to ensure a connection between the emulator and the hardware port. Not sure why this would be different on QPC2v2 to the old QPC2, but still. Probably talking through my hat of course as usual, but anyway it's worked and I hope Marcel or Tony will be able to integrate the modification to SMSQE in time. In the meantime, anyone suffering the same problems as I was can get around the problem of printing pausing halfway through a printout by opening a temporary channel to the printer; no need to send anything - printing will resume once the connection is re-established by the emulator. Whatever the problem was, I'm glad you managed to sort it out, and if you do discover the reason, let us know so anyone else running into the same problem will have the 'fix' to hand. -- Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Marcel Kilgus writes: > P Witte wrote: > > 10 a = 0 > > 20 OPEN#1;'con_0x0' > > 30 PAUSE#1; 200 > > it zaps QPC. > > Cannot reproduce that. OS? Memory settings? I did mention you had to EX it? The cut-of value is at 2x2; 1x1 and 0x0 both kill QPC2v2. M$ Windoze 2000 5.00.2195 AMD Athlon 700MHz 130,544Mb RAM Plenty of free memory QPC2v2 is set to 16Mb with about 11 free after boot Per
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Peter Graf writes: > >Of course Im interested in a Q60, but I know very little about them, like: <> Thanks for all that, Peter. I hope there were many more interested readers out there. I shant sport with your collective patiences by replying to it all in detail ;) I should be happy to be kept posted on developments, and can only hope that those non-technical details may be resolved quickly! Wouldnt it be an idea to fish in the Atari community, to see if there was an interest and anyone willing to do a port? If it works it should further reduce costs, and may produce other benefits.. Strange to think the Q60 is the end of the line. Per
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Dilwyn Jones writes: > Exactly the same problem as I reported a week or so ago. > > GO to SBASIC, enter OPEN#3,PAR and you'll find that seems to flush out > the printed output, if it's the same problem as I have with > QPC2v2final. It wasnt, but thank you all the same. However, it is now fixed. Yet Im not the wiser as to when or how that happened. Im not the sort of user who is accustomed to request help with reading the manual, so although Im pretty convinced it wasnt me, Im now also pretty convinced that the reported problem had nothing to do with QPC/SMSQ. HTH Per
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Per wrote: >Of course Im interested in a Q60, but I know very little about them, like: >cost, delivery, compatibility, reliability, how difficult is it to assemble >(special equipment required, etc), networking (can you network two+ of them >under Linux, for example?), upgradability (CPU, RAM), expansion, >warranty/support, .. that should just about cover it! ;) Cost, delivery: Too early for an official announcement, because some non-technical problems have to be solved before series production can start. I have only built few prototypes for developers and the costs for single machines are higher than a batch of boards. But you can expect the Q60 to be faster and cheaper than the Atari clones with 68060. compatibility: Only known incompatibility is with a few CDROM drives. Everything else like Q40 so far. SMSQ/E patch required. reliability: What are you asking for? A 10 year test? :-) Only thing I can tell is that the Q40 hardware runs for 3.5 years without any hardware failures. The Q60 is build on the same PCB with some modifications. how difficult is it to assemble: As simple as a PC mainboard. A few screws and the connectors. Fits directly into Minitower/Desktop case (AT formfactor preferred). networking (can you network two+ of them under Linux, for example?) Yes you can. Full TCP/IP and Ethernet support under Linux. Modern 10 Mbit ethernet ISA card with jumpers required. Upgradability (CPU, RAM): Upgrade CPU to what? The Q60 uses the fastest possible 68K processors. The 80 MHz Q60 is the fastest 68K computer on the whole world I heard of. If you know something faster, please let me know :-) RAM: 60ns PS/2 EDO modules 16 MB upgradeable to 32 MB on existing second socket. Option for 64 / 80 / 128 MB will probably be offered, but only Linux support available by now. SMSQ /QDOS work, but only use up to 32 MB. expansion: No PCI/AGP/USB, since 32 bit graphics onboard and no SMSQ / QDOS support anyway. Q60 extension bus has two slots for ISA cards, one use by IO card. More slots electrically possible if you find a case with slot riser/extender. warranty/support: Well the QL community is known to help each other, isn't it. What more do you expect? A 24 hour phone hotline? Peter
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
P Witte wrote: > 10 a = 0 > 20 OPEN#1;'con_0x0' > 30 PAUSE#1; 200 > it zaps QPC. Cannot reproduce that. OS? Memory settings? Marcel
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
P Witte wrote: > Help! I just discovered I cant print from QPC2v2! Please wait for QPCv2.02. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Exactly the same problem as I reported a week or so ago. GO to SBASIC, enter OPEN#3,PAR and you'll find that seems to flush out the printed output, if it's the same problem as I have with QPC2v2final. -- Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html >Help! I just discovered I cant print from QPC2v2! The old version runs fine, >but the new one doesnt talk to the printer (though it had a quick stab at >the fax device (using the default setting)). Tried both the new Printer >setting, >then LPT1 (to which my Epson is connected) - no joy! As I said; the old >QPC/SMSQ2.93 worked fine on the default setting. > >Per
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
More on my QPC2v2 setup: If I EX a program, such as the SB snippet below 10 a = 0 20 OPEN#1;'con_0x0' 30 PAUSE#1; 200 it zaps QPC. A call to WINDOW#ch; 0, 0, 0, 0 does the same. (Some bracketing clauses also appear to need to be there.) Looks like an SMSQ/E bug to me, but QPC shouldnt really crash due to anything done by SMSQ/E? It is quite handy to be able to open a "nul" window in those cases where you need a channel but not necessarily a window, eg PAUSE and PICK, so I should quite like to continue availing myself of that facility, rather than having to work around it. Can this be fixed? Per
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
On 6 Feb 2001, at 22:40, Peter Graf wrote: > > BTW I have used the same case for a Q60. (Thanks to Keith.) Possible, but > it means a lot of tinkering since Tony Firshman has not yet developed a Q60 > Mini-Backplane ;-))) > Knowing Tony, it won't be long in coming Does that mean the Q60 will be available soon? Wolfgang > >
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Help! I just discovered I cant print from QPC2v2! The old version runs fine, but the new one doesnt talk to the printer (though it had a quick stab at the fax device (using the default setting)). Tried both the new Printer setting, then LPT1 (to which my Epson is connected) - no joy! As I said; the old QPC/SMSQ2.93 worked fine on the default setting. Per
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 at 02:07:57, Peter Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (Ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) >Tony wrote: > (In fact the small size of the MinisQL and a monitor switchbox meant I could have two in the space of one! although I mainly use the QPC2 system). >>> >>>BTW I have used the same case for a Q60. (Thanks to Keith.) Possible, but >>>it means a lot of tinkering since Tony Firshman has not yet developed a Q60 >>>Mini-Backplane ;-))) >> >>What had you in mind, or is that just a joke? >> >>I had thought idly of an ISA slot extender. > >It was 99% joke, because probably nobody has the time. For the Mini case an >extremely narrow ISA slot extender would be required. I was thinking of a simple ISA extender, possible with pull- ups/capacitors. That would not be too difficult, but I am working 105% most days on internet programming (http://worldnews.com). I am staying with the QL (of course), but time is limited. Worldnews is a live system, and I am on call all the time >But if a PCB was >considered, there would of course be a lot of ideas what else could be on >it. From QL network, I2C, stereo amplifier to IrDA Transceiver (I have IO >cards with IrDA signals). No chance - from me anyway (8-)# -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:257/67) +44(0)1442-828255 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.firshman.demon.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Tony wrote: >>>(In fact the small size of the MinisQL and a >>>monitor switchbox meant I could have two in the space of one! although >>>I mainly use the QPC2 system). >> >>BTW I have used the same case for a Q60. (Thanks to Keith.) Possible, but >>it means a lot of tinkering since Tony Firshman has not yet developed a Q60 >>Mini-Backplane ;-))) > >What had you in mind, or is that just a joke? > >I had thought idly of an ISA slot extender. It was 99% joke, because probably nobody has the time. For the Mini case an extremely narrow ISA slot extender would be required. But if a PCB was considered, there would of course be a lot of ideas what else could be on it. From QL network, I2C, stereo amplifier to IrDA Transceiver (I have IO cards with IrDA signals). BTW the Q60 would be well suited for a portable system because of the low power consumption. Peter
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
On Feb 7, 12:09am, P Witte wrote: > The problem with upgrading computers is disposing of the old ones humanely > (ie, with the least possible trouble to oneself ;). They do tend to take up > a lot of space, and operating with more than a couple of keyboards, half a > dozen rodents, and assorted monitors (not to forget that gonad-sizzling > tangle under the desk!) is eminently impractical. Still, we are > left with the good old bridging strategy of Demote and Postpone, ie > decommission a perfectly good specimen to an uncertain future and install > a flashy new pretender in its place! You dont dispose of computers because > they dont work, but because they go out of fashion! >-- End of excerpt from P Witte I'm glad to say that I still have my old GoldCard JSU QL still step next to my Q40 (bought an 8ft long desktop to hold 3 computers and 1 printer). When testing new software I find using the old QL still usefull. I'll be hurting if I ever get an Intel-based Linux box. I guess I could always demote the PC to the kids and teach my wife to do web stuff on the Linux box (and get StarOffice, etc.). Tim Swenson
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001 at 22:40:25, Peter Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (Ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) >Dilwyn wrote: > >>Same here really. While I'd love to buy a Q40 or Q60, space >>considerations, wife's considerations etc etc mean one computer space >>is all I'm allowed now. (In fact the small size of the MinisQL and a >>monitor switchbox meant I could have two in the space of one! although >>I mainly use the QPC2 system). > >BTW I have used the same case for a Q60. (Thanks to Keith.) Possible, but >it means a lot of tinkering since Tony Firshman has not yet developed a Q60 >Mini-Backplane ;-))) What had you in mind, or is that just a joke? I had thought idly of an ISA slot extender. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:257/67) +44(0)1442-828255 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.firshman.demon.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Dilwyn Jones writes: <> The problem with upgrading computers is disposing of the old ones humanely (ie, with the least possible trouble to oneself ;). They do tend to take up a lot of space, and operating with more than a couple of keyboards, half a dozen rodents, and assorted monitors (not to forget that gonad-sizzling tangle under the desk!) is eminently impractical. Networking might offer a part-solution, but the QL is not well endowed in that respect. Still, we are left with the good old bridging strategy of Demote and Postpone, ie decommission a perfectly good specimen to an uncertain future and install a flashy new pretender in its place! You dont dispose of computers because they dont work, but because they go out of fashion! (A message I just wish Quanta, Q-Branch and the like would get accross to their many microdrive- churning, User-Guide-thumbing fundamentalists! ;) Of course Im interested in a Q60, but I know very little about them, like: cost, delivery, compatibility, reliability, how difficult is it to assemble (special equipment required, etc), networking (can you network two+ of them under Linux, for example?), upgradability (CPU, RAM), expansion, warranty/support, .. that should just about cover it! ;) Per
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tony Firshman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >On Tue, 6 Feb 2001 at 19:05:38, Dilwyn Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >.uk> wrote: >(Ref: <00ed01c09076$7b5850e0$ad075cc3@default>) > >> >>>Yes, it is a great product ... so many people can benefit. I use the >>>QPC2 style of QL'ing now more than I do 'black box' or derivatives >>way. >>>Although I often have both running at the same time. I'm lucky >>enough >>>to have a small room stuffed full of gear ! >I solved the problem by installing a large shed in the garden (8-)# Ah ! Six sheds :-) >I got a vast box of QL stuff unannounced from a customer. The discovery >of a Spem boxed QL in there, and getting the network to the Sh. I >mean office, working properly has renewed Ben's interest in the QL and >basic programming. > >I suspect many of us may have started getting hooked on programming etc >via superbasic. Many basics exist on the IBM PC, but they are very >much in the background, and much less accessible. Yes, I have always found that used in a structured way that SuperBasic is one of the nicest programming languages to use. -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Dilwyn wrote: >Same here really. While I'd love to buy a Q40 or Q60, space >considerations, wife's considerations etc etc mean one computer space >is all I'm allowed now. (In fact the small size of the MinisQL and a >monitor switchbox meant I could have two in the space of one! although >I mainly use the QPC2 system). BTW I have used the same case for a Q60. (Thanks to Keith.) Possible, but it means a lot of tinkering since Tony Firshman has not yet developed a Q60 Mini-Backplane ;-))) Peter
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Roy Wood wrote: >The real problem that faces us is a lack of any really new software for >the QL in general and the longer that situation persists the more people >we will lose to other computers. Yes, this is the biggest problem. I didn't mention it directly, but I think good native hardware leads to much more progress on the native software side than emulators. Emulators are often just an add-on for users who mainly use the host operating system (mostly Windows). If you own a good native hardware you have a strong interest in improving the software you run on your own platform. Instead of turning more and more toward the other OS which the emulator is based on. I think, the Q40 as a native hardware has initiated some siginificant progress on the software side. Just to mention a few developments: The SMSQ/E color drivers, the QDOS+SMSQ sound system, completely new graphics programs, completely new sound programs. It also made software usable that wasn't really usable before, for example ghostscript. >[snip] there are a lot of people >still using a QL with a Gold, Super Gold or even a Trump Card and these >people get overlooked all too often. A very important fact! This list is not the best forum in this respect. I often promised myself to write more for QUANTA, for example, but somehow I never find the time. >The Goldfire is now long overdue and should be in production as soon as >possible to retain those, and I know of many, who have put off decisions >on what way to go until it arrives. (OK Nasta I am ready - fire away) The Q40 was also meant for the more traditional QL users. I've got the impression that the Goldfire will in mosts respects not be nearer to an original QL than the Q40. The Q40 with bigger caches, FPU, MMU, by far faster graphics, more colours, existing QDOS + SMSQ, existing drivers, might be a strong competitor ;-) >Oh and Marcel, beware of adding a MMU facility to QPC 2 until we have >found out why the Q 40 has so many problems with some Qliberated code. This is certainly not the fault of the 68040 MMU. Peter
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001 at 19:05:38, Dilwyn Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .uk> wrote: (Ref: <00ed01c09076$7b5850e0$ad075cc3@default>) > >>Yes, it is a great product ... so many people can benefit. I use the >>QPC2 style of QL'ing now more than I do 'black box' or derivatives >way. >>Although I often have both running at the same time. I'm lucky >enough >>to have a small room stuffed full of gear ! I solved the problem by installing a large shed in the garden (8-)# I got a vast box of QL stuff unannounced from a customer. The discovery of a Spem boxed QL in there, and getting the network to the Sh. I mean office, working properly has renewed Ben's interest in the QL and basic programming. I suspect many of us may have started getting hooked on programming etc via superbasic. Many basics exist on the IBM PC, but they are very much in the background, and much less accessible. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:257/67) +44(0)1442-828255 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.firshman.demon.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
>Yes, it is a great product ... so many people can benefit. I use the >QPC2 style of QL'ing now more than I do 'black box' or derivatives way. >Although I often have both running at the same time. I'm lucky enough >to have a small room stuffed full of gear ! > >>As for Q40/Q60 - I'd love one, but I can't justify one, so I don't get one. >>I'm sorry Peter but it is highly unlikely I'll ever have one of these. Gone >>are the days when I would eagerly leap onto whatever new 'thing' was >>released for the QL world. :o( (Marriage - wives have no sense of a man's >>needs to play !) ;-) Same here really. While I'd love to buy a Q40 or Q60, space considerations, wife's considerations etc etc mean one computer space is all I'm allowed now. (In fact the small size of the MinisQL and a monitor switchbox meant I could have two in the space of one! although I mainly use the QPC2 system). That's the situation many QLers will be in - if you need the best compromise of two worlds such as for work (PC hardware) and pleasure/home (QL!), go for another hardware platform and a QL emulator (Linux+uQLx or PC+QPC or QemuLator for example). If at home you have no need for a PC or any other computer, go for native QL hardware, whether it be Q40 or SGC successor or whatever. If your requirements are SMSQ/QDOS/Linux go for Q40/Q60 with SMSQE or QDOS Classic and the Linux Q40 disk. Best of all, tell Peter Graf and QBranch you are interested in obtaining one to encourage availability and development. Anyone who wants a Goldfire, tell Nasta to encourage him to finish its design ASAP. I doubt you can argue the case for EITHER software OR hardware solutions - we need both to keep QDOS-type systems going. My QL-Emulators CD is nearly ready now, at long last. Once it does get into circulation, please copy it for all you're worth to as many ex-QLers in particular as possible. Hopefully, the carrot of several emulators and nearly 1,000 freeware/shareware programs on the CD will prove a good temptation to ex-QLers and wavering QLers. I hope so anyway. -- Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Peter Graf writes: > Hm. If it smells like Bill Gate's feet, tastes a little like Pentium > silicon and sometimes looks like coffee, I have my doubts that it is tea. > (just joking) > > Look at it this way: If a Windows PC is a QL, then a Sun workstation is an > Amiga, an AIX server is a gameboy, and a Macistosh is a Windows PC. > Software is Hardware, emulation is native, and everything is everything. > > For me a QL is also defined by hardware and system level aspects, and not > only by the capability to software-emulate SMSQ. There are processors available with programmable microcode, ie they can run either i86 or m68k _natively_. What have you got when youve got your Qx0 or your QPC2vx running on one of those? At this point the argument becomes irrelevant - or rather, its irrelevance becomes apparent, because this discussion is simply about different, but valid, approaches, and the one is not more "real" than the other. A dedicated QLer should probably have both! Per
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >I have also enjoyed the thread. However, is there any news, yet, of >Text87 in full colour? That would fill my cup completely. I have been negotiating with Fred Toussi about this and he needs TT to write a section of code (don't ask for details I barely understood it) which will allow him to re-write some of T87 to provide a version which works under the colour drivers. It does still work under QPC 2 v2 if you fire up in QL colour mode and things would have been easier on the Q 40 had mode 4 been retained instead of mode 8. I have avoided any comment on this thread but I think that many of the participants miss one essential point. The majority of 'QL Users' out there want a system which runs 100% of their programs with as much efficiency as possible. Most of them do not care if it is a black box with the word 'Sinclair' on it or a biscuit tin full of silicon chips. they also do not care about or understand benchmarks. For them the point is ; will it run 'x'? can I use my existing data? can I print it out? To that end the Q 40 and the host of emulators have served them as well as each other and the decision on which direction to go in has been dictated by the expediency of having a Windoze machine to run programs and share data with other people who use Windoze or the cost of the hardware needed to have just a 'native platform'. If you concentrate too much on which is the more 'electronically correct' you run the risk of fragmenting the user base even more. The real problem that faces us is a lack of any really new software for the QL in general and the longer that situation persists the more people we will lose to other computers. If you base your ideas on the things which are said on this list then you are missing out on the larger part of the QL Community. I know this because I deal with QL Users on a daily basis and many of them do not read this list. there are a lot of people still using a QL with a Gold, Super Gold or even a Trump Card and these people get overlooked all too often. Without a thriving commercial base for the QL you will lose the driving force behind it and eventually lose everything. The Goldfire is now long overdue and should be in production as soon as possible to retain those, and I know of many, who have put off decisions on what way to go until it arrives. (OK Nasta I am ready - fire away) Oh and Marcel, beware of adding a MMU facility to QPC 2 until we have found out why the Q 40 has so many problems with some Qliberated code. Jochen and TT seem to think the answer lies somewhere in there. -- Roy Wood Q Branch 20 Locks Hill, Portslade, Sussex BN41 2LB Tel : +44(0)1273-386030 / Mobile : +44 (0) 7836-745501 Fax +44 (0)1273-381577 web site : http://www.qbranch.demon.co.uk/
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Marcel wrote: >Anyway, let's call it a /QL compatible/ platform of it's own. How about/SMSQ only/ platform of it's MS Windows? :-) Still think interfaces that nobody can access don't make a platform. But surrounded by SMSQ-on-Windows users it looks like I must give up :-) Peter
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marcel Kilgus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: >> 0100,0100,0100 > >Erm, Wolfgang... ;-) > >>> QDOS. I can run a different operating system on it, not only QDOS. The >>> interfaces to the hardware are defined and accessible. >> All right, then QPC must be a platform as well, because you could >> adopt another OS for it, too. (I think). > >That's what I'm saying. The only real difference is that I haven't >released the specs. The reason is simply that they might change. QPC2 >v2.00 has a new serial, parallel and screen interface for example. >I have more freedom than hardware developers because it's easier to >change or redo things. I'm not going to give that up. > >Anyway, let's call it a /QL compatible/ platform of it's own. He .. he .. a nice compromise. You must be a member of committee :-) -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Norman Dunbar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >>> QPC2v2 is a great product, it just a pity that it is now mainly us more >'expert' QL users that are left to use it. > >I agree, but I'm not that much of an expert - so I just use it in the manner >of a QL, to do what I want to do. Agreed, yet to others we all look to be 'experts'. I also get this feedback through the London Quanta group that I organise. The regular attenders are now very much experts, and the more 'ordinary' QL user has lapsed. This also has to do with other factors, too, of course. >>> Many of those who have abandoned the QL OS for the pleasures :-( of PC >Windows would really be >>> happy and impressed if they were to return to using the QL this way. > >I have 'abandoned' my QL, Gold Card, 3.2 Mb floppies, Floppy extender for >another 2 'normal' floppy drives, Miracle hard disc, serial to parallel >convertor, monitor, cables, wiring and some more cables, Some cables and >more wiring etc etc to the loft, because I don't have room for all of it and >my wife runs her business on a PC. I am allowed 'room space' for QPC on the >hard drive which works for me. It also allows me (at present - but not for >much longer) to take my work for QLToady to work and correct them, test them >there as I take my system with me on a 100 Mb Zip drive. Most of the >debugging work I am doing at the moment on QLTdis has been done at work - >hence the slight abandonment of the HTML tutorial/QDOS docs web site at >present. There is no way I would have been able to get it done without >QPC2v2 - so thanks Marcel. (It also means that I don't get 'shouted' at by >Dilwyn and Jochen when they need the articles :o) ) Yes, it is a great product ... so many people can benefit. I use the QPC2 style of QL'ing now more than I do 'black box' or derivatives way. Although I often have both running at the same time. I'm lucky enough to have a small room stuffed full of gear ! >As for Q40/Q60 - I'd love one, but I can't justify one, so I don't get one. >I'm sorry Peter but it is highly unlikely I'll ever have one of these. Gone >are the days when I would eagerly leap onto whatever new 'thing' was >released for the QL world. :o( (Marriage - wives have no sense of a man's >needs to play !) Yes, I understand that position. I would like several new computers, of different types. Some I will actually purchase, eventually ! My latest treat has been the Osaris pocket computer ... as indicated in an OT thread :-) -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Tony Firshman wrote: >Do you get initial screen blanking, and then >nothing (I wish TT did a splash screen!). Or better: A progress indicator while starting up. You probably miss the old QL way of a screen memory test you can *watch* :-) >Describe exactly, because, like the QL, the various faults have very >recognisable sequences. Probably. You have a lot more experience in fault search than me. >A really nice effect is when absolutely nothing happens. The Q40 screen >memory stays there for a time, even when power is off. I often wondered why it must be refreshed every 8 ms if it can survive a power-off for several seconds. >>I don't know the IO card Qbranch delivers with the Q40. I remember there >>were printer IRQ problems with the card and SMSQ/E. So maybe you should >>check if the PAR IRQ jumper is removed. If not, remove it. >Cannot be that, as the Q40 would _never_boot. I wasn't 100% sure, because I had IO cards that could run with this IRQ enabled. >The IRQ problem was card >related, not printer. The problem (please correct me Peter (8-)# ) was >that the IRQ from the card was pulsed, but Q40 required a longer >(continuous?) IRQ. The relevant IRQ was 7. You are absolutely correct :-) The Q40 requires level-triggered interrupts. All interrupts from the IO card are level-triggered, except the printer IRQ in SPP mode which is edge-triggered. At design time I had not considered this a problem, because the IO cards I used could be switched by software into another mode with either level-triggered interrupts or FIFO. My idea about Bill's problem was that it might have been a card that works with printer IRQ enabled. Somehow the starting printer's signals on the handshake-inputs could make the IO chip fire an intterupt at a time when the booting SMSQ doesn't expect it. Similar happened with an ethernet card. But you are right, it is unlikely. Peter
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Original Message from Malcolm [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, 4 Feb 2001 23:17:25 + > In article <001c01c08eac$6dc1a420$f4075cc3@default>, Dilwyn Jones > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > > >This is specific to QPC2v2final, the old QPC2 and QPC1 on the same PC > >and none of my other systems do this. I could understand it if it was > >a FLUSH requirement (the old Falkenberg hard disk system had a similar > >problem when deleting files that you had to do a WIN_FLUSH to really > >delete files). Most likely something Windows related I'd have thought > >as it's inconsistent and the mere act of opening a channel to the > >device causes a 'flush' of sorts. > > > > > >Although the 'QPC2v2 again' thread is getting a bit long, the > >discussion has been very interesting and shows that we need both an > >emulator and a native hardware way forward. The emulator scene is very > >well served at the moment. Let's hope that the future of > >Q40/Goldfire/any other SGC successor is as good as the emulator scene. > > Yes, I've enjoyed reading this thread ... and not contributed until now. > It has certainly livened up discussion. > > QPC2v2 is a great product, it just a pity that it is now mainly us more > 'expert' QL users that are left to use it. Many of those who have > abandoned the QL OS for the pleasures :-( of PC Windows would really be > happy and impressed if they were to return to using the QL this way. > Unfortuneately along with all the other new things that are good in the > QL world today there is a lot of configuring to do to get the best out > it. If someone could put this all togther in an easy 'idiot proof' way > I feel that we have the potential to ignite returning and new interest. > > Having QPAC2 windows alongside QPC2 Windows windows is an easy > environment to work in ... yet it is mainly 'experts' who are doing > this. > > As regards hardware. This is always in the end the best option for pure > speed and reliability. Let us hope that Q40/Q60 and Goldfire get > adopted by enough users. > > -- > Malcolm Cadman > I have also enjoyed the thread. However, is there any news, yet, of Text87 in full colour? That would fill my cup completely. Regards, Peter Fox
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: > 0100,0100,0100 Erm, Wolfgang... ;-) >> QDOS. I can run a different operating system on it, not only QDOS. The >> interfaces to the hardware are defined and accessible. > All right, then QPC must be a platform as well, because you could > adopt another OS for it, too. (I think). That's what I'm saying. The only real difference is that I haven't released the specs. The reason is simply that they might change. QPC2 v2.00 has a new serial, parallel and screen interface for example. I have more freedom than hardware developers because it's easier to change or redo things. I'm not going to give that up. Anyway, let's call it a /QL compatible/ platform of it's own. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
> Although the 'QPC2v2 again' thread is getting a bit long, the > discussion has been very interesting and shows that we need both an > emulator and a native hardware way forward. The emulator scene is very > well served at the moment. Let's hope that the future of > Q40/Goldfire/any other SGC successor is as good as the emulator scene. I fully agree with Dilwyn, there's no need for a emulator against hardware discussion but "competition" between thos two ways of doing a better QL will help all of us... Viele Grüsse aus der Schweiz / Best regards Urs König http://mypage.bluewin.ch/QLvsJaguar/
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
On 4 Feb 2001, at 10:36, Peter Graf wrote: > Of course the QL is a platform. It is not true that the QL is restricted to > QDOS. I can run a different operating system on it, not only QDOS. The > interfaces to the hardware are defined and accessible. All right, then QPC must be a platform as well, because you could adopt another OS for it, too. (I think). Wolfgang
RE: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
>> QPC2v2 is a great product, it just a pity that it is now mainly us more 'expert' QL users that are left to use it. I agree, but I'm not that much of an expert - so I just use it in the manner of a QL, to do what I want to do. >> Many of those who have abandoned the QL OS for the pleasures :-( of PC Windows would really be >> happy and impressed if they were to return to using the QL this way. I have 'abandoned' my QL, Gold Card, 3.2 Mb floppies, Floppy extender for another 2 'normal' floppy drives, Miracle hard disc, serial to parallel convertor, monitor, cables, wiring and some more cables, Some cables and more wiring etc etc to the loft, because I don't have room for all of it and my wife runs her business on a PC. I am allowed 'room space' for QPC on the hard drive which works for me. It also allows me (at present - but not for much longer) to take my work for QLToady to work and correct them, test them there as I take my system with me on a 100 Mb Zip drive. Most of the debugging work I am doing at the moment on QLTdis has been done at work - hence the slight abandonment of the HTML tutorial/QDOS docs web site at present. There is no way I would have been able to get it done without QPC2v2 - so thanks Marcel. (It also means that I don't get 'shouted' at by Dilwyn and Jochen when they need the articles :o) ) As for Q40/Q60 - I'd love one, but I can't justify one, so I don't get one. I'm sorry Peter but it is highly unlikely I'll ever have one of these. Gone are the days when I would eagerly leap onto whatever new 'thing' was released for the QL world. :o( (Marriage - wives have no sense of a man's needs to play !) Norman. Norman Dunbar EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Database/Unix administrator Phone: 0113 289 6265 Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. Fax:0113 201 7265 URL:http://www.LynxFinancialSystems.com
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
In article <001c01c08eac$6dc1a420$f4075cc3@default>, Dilwyn Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >This is specific to QPC2v2final, the old QPC2 and QPC1 on the same PC >and none of my other systems do this. I could understand it if it was >a FLUSH requirement (the old Falkenberg hard disk system had a similar >problem when deleting files that you had to do a WIN_FLUSH to really >delete files). Most likely something Windows related I'd have thought >as it's inconsistent and the mere act of opening a channel to the >device causes a 'flush' of sorts. > > >Although the 'QPC2v2 again' thread is getting a bit long, the >discussion has been very interesting and shows that we need both an >emulator and a native hardware way forward. The emulator scene is very >well served at the moment. Let's hope that the future of >Q40/Goldfire/any other SGC successor is as good as the emulator scene. Yes, I've enjoyed reading this thread ... and not contributed until now. It has certainly livened up discussion. QPC2v2 is a great product, it just a pity that it is now mainly us more 'expert' QL users that are left to use it. Many of those who have abandoned the QL OS for the pleasures :-( of PC Windows would really be happy and impressed if they were to return to using the QL this way. Unfortuneately along with all the other new things that are good in the QL world today there is a lot of configuring to do to get the best out it. If someone could put this all togther in an easy 'idiot proof' way I feel that we have the potential to ignite returning and new interest. Having QPAC2 windows alongside QPC2 Windows windows is an easy environment to work in ... yet it is mainly 'experts' who are doing this. As regards hardware. This is always in the end the best option for pure speed and reliability. Let us hope that Q40/Q60 and Goldfire get adopted by enough users. -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
At 03:50 ðì 4/2/2001, you wrote: >On 3 Feb 2001, at 16:15, Peter Graf wrote: > > > I wasn't talking about what QPC *could* do if it was *changed*. You called > > QPC a platform all by itself, and I think it is not. Because IIRC the only > > thing that can be run are <=68008 coded SMSQ/E applications. > > >Right, then QL, then, isn't a platform, either, because all it can run >are "<=68008 coded QDOS applications". > > > > >Wolfgang Oh I strongly disagree The QL can run OS/9, CP/M 68K. etc. All these programs were available for it. :-) (Really) Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
>> to work. Sadly I was wrong, printing will still stop after say
after
>> half a page of graphics or a couple of pages of text. The
interesting
>> thing is: if I go to SBASIC and just enter the command OPEN#3,PAR
it's
>> enough to make printing resume and finish! I am completely unable
to
>> predict when the problem will occur, all I know is how to fix it.
>
>If its a QL problem it could be that your program needs to output a
FF
>instruction to the printer to flush its buffer. I havent bothered to
update
>all my printer drivers so I sometimes resort to a:
>
>_=FOPEN('par'):BPUT#_;12:CLOSE#_
>
>(Kept on a hotkey for convenience) It may do no better than what
youre doing
>already. But if this is the problem, try adjusting the printer
driver.
This is specific to QPC2v2final, the old QPC2 and QPC1 on the same PC
and none of my other systems do this. I could understand it if it was
a FLUSH requirement (the old Falkenberg hard disk system had a similar
problem when deleting files that you had to do a WIN_FLUSH to really
delete files). Most likely something Windows related I'd have thought
as it's inconsistent and the mere act of opening a channel to the
device causes a 'flush' of sorts.
Although the 'QPC2v2 again' thread is getting a bit long, the
discussion has been very interesting and shows that we need both an
emulator and a native hardware way forward. The emulator scene is very
well served at the moment. Let's hope that the future of
Q40/Goldfire/any other SGC successor is as good as the emulator scene.
--
Dilwyn Jones
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Wolfgang wrote: >> I wasn't talking about what QPC *could* do if it was *changed*. You called >> QPC a platform all by itself, and I think it is not. Because IIRC the only >> thing that can be run are <=68008 coded SMSQ/E applications. > >Right, then QL, then, isn't a platform, either, because all it can run >are "<=68008 coded QDOS applications". Of course the QL is a platform. It is not true that the QL is restricted to QDOS. I can run a different operating system on it, not only QDOS. The interfaces to the hardware are defined and accessible. That the old original QL is no longer a very interesting platform for a new OS is a different story. Remember I did never say QPC II must or should become a platform all by itself. I just said it isn't. The Q40 is. Peter
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
On 3 Feb 2001, at 16:15, Peter Graf wrote: > I wasn't talking about what QPC *could* do if it was *changed*. You called > QPC a platform all by itself, and I think it is not. Because IIRC the only > thing that can be run are <=68008 coded SMSQ/E applications. Right, then QL, then, isn't a platform, either, because all it can run are "<=68008 coded QDOS applications". Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Dilwyn Jones writes:
<>
> to work. Sadly I was wrong, printing will still stop after say after
> half a page of graphics or a couple of pages of text. The interesting
> thing is: if I go to SBASIC and just enter the command OPEN#3,PAR it's
> enough to make printing resume and finish! I am completely unable to
> predict when the problem will occur, all I know is how to fix it.
If its a QL problem it could be that your program needs to output a FF
instruction to the printer to flush its buffer. I havent bothered to update
all my printer drivers so I sometimes resort to a:
_=FOPEN('par'):BPUT#_;12:CLOSE#_
(Kept on a hotkey for convenience) It may do no better than what youre doing
already. But if this is the problem, try adjusting the printer driver.
HTH
Per
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
On Sat, 3 Feb 2001 at 17:23:34, Peter Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (Ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) >Bill wrote: > >>Presently I run a Q40 and a PC sharing a Sony monitor and epson printer >>, no switchboxs required, the monitor has two inputs and its own switch >>for selection, the printer runs on USB from the PC and Parallel from the >>Q40 > >Very good idea. > >>only one proviso the printer must be off when you switch on the Q40 >>else the Q40 will not boot properly ( why?) What exactly goes wrong? Do you get initial screen blanking, and then nothing (I wish TT did a splash screen!). Describe exactly, because, like the QL, the various faults have very recognisable sequences. A really nice effect is when absolutely nothing happens. The Q40 screen memory stays there for a time, even when power is off. I was very mislead sometimes when testing Q40 boards. I got a running Q40, which locked up. I powered down, and on immediate power up, I got an immediate #1.#2, #0 screen but with the odd corruption - of course all I was seeing was the last video ram content. > >I don't know the IO card Qbranch delivers with the Q40. I remember there >were printer IRQ problems with the card and SMSQ/E. So maybe you should >check if the PAR IRQ jumper is removed. If not, remove it. Cannot be that, as the Q40 would _never_boot. The IRQ problem was card related, not printer. The problem (please correct me Peter (8-)# ) was that the IRQ from the card was pulsed, but Q40 required a longer (continuous?) IRQ. The relevant IRQ was 7. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:257/67) +44(0)1442-828255 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.firshman.demon.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
On Sat, 3 Feb 2001 at 18:00:43, Bill Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (Ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) >Well now, I recall when I installed the i/o card there was a problem ( >turned out to be not connecting to motherboard) and I checked all the >jumpers, are there not about forty of them? Yes- that is a typical problem. Try mounting the Q40 board a bit higher - ie bigger support 'nuts' (I wonder what the right word is) We also found that filing the edges of the board where they fit in the ISA slot helped make them insert more easily. Not the long edge, but the short edge and the location cutout. This is not as dangerous as it sounds, as there is no copper anywhere near. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:257/67) +44(0)1442-828255 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.firshman.demon.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Peter Graf wrote:
>
> Wolfgang wrote:
>
>
> >> I think it is native hardware that keeps a system alive. A system that
> >> mostly depends on emulation is dead.
> >>
> >No.
Maybe the Ql is not dead enough (:-{
There is a movement about called Retro, people are looking for something
that is missing from todays products, it's called character, witness the
sales of classic motor cars and motorcycles,
I have experience of the latter, people stop and talk to you because
they recognise the Bike, they new someone who had one or they had one
themselves, they remember the charm and admire the lost art of style
that has warmth instead of aggressiveness.
Using a QL types system has that same user hands on ability as my old
bike, I have spent the last few weeks repairing the engine, this I can
do myself without a degree in engineering because it is quite easy to
understand the technology with only a little more than common sense,
also and very importantly there is a friendly band oh enthusiast ready
and willing to share there knowledge with you should you get stuck -
sound familiar.
Just hang in there for another seventeen years and we will be
fashionable (;-)
All the best - Bill
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Peter Graf wrote: > > Bill wrote: > > >Presently I run a Q40 and a PC sharing a Sony monitor and epson printer > >, no switchboxs required, the monitor has two inputs and its own switch > >for selection, the printer runs on USB from the PC and Parallel from the > >Q40 > > Very good idea. > > >only one proviso the printer must be off when you switch on the Q40 > >else the Q40 will not boot properly ( why?) > > I don't know the IO card Qbranch delivers with the Q40. I remember there > were printer IRQ problems with the card and SMSQ/E. So maybe you should > check if the PAR IRQ jumper is removed. If not, remove it. Well now, I recall when I installed the i/o card there was a problem ( turned out to be not connecting to motherboard) and I checked all the jumpers, are there not about forty of them? but sometime when I feel a bit sadistic I'll check the par irq one. > > Another test would be to boot QDOS instead of SMSQ. IIRC it crashes before it gets to loading the os > > All the best > > Peter Thanks though, I'll look into it a bit further ( god knows when though) all the best - Bill
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Wolfgang wrote: >QPC presumes (and rightly so) that you have a running >and functioning Windows machine. Exactly. That is IMHO one of the reasons why a Windows PC is not a QL system. On a QL/Q40 I don't have to fight with Windows problems to keep my QL/Q40 from crashing. >I don't know about other, all I can say is that I don't. I use the PC >for things I can't do on the QL. For anything I can use the QL, I do. That's very good. But I don't think you are representative for all the former QL users who migrated to Windows. They may only use the emulator as a toy or no longer at all. You won't find most of them on this list, because they lost every interest in the QL. >> I think it is native hardware that keeps a system alive. A system that >> mostly depends on emulation is dead. >> >No.
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Marcel wrote: >> Why can't you accept the fact, that QPC is just a software emulator, >> emulating one single OS? > >Sure, it is. It's designed for that. But the only direct link between >QPC and SMSQ/E is the way the configuration works, because it is read >out of the SMSQ/E file. Still QPC and SMSQ are integrated in a way that nobody can access the interfaces. So in effect there is no interface. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to criticise your work here. Maybe commercial aspects have influenced the decision to integrate QPC with SMSQ. >> I think because the Q40 format has 64 greyscales, which allows >> photorealistic greyscale pictures. The PC format has only 32 greyscales or >> you get color errors. > >Well, but the incompatibilities are not worth it. No. But the Q40 was the first platform for the color drivers, so it can not be blamed for the incompatibility. Why do you only accept standards if they come from the PC instead from the QL scene? It is much easier to change a software implementation than a video hardware. I am sure QPC and QXL could have been implemented the Q40 way. Somebody decided not to do so, and that person has caused the incompatibility. Not the Q40. Nevertheless if I had known at design time that the emulators will get a different format, I would have added the other modes to the Q40. >> Hehe. You have the SMSQ/E sources. You could switch off SLAVEing ;-) > >Would really like to do that. But unfortunately for that my knowledge >of the internal functions is far too limited. And debugging SMSQ/E is >really no fun with the given tools. For Tony Tebby it must be easy. SLAVEing really sucks. For example before one boots Q40 Linux he shouldn't forget to waste 90% of his memory or he can have a good drink from the coffee cup until the kernel is loaded. Not even talking about playing music/video. Peter
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Wolfgang wrote: >> The size of problems depends not only on development itself. >> >> After I developed a program, I need a stack of disks or some Webspace. >> But what after I developed a mainboard? >> >> See the difference? Dealing with the production+service issue might have >> cost me more of my money and time than the whole development. >> >Now we're talikng about cost, not complexity. No. Dealing with production and all the related issues is complex and consumes your time and your thoughts, not only money. >I understood 'problem' as being the degree of difiiculty in >implementing yout ideas. What I tried to show you was, that a hardware design is not really implemented after it's implemented. You have to bring it into production or the design is useless. *That* is the difference in complexity between hardware and software. Peter
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Bill wrote: >Presently I run a Q40 and a PC sharing a Sony monitor and epson printer >, no switchboxs required, the monitor has two inputs and its own switch >for selection, the printer runs on USB from the PC and Parallel from the >Q40 Very good idea. >only one proviso the printer must be off when you switch on the Q40 >else the Q40 will not boot properly ( why?) I don't know the IO card Qbranch delivers with the Q40. I remember there were printer IRQ problems with the card and SMSQ/E. So maybe you should check if the PAR IRQ jumper is removed. If not, remove it. Another test would be to boot QDOS instead of SMSQ. All the best Peter
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Peter Graf wrote: > I wasn't talking about what QPC *could* do if it was *changed*. No, QPC can stay the same for this task. > Why can't you accept the fact, that QPC is just a software emulator, > emulating one single OS? Sure, it is. It's designed for that. But the only direct link between QPC and SMSQ/E is the way the configuration works, because it is read out of the SMSQ/E file. But then one can incorporate the same config block in an other OS and it'd be fine again. > I think because the Q40 format has 64 greyscales, which allows > photorealistic greyscale pictures. The PC format has only 32 greyscales or > you get color errors. Well, but the incompatibilities are not worth it. > If I had the time and money for a new design I would probably add the PC > mode as well. Perhaps I'll add a Q40 mode. Let's see. >>But I have seriously considered some developments which would be very >>useful for the Q40 as well. However, it's too early to talk about that. > Hehe. You have the SMSQ/E sources. You could switch off SLAVEing ;-) Would really like to do that. But unfortunately for that my knowledge of the internal functions is far too limited. And debugging SMSQ/E is really no fun with the given tools. >>My knowledge actually isn't /that/ good. I've just the advantage to be >>able to just look things up I don't know. > Aren't you the number two in the world's SMSQ/E knowledge? :-) Perhaps, but that shouldn't really be difficult, I'm afraid... Marcel
RE: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
On 2 Feb 2001, at 9:37, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: > On 2 Feb 2001, at 8:21, Norman Dunbar wrote: > > > > > It could also have been a contradiction in terms, especially if I said > > 'working PC' !! > Well yes, but nobody would have believed it, anyway > > Wolfgang >
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
On 3 Feb 2001, at 2:05, Peter Graf wrote: > > No, I don't think that graphic driver problems are rare. But graphics drivers with QPC are - and that's what was being discussed. QPC presumes (and rightly so) that you have a running and functioning Windows machine. > IIRC QPC has not. For example try an old program that directly accesses the > QL screen. Anyway I was talking Q40 and QL versus other 68K hardware here, > not about QPC. IIRC (I havent' tried this for a long time), if you configured QPC for a QL compatible screen (eg 512*256) that used to work! > > Yes, but there was also another effect. My impression is that QPC supported > the transition of QL users to Windows. Once they were on Windows, most made > Windows their major platform. Just like you. I don't know about other, all I can say is that I don't. I use the PC for things I can't do on the QL. For anything I can use the QL, I do. > I think it is native hardware that keeps a system alive. A system that > mostly depends on emulation is dead. > No. > QPC is already a good emulator. You could leave it as is and write QL stuff > in the time you save :-))) With your excellent SMSQ/E knowledge, that would > IMHO give the whole QL community enormous progress. On the other hand, he didQPC2 beacause users bugged him about it, so he probably couldn't have left it! Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
On 3 Feb 2001, at 2:06, Peter Graf wrote:
>
> There are, and I know several. For obvious reasons they are on this list.
NOT on the list, you mean.
> But who says that you must give up your PC if you want the speed of a Q40
> or Q60. There are keyboard/mouse/screen switch boxes to help switching
> between a real QL and a real PC. Many people have more than one computer.
I don't remember anyone saying that.
Anyway, at least this QPC / Q40 debate made this list again
resemble Frankestein's monster.
Wolfgang
("It's alive, it's alive!")
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
On 3 Feb 2001, at 2:08, Peter Graf wrote: > The size of problems depends not only on development itself. > > After I developed a program, I need a stack of disks or some Webspace. > But what after I developed a mainboard? > > See the difference? Dealing with the production+service issue might have > cost me more of my money and time than the whole development. > Now we're talikng about cost, not complexity. I understood 'problem' as being the degree of difiiculty in implementing yout ideas. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Phoebus Dokos wrote: snip only one proviso the printer must be off when you switch on the Q40 > >else the Q40 will not boot properly ( why?) > >This is not a problem I just bring power to the Q40 and from Q40 to PC > >so Q40 has to be fired up first or nothing works. > > Most probably a power related issue. (Happens with very cheap PC cases). > Make sure both (Q40 and Printed) are grounded and your problem will go away > (usually) :-) > > Phoebus Thanks - I'll try it All the best - Bill
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
At 10:11 ðì 3/2/2001, you wrote: >Peter Graf wrote: > > > But who says that you must give up your PC if you want the speed of a Q40 > > or Q60. There are keyboard/mouse/screen switch boxes to help switching > > between a real QL and a real PC. Many people have more than one computer. > > > > Peter > >Presently I run a Q40 and a PC sharing a Sony monitor and epson printer >, no switchboxs required, the monitor has two inputs and its own switch >for selection, the printer runs on USB from the PC and Parallel from the >Q40, only one proviso the printer must be off when you switch on the Q40 >else the Q40 will not boot properly ( why?) >This is not a problem I just bring power to the Q40 and from Q40 to PC >so Q40 has to be fired up first or nothing works. Most probably a power related issue. (Happens with very cheap PC cases). Make sure both (Q40 and Printed) are grounded and your problem will go away (usually) :-) Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Peter has said - >Look at it this way: If a Windows PC is a QL, then a Sun workstation is an Amiga, an AIX server is a gameboy, and a Macistosh is a Windows PC. Software is Hardware, emulation is native, and everything is everything.> I've contributed absolutely nowt to this fascinating thread - but boyz o boyz am I enjoying it! And I'll bet my Gold Card that I'm not the only one who is. Informative, or what?! And no blood spilt! :>) Keep it coming please. Thanks to all. John in Wales
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Phoebus said - >Nuff said (as my American Friends say)> When I worked for Castrol (Ellesmere Port, UK) there was at the end of one expansive production floor a giant space-heater. Her name was "Fairy Nuff". I know this because it was chalked on her, in large letters, just above her ample and robust waist-line. In the winter, everyone cuddled up to her to share her seductive favours at one time or another. By the time I left her (in 1964 to go to Ethiopia, where she was not needed) she had gotten(!) very liberal indeed with them. And now I learn that she has even been on the International Scene. Naughty girl! But Phoebus; tell us, what was it that "Nuff said.." ? I'd love to hear from her again. John in Wales
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Peter Graf wrote: > But who says that you must give up your PC if you want the speed of a Q40 > or Q60. There are keyboard/mouse/screen switch boxes to help switching > between a real QL and a real PC. Many people have more than one computer. > > Peter Presently I run a Q40 and a PC sharing a Sony monitor and epson printer , no switchboxs required, the monitor has two inputs and its own switch for selection, the printer runs on USB from the PC and Parallel from the Q40, only one proviso the printer must be off when you switch on the Q40 else the Q40 will not boot properly ( why?) This is not a problem I just bring power to the Q40 and from Q40 to PC so Q40 has to be fired up first or nothing works. This is well off topic, but I have been following this thread and think it needs a diversion (;-) All the best - Bill
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Marcel wrote: >> QPC can't do that. For examle it can not run QDOS. > >QDOS had to be adapted to run on the Q40, the same as SMSQ/E was. I >could adapt QDOS classic to run on QPC. I wasn't talking about what QPC *could* do if it was *changed*. You called QPC a platform all by itself, and I think it is not. Because IIRC the only thing that can be run are <=68008 coded SMSQ/E applications. Why can't you accept the fact, that QPC is just a software emulator, emulating one single OS? It's not bad! Many people like emulation! >> BTW it was a decision of Tony Tebby. I offered a change to PC color >> definitions but he wanted me to leave it the Q40 way. > >Oh, really? Why the h*** did he do that? BAD dedicion. I think because the Q40 format has 64 greyscales, which allows photorealistic greyscale pictures. The PC format has only 32 greyscales or you get color errors. If I had the time and money for a new design I would probably add the PC mode as well. >> QPC is already a good emulator. You could leave it as is and write QL stuff >> in the time you save :-))) > >I think I'll stick with QPC ;-) I expected that ;-) >But I have seriously considered some developments which would be very >useful for the Q40 as well. However, it's too early to talk about that. Hehe. You have the SMSQ/E sources. You could switch off SLAVEing ;-) >> With your excellent SMSQ/E knowledge, that would IMHO give the whole >> QL community enormous progress. > >My knowledge actually isn't /that/ good. I've just the advantage to be >able to just look things up I don't know. Aren't you the number two in the world's SMSQ/E knowledge? :-) Peter
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Peter Graf wrote: > QPC can't do that. For examle it can not run QDOS. QDOS had to be adapted to run on the Q40, the same as SMSQ/E was. I could adapt QDOS classic to run on QPC. Instead of writing to some hardware ports for opening a serial port, one does a "dc.w qpc.sopen". Not a big difference. > - Floating Point Instructions > - Memory Management Unit > - At least 68020 support. IIRC QPC is restricted to 68000 code OK, you have some points here. > - Real SMSQ/E partitions on harddisk I don't know why anybody should want this, but it's quite impossible under Windows anyway. > BTW it was a decision of Tony Tebby. I offered a change to PC color > definitions but he wanted me to leave it the Q40 way. Oh, really? Why the h*** did he do that? BAD dedicion. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Peter Graf wrote: >>QPC does have all that, too. Isn't that amazing? > IIRC QPC has not. For example try an old program that directly accesses the > QL screen. Does work if you actually are in 512x256 mode. > Yes, but there was also another effect. My impression is that QPC supported > the transition of QL users to Windows. Once they were on Windows, most made > Windows their major platform. Just like you. No, like many people I did head for the PC platform anyway. QPC was my attempt to bring the QL back, not the other way round. I did it just for myself, originally (and because some really good people I admire told me "that's far too difficult, you can't do this"). I wasn't expecting the feedback I got, I had to deny sales requests almost with my fists when I presented a very early version for the first time. It ran an unmodified Minerva, BTW. > QPC is already a good emulator. You could leave it as is and write QL stuff > in the time you save :-))) I think I'll stick with QPC ;-) It's fun. But I have seriously considered some developments which would be very useful for the Q40 as well. However, it's too early to talk about that. > With your excellent SMSQ/E knowledge, that would IMHO give the whole > QL community enormous progress. My knowledge actually isn't /that/ good. I've just the advantage to be able to just look things up I don't know. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
At 03:13 ìì 2/2/2001, you wrote: >Don't denigrate people who don't buy new software and hardware. We can still >learn from them, if only to discover why they don't. With a bit of luck we >may learn what to produce to start them buying again. Last year a black >box/gold card QDOS user upgraded to the pointer environment so that he could >use QL-2-PC Transfer. It was the first QL product he had bought in years, >but he needed it so that he could send a book he had written to the >publishers. > >I also know there are people who live on low incomes and use the QL because >it gives them a cheap way of computing. A subscription to QL Today, for >example, would be half of the income an unemployed or sick person is allowed >per week in state benefits in the UK after deduction of accommodation costs. >This is one of the reasons that I have made some Just Words! programs >freeware. Mind you it is not totally altruistic. It is also effective >advertising. Oh don't get me wrong. I blame nobody and I regard noone as "inferior" per se. Especially people with financial problems. They do have just as much right in computing as anybody. However my point is that they are not the force that drives evolution. They are not buying and of course traders do not sell to them.It is new users and users that "pour" money in that will drive a platform not users that have no financial contribution in a perfectly normal financial function such as trade. Marcel doesn't make QPC for people that won't buy it and of course he doesn't get feedback from them since they don't have it :-) (sic!) The problem IMHO is that in the name of a compatibility issue which actually ceased to exist the moment TT released SMSQ we look back and not ahead. The more we look back... the more the train will be away from the station. And we'll never board it. Nuff said (as my American Friends say) Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Marcel 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. > >Firstly, this is a very rare problem. No, I don't think that graphic driver problems are rare. And graphic drivers are only *one* example of what trouble Windows can cause. It is not the fault of QPC II!!! But QPC II depends on M$ sh.., so sh.. happens. BTW I was talking of my own PC. QPC II demo often crashes immediately after its starting screen or after the first disk access. I spent enough time downloading other graphic drivers and so on. I won't spend even one more minute on that issue. >> Obviously not. Among other things the Q40 has similar memory layout, >> directly hardware compatible screen layout with the original QL modes, >> similar interrupt handling. > >QPC does have all that, too. Isn't that amazing? IIRC QPC has not. For example try an old program that directly accesses the QL screen. Anyway I was talking Q40 and QL versus other 68K hardware here, not about QPC. >> And, what is very important: Like the QL it has a easy to program >> hardware and you have full control over it. > >IMO this is the job of the operating system, but OK, if somebody wants >that this is fine. It is not only fine. It is almost necessary in the QL scene. We would probably still have no color drivers and no sound for the QL community if the Q40 had a hardware like a PC. >> It is fine by me that Marcel improves QPC. It is fun for him, so why should >> he do anything else. But I think he would not call his work QL software. > >Yes. But it results in QL software. ;-) I know several QL developers >who would have abandoned the QL scene completely if QPC wasn't >available. Yes, but there was also another effect. My impression is that QPC supported the transition of QL users to Windows. Once they were on Windows, most made Windows their major platform. Just like you. I think it is native hardware that keeps a system alive. A system that mostly depends on emulation is dead. >I'd like to write QL software. That would be great!!! >But as I said, time and development tools are the problem. QPC is already a good emulator. You could leave it as is and write QL stuff in the time you save :-))) With your excellent SMSQ/E knowledge, that would IMHO give the whole QL community enormous progress. Peter
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Wolfgang wrote: >Well, I'd say that a hardware developper has hardware problems, >and a software developper has software problems... I don't think >that developping either QPC or the Q40 was a mean feat! The size of problems depends not only on development itself. After I developed a program, I need a stack of disks or some Webspace. But what after I developed a mainboard? See the difference? Dealing with the production+service issue might have cost me more of my money and time than the whole development. Peter
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Marcel wrote: >> For me a Windows PC is never a QL system!!! > >Point of view. I see it this way: if it smells like tea, tastes like >tea and looks like tea, it probably is tea. Hm. If it smells like Bill Gate's feet, tastes a little like Pentium silicon and sometimes looks like coffee, I have my doubts that it is tea. (just joking) Look at it this way: If a Windows PC is a QL, then a Sun workstation is an Amiga, an AIX server is a gameboy, and a Macistosh is a Windows PC. Software is Hardware, emulation is native, and everything is everything. For me a QL is also defined by hardware and system level aspects, and not only by the capability to software-emulate SMSQ. >> BTW Linux on a PC has the disadvantage that it can't execute native 68k >> code! There are some very interesting applications like MAC emulation which >> can greatly benefit from a real 68040/68060 CPU under Linux. > >Well, Macs today are PowerPC systems. Doesn't matter. Enough Mac software today comes as a fat binary, hence contains native 68k code as well. >No, figures don't matter. The point I'm getting to is: it depends on >what you're doing. Regardless of the figures. Of course figures do matter. Speed can decide what you are doing. You said a PC runs Linux with about 100 times the speed of a Q40. If that was realistic, it would mean the Q40 isn't useful for up-to-date Linux applications. I could as well say a Q60 runs SMSQ/E with 100 times the speed of a PC. >b) If I say "QL development tools have somewhat the evolutionary >status of the stone age" I'm not really exaggerating. A source level >debugger is the least I expect nowadays. You are right. But the sad thing is: The less QL software development is done, the smaller is the chance of better tools. BTW GDB would be a thing I could imagine for QDOS/SMSQ. Peter
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Marcel wrote: >Of course not. QPC is a platform all by itself. It does not need to >imitate anything. IMHO QPC is a good software emulator, but not a platform by itself. If it was a platform, you could run an operating system on it! QPC can't do that. For examle it can not run QDOS. Or any other OS. QPC "only" imitates SMSQ on application level, restricted to plain 68000 code. >> My belief is that QPC should completely incorporate all the features >> of a Q40 > >Which are? Limiting the available screen resolutions? Limiting SER to >4 ports again? The sound is the only difference I see. Something I >might take care of someday. Sound is indeed a nice feature of the Q40. If you ask for other interesting Q40 features QPC could incorporate, here are some: - Floating Point Instructions - Memory Management Unit - At least 68020 support. IIRC QPC is restricted to 68000 code - Real SMSQ/E partitions on harddisk All of this would be more important than the >4 SER ports you pointed out. BTW Q40 hardware isn't even limited to 4 ser ports. >> And what about hi-colour modes. Why shouldn't they be compatible >> across SMSQ/E systems that share similar capabilities? > >QPC is compatible to the QXL, both use a standard 16 bit layout. I >haven't seen the Q40 layout anywhere else. QLs have always been different from PCs ;-) BTW it was a decision of Tony Tebby. I offered a change to PC color definitions but he wanted me to leave it the Q40 way. Peter
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Wolfgang wrote: >> 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 Of course. I just wanted to show that even under Linux it can be an advantage to have a 68060, if it fits your application. Of course if you want PC software, a PC hardware is your number 1 choice. >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!) There are, and I know several. For obvious reasons they are on this list. But who says that you must give up your PC if you want the speed of a Q40 or Q60. There are keyboard/mouse/screen switch boxes to help switching between a real QL and a real PC. Many people have more than one computer. Peter
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
- Original Message - From: Phoebus Dokos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again "Hehe, the reason was your really useful work software. (It is not useful to me as my needs do not include english (and thesaurus or spell checking algorithms are generally unusable for a language as mine ;-) - That's why I haven't bought anything from you -Although I do feel kind of bad about it :-)" Why should you feel bad about it? Most other QL users haven't bought it either so you are in good company! Seriously there is no obligation on QL-users to buy everything that comes on the market. Just Words! is specialist software and has a smaller market than other products. It still is viable, which is one of the strengths of the QL. (Although last year I made a loss mainly through heavier than usual advertising and show costs and disappointing overseas QL-2-PC Transfer sales, but I am working on that problem.) >The point I wanted to make is that we are a "Broad Church" in the QL >Community. That is, we embrace a wide range of people and opinions. To >survive we have to have a high degree of tolerance. We need both QPC and the >Q40 as well as those people who buy neither new hardware or software. "Indeed we are a Broad Church (and thank you for bringing back the old meaning of Church) nevertheless, IMHO people that do not need new software or hardware do not contribute at all in the evolution of our platform." Don't denigrate people who don't buy new software and hardware. We can still learn from them, if only to discover why they don't. With a bit of luck we may learn what to produce to start them buying again. Last year a black box/gold card QDOS user upgraded to the pointer environment so that he could use QL-2-PC Transfer. It was the first QL product he had bought in years, but he needed it so that he could send a book he had written to the publishers. I also know there are people who live on low incomes and use the QL because it gives them a cheap way of computing. A subscription to QL Today, for example, would be half of the income an unemployed or sick person is allowed per week in state benefits in the UK after deduction of accommodation costs. This is one of the reasons that I have made some Just Words! programs freeware. Mind you it is not totally altruistic. It is also effective advertising. Geoff Wicks. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.tripod.co.uk/geoffwicks/justwords.htm
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Norman Dunbar wrote: >>> I then got a huge black hole on the screen for my troubles, which >swallowed >>> my mouse any time it ventured near it. More or less same phenomenon >whether >>> QL- or full-colour modes used. > >AHA - I get this when my screen saver has been running and I then kick it >out ! Try this with something like Cuedark running on QPC2 and a Windows screen saver both set to the same time delay. Ouch. My personal fun and games with QPC2v2final has been printing, which would stop some way into the output. I did connect it originally with some DOS notes software I used, so I chucked that out and all seemed to work. Sadly I was wrong, printing will still stop after say after half a page of graphics or a couple of pages of text. The interesting thing is: if I go to SBASIC and just enter the command OPEN#3,PAR it's enough to make printing resume and finish! I am completely unable to predict when the problem will occur, all I know is how to fix it. My system, in case Marcel reads this, is a Cyrix MII 333 with any old parallel port, Rage IIC 4MB graphics card - and windowing/full screen switching seems to work OK with CTRL SHIFT F12. Marcel's probably already used to me breaking things so finding it works on my system may be hard for him to believe ;-) -- Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
- Original Message - From: Wolfgang Lenerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again > On 1 Feb 2001, at 20:06, Geoff Wicks wrote: > > > > The point I wanted to make is that we are a "Broad Church" in the QL > > Community. That is, we embrace a wide range of people and opinions. To > > survive we have to have a high degree of tolerance. We need both QPC and the > > Q40 as well as those people who buy neither new hardware or software. > > > Sutre, but that doesn't stop us from arhuing (hotly) about the rights > and wrongs... > Of course, I am all for constructive controversy, and often stir it up myself. However I sometimes feel the QPC2 v Q40 debate gets a bit near the boundaries. Reminds me a bit of Perfection v Text87, and what did that achieve? > > Perhaps a better example than Just Words! software would be the future > > internet capabilities of the QL. Is there much sense in running QL internet > > software on a PC emulator? (Hope this sets off a fierce discussion!). > > > No, because there is one good reason why this might make sense: > security. There seem to be so many security loopholes in MS > exploder and NS Circumnavigator, that usiong an unknown browser > might actally be a good idea! > Good point! > Finally, another important point. In one sense Marcel has it easier than > > Peter. The infrastructure for software is already there in the form of the > > QL and PC. A hardware developer often has to produce his own infrastructure, > > no easy task with instability in component prices, the need to find a > > manufacturer and difficulties in international currency transactions. Small > > wonder the Q40 has had logistical and financial problems beyond Peter's > > control. > > Well, I'd say that a hardware developper has hardware problems, > and a software developper has software problems... I don't think > that developping either QPC or the Q40 was a mean feat! I was not intending to belittle Marcel's achievement. After all, I am an enthusiastic QPC user. I still think there are logistic differences between software and hardware development. The software developer has few costs other than his own time and can concentrate on developing the software. The hardware developer has huge capital problems and costs that are continually changing while he is developing his product. We know this not only from the Q40 problems, but also from the Coldfire history. Geoff Wicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.tripod.co.uk/geoffwicks/justwords.htm
RE: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Personaly I think QPC2 and Q40 are both importants. But considering the lack of production, QPC2 is nowaday the only way to upgrade your QL (and have access to GD2). And it is a good product that gives us the opportunity to have SMS evrywhere with only a HD disk (and a CD if you need applications). Claude PS : Wolfgang, votre messagerie semble avoir des problèmes des lettres sont mises à la places des autres
RE: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
And indeed you do - trust me ! Norman. Norman Dunbar EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Database/Unix administrator Phone: 0113 289 6265 Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. Fax:0113 201 7265 URL:http://www.LynxFinancialSystems.com -Original Message- From: Marcel Kilgus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 12:36 PM To: ql-users Subject: Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again Let's say it this way: the original plan was to release QPC1 v1.00 and then go on to some other things ;-) The support of the community was always excellent and I do my best to keep you people happy :-) Marcel
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
P Witte wrote: > QPC2: > CreatSurface(GetDesktopMode) failed > Error code: (and this I found particularly rude:) 887600e1. Well, unfortunately there is no function which translates error codes into readable text. And there are hundreds of them. 887600e1 is a DirectDraw error, meaning "Operation requires the application to have exclusive mode but the application does not have exclusive mode." The strange thing on this is, that I do not need exclusive mode for this call. It's against the specifications. I even think it would be wrong to acquire exclusive mode. I'll think of a solution. > I started QPC up in QL-colour mode. The program that always obliterates QPC > in full-colour mode worked fine! but JMON 0 didnt get much further: instead > of nuking QPC, as it does in full-colour mode, it merely snuffs it real > quiet, like. W2K you said. I'll test it on one of these. Can only be the illegal address handler. But I can't think of a reason why it should act like that. > It may well be that my PC is screwed; Unfortunately this is more often the case than one might think. > I can live without almost anything but JMON * What do you need to > know, exactly? I'll tell you as soon as I had a look at this stuff. May take some days, though. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: > I'm not so sure. If the users show enthusiasm, the software > developers may do more. I think that Marcel wouldn't have done > QPC2 if he hadn't had much feedback from all concerned. Let's say it this way: the original plan was to release QPC1 v1.00 and then go on to some other things ;-) The support of the community was always excellent and I do my best to keep you people happy :-) Marcel
RE: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
-Original Message- From: P Witte [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 10:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again >> I then got a huge black hole on the screen for my troubles, which swallowed >> my mouse any time it ventured near it. More or less same phenomenon whether >> QL- or full-colour modes used. AHA - I get this when my screen saver has been running and I then kick it out ! Norman. Norman Dunbar EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Database/Unix administrator Phone: 0113 289 6265 Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. Fax:0113 201 7265 URL:http://www.LynxFinancialSystems.com
RE: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
-Original Message- From: Marcel Kilgus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 9:45 PM To: ql-users Subject: Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again >> Normally you don't notice the difference. When the priority is >> set to "lowest", the emulation thread basically only gets processor >> time if all other threads don't need some. It does show up as a sluggish redraw of any windows apps when I switch back from QPC 2. With Task manager running (takes 2% of the CPU) to monitor the situation, QPC always has 98% regardless of what else I have running - so it *looks* like QPC has 98% of the CPU and everything else gets the rest to share out. Now I am most likely wrong here so be gentle with me ! It also makes switching from screen saver mode back to 'work' mode an arduoys task as follows : move mouse or press a key to deactivate SS wait 15 to 20 seconds for something to happen eventually, NT re-appears but not QPC has turned black and no longer responds. (This is not a major worry because most of the time I only use QPC as a single task so I can live with it - but it happens). If as you say, QPC uses 'system idle time' then it seems to want to hang on to that time and not give it up - this must be a windows thing ! >> What could be the reason is the blitting of the screen in windowed mode. This can use up the power >> of older graphics cards in a way that there's not so much left for >> other blitting operations. But that's just a guess. I presume 6 months is old then :o( Mine is a new PC about 6 months ago. It has a Matrox Milennium AGP card with 8Mb of RAM etc. >> I suspect "idle" doesn't change anything then, either? Fraid not. Regardless of the forgroung/background settings, QPC takes 98% whether it is in the background or not :o( Norman. PS. I'm not being negative, honest, I think QPC 2 is excellent and I wouldn't be without it. Norman Dunbar EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Database/Unix administrator Phone: 0113 289 6265 Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. Fax:0113 201 7265 URL:http://www.LynxFinancialSystems.com
RE: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
On 2 Feb 2001, at 8:21, Norman Dunbar wrote: > > It could also have been a contradiction in terms, especially if I said > 'working PC' !! Well yes, but nobody would have believed it, anyway Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
On 1 Feb 2001, at 5:41, Phoebus Dokos wrote: > Indeed we are a Broad Church (and thank you for bringing back the old > meaning of Church) nevertheless, IMHO people that do not need new software > or hardware do not contribute at all in the evolution of our platform. > Change is a product of involvement and when you just don't care nothing > exciting happens (Ok maybe something happens... look at the recent US > elections ;-) hehe ) Hopefully you're not suggesting we should use that as an example...:-) I agree that tjose who never nuy any new programs etc are not helping the QL evolve Some are just content with what they have. > The problem IMHO is that in the case of program development, no interest > means no support. > And no support of one program for a more sofisticated machine like the > Q40/60 means less ppl that are interested in that program will be likely to > buy this platform. It's a vicious circle unfortunately, and IMHO (again) it > can be broken only at the developer level. > I'm not so sure. If the users show enthusiasm, the software developers may do more. I think that Marcel wouldn't have done QPC2 if he hadn't had much feedback from all concerned. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
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
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
On 1 Feb 2001, at 20:06, Geoff Wicks wrote: > The point I wanted to make is that we are a "Broad Church" in the QL > Community. That is, we embrace a wide range of people and opinions. To > survive we have to have a high degree of tolerance. We need both QPC and the > Q40 as well as those people who buy neither new hardware or software. Sutre, but that doesn't stop us from arhuing (hotly) about the rights and wrongs... > Personally I have no interest in the Q40, but I recognise Peter's > achievement. As I write in the next QL Today, many people feel the Q40 has > helped to arrest the decline in the QL. Actually, I agree. > Perhaps a better example than Just Words! software would be the future > internet capabilities of the QL. Is there much sense in running QL internet > software on a PC emulator? (Hope this sets off a fierce discussion!). No, because there is one good reason why this might make sense: security. There seem to be so many security loopholes in MS exploder and NS Circumnavigator, that usiong an unknown browser might actally be a good idea! > Finally, another important point. In one sense Marcel has it easier than > Peter. The infrastructure for software is already there in the form of the > QL and PC. A hardware developer often has to produce his own infrastructure, > no easy task with instability in component prices, the need to find a > manufacturer and difficulties in international currency transactions. Small > wonder the Q40 has had logistical and financial problems beyond Peter's > control. Well, I'd say that a hardware developper has hardware problems, and a software developper has software problems... I don't think that developping either QPC or the Q40 was a mean feat! Wolfgang
RE: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
-Original Message- From: Marcel Kilgus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 9:10 PM To: ql-users Subject: Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again >> A source level debugger is the least I expect nowadays. Oooh, yes please !!! Norman. Norman Dunbar EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Database/Unix administrator Phone: 0113 289 6265 Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. Fax:0113 201 7265 URL:http://www.LynxFinancialSystems.com
RE: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
-Original Message- From: Wolfgang Lenerz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 4:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again >> "work PC" - Isn't that an oxymoron (or a simple moron???) :o) :o) :o) It could also have been a contradiction in terms, especially if I said 'working PC' !! Norman. Norman Dunbar EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Database/Unix administrator Phone: 0113 289 6265 Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. Fax:0113 201 7265 URL:http://www.LynxFinancialSystems.com
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
At 04:52 ìì 1/2/2001, you wrote: >QPC does have all that, too. Isn't that amazing? > Well I don't really know what you meant here Marcel but if you think any of us is "attacking" or "blaming" your work, well I don't think that this is the case. It is well established and I believe nobody here believes the contrary, that QPC is indeed a very well written piece of software that can and it is at times a life saver. I commented on this thread to point out the problem of not supporting QL hardware and not to blame QPC :-) How could I? It's my only means to access SMSQ these days. And I have to admit that I would still use it after I got my Q40. For different reasons though and not as my primary SMSQ systems. I really wish I had taken my Aurora with me in the States instead of trading it in for a Q40 that never came but all its done now and the only solution I had was to get QPC. For which I thank you for your efforts. Don't get me wrong though. The QL for me means hardware with custom made (by me) software not the other way round. I understand that many would disagree but heck that's my opinion ;-) And we are civilized here (well the rest of you... I don't know about myself ;-) and yeah I can take a different opinion in rebutal of my own... that's why we're still discussing (and not cussing) ... and it's productive too I think. That's all Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
re: > > .. The windowing > > facility is not one I'll use much (it also crashes on my machine > > when changing between windowed and full-screen). > > Hmm, that's not really supposed to happen. What graphics card do you > use? Latest drivers? Complete crash or just QPC? Under W2k you say? When starting up in full-screen mode, then going into window mode the machine becomes offencive, from what I can tell, along the lines of:: QPC2: CreatSurface(GetDesktopMode) failed Error code: (and this I found particularly rude:) 887600e1. Perhaps I DID click the OK rather hard by way of acknowledgement, anyway, it went for me again with: QPC2: CreateSurface(Windowed mode primary) failed Error code 887600e1. I then got a huge black hole on the screen for my troubles, which swallowed my mouse any time it ventured near it. More or less same phenomenon whether QL- or full-colour modes used. > > It also crashes more easily, like "JMON 0" crashes straight out back > > into Windoze. > > Couldn't say so. Works just fine. I started QPC up in QL-colour mode. The program that always obliterates QPC in full-colour mode worked fine! but JMON 0 didnt get much further: instead of nuking QPC, as it does in full-colour mode, it merely snuffs it real quiet, like. It may well be that my PC is screwed; I built it myself. I draged it kicking and screaming into the 21st century, or so I thought, when I installed W2k. It crashed every step of the way ! The full horrors of that tale will never be told (cause then we might risk having to hear everyone elses sordid little war-stories, so I mention it but in passing reference.. ;) At present its all hanging together very sweetly, though I sometimes feel my balls on the razor and it might be a real joy to get off and have a big crash again! But on the other hand I think perhaps better not -`!?' So if youre reading this Marcel, please save my bacon! I can live without almost anything but JMON * What do you need to know, exactly? <> > > All in all, QPC2v2 + SMSQ/E really rock! (Might be worth buying a PC just to > > run a copy ;) TIA Per
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
At 03:06 ìì 1/2/2001, you wrote: >- Original Message - >From: Phoebus Dokos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again > >Hehe I kind of anticipated this email Geoff (although I don't know you >personally I do admire your work). >It wasn't directed to you directly but yours was the first name to come in >my mind. > >No offence taken. I realised you were making a generalisation, and >flattering to know I was the first name to come into mind! Hehe, the reason was your really useful work software. (It is not useful to me as my needs do not include english (and thesaurus or spell checking algorithms are generally unusable for a language as mine ;-) - That's why I haven't bought anything from you -Although I do feel kind of bad about it :-) >The point I wanted to make is that we are a "Broad Church" in the QL >Community. That is, we embrace a wide range of people and opinions. To >survive we have to have a high degree of tolerance. We need both QPC and the >Q40 as well as those people who buy neither new hardware or software. Indeed we are a Broad Church (and thank you for bringing back the old meaning of Church) nevertheless, IMHO people that do not need new software or hardware do not contribute at all in the evolution of our platform. Change is a product of involvement and when you just don't care nothing exciting happens (Ok maybe something happens... look at the recent US elections ;-) hehe ) >Personally I have no interest in the Q40, but I recognise Peter's >achievement. As I write in the next QL Today, many people feel the Q40 has >helped to arrest the decline in the QL. The problem IMHO is that in the case of program development, no interest means no support. And no support of one program for a more sofisticated machine like the Q40/60 means less ppl that are interested in that program will be likely to buy this platform. It's a vicious circle unfortunately, and IMHO (again) it can be broken only at the developer level. >Perhaps a better example than Just Words! software would be the future >internet capabilities of the QL. Is there much sense in running QL internet >software on a PC emulator? (Hope this sets off a fierce discussion!). Pretty much none except for the sharing of files (email archives etc) >Finally, another important point. In one sense Marcel has it easier than >Peter. The infrastructure for software is already there in the form of the >QL and PC. A hardware developer often has to produce his own infrastructure, >no easy task with instability in component prices, the need to find a >manufacturer and difficulties in international currency transactions. Small >wonder the Q40 has had logistical and financial problems beyond Peter's >control. Well for that I have to disagree in part. Marcel does have programming tools that are not available in the QL world, but I'll have to admit, programming a system as complex as QPC can be as difficult as a hardware design. However where financial aspects come into play, not knowing of course what the costs of Marcel are (please excuse me for any false assumptions Marcel) I would agree with you. At least (as far as I know) Marcel gets compensated (at least in part because you can't really put a price on creative work) although we enter a huge discussion here and I wouldn't want to make false assumptions (again repeating my self). Nevertheless if you take out the hour cost you end up with the plain cost of hardware which in Peter's case (as well as in Nasta's etc) I think is a cost huge enough by itself and if you add up selling machines and not getting paid for... well we have a saying in Greece "NOBODY works for the sake of his mother's soul"! Phoebus >Geoff Wicks. >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://members.tripod.co.uk/geoffwicks/justwords.htm
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Peter Graf 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. Firstly, this is a very rare problem. Sencondly, the problem only appears when switching between fullscreen and windowed mode or between SMSQ/E and windows. If you only use SMSQ/E, you're fine. > Obviously not. Among other things the Q40 has similar memory layout, > directly hardware compatible screen layout with the original QL modes, > similar interrupt handling. QPC does have all that, too. Isn't that amazing? > And, what is very important: Like the QL it has a easy to program > hardware and you have full control over it. IMO this is the job of the operating system, but OK, if somebody wants that this is fine. > It is fine by me that Marcel improves QPC. It is fun for him, so why should > he do anything else. But I think he would not call his work QL software. Yes. But it results in QL software. ;-) I know several QL developers who would have abandoned the QL scene completely if QPC wasn't available. > IIRC he freely said that he is a Windows user and has no (or not much) > interest in writing QL software. Partly true. I don't use the QL for my daily work. How could I, my daily work is accessing the internet and writing PC software. I'd like to write QL software. But as I said, time and development tools are the problem. > Fine. Please remember this discussion came up because someone talked about > buying a PC and M$ Windows only to run SMSQ/E. But that was more a joke after all. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Norman Dunbar wrote: > On my (work) NT box, an 'idle' QPC session uses 98% of the processor time - > at least that's what task mangler tells me. Yes, it just does use all processor time that's available. > This is what makes the Windows portion of my QL :o) sluggish. Really? Normally you don't notice the difference. When the priority is set to "lowest", the emulation thread basically only gets processor time if all other threads don't need some. What could be the reason is the blitting of the screen in windowed mode. This can use up the power of older graphics cards in a way that there's not so much left for other blitting operations. But that's just a guess. > PS. Settings on background/foreground priority are lowest. I tried setting > to normal, but this made things appear slower. I suspect "idle" doesn't change anything then, either? Marcel
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Phoebus Dokos wrote: > Emulators are supposed to completely "simulate" the native hardware. That's your definition. > However QPC doesn't do that with the latest QL hardware (which is > the Q40). Of course not. QPC is a platform all by itself. It does not need to imitate anything. > My belief is that QPC should completely incorporate all the features > of a Q40 Which are? Limiting the available screen resolutions? Limiting SER to 4 ports again? The sound is the only difference I see. Something I might take care of someday. Anyway QPC was on the market *long* before the appearance of the Q40. Why doesn't the Q40 simulate QPC? Just kidding. > What is the sense of say writing a game which makes use of the SSS > if QPC cannot use it? Currently. > And what about hi-colour modes. Why shouldn't they be compatible > across SMSQ/E systems that share similar capabilities? QPC is compatible to the QXL, both use a standard 16 bit layout. I haven't seen the Q40 layout anywhere else. > If more than one factors of incompatibility occur, the more difficult it > would be to have hi-end programs for SMSQ/E-QDOS. That's because the screen driver is only provides a good starting point. But from this start to the finish line it's still a loong way to go. The OS simply has to provide device independent routines, which it doesn't. When Tony announced the screen drivers some years ago I thought "How does he solve the problem of the big memory waste the QL system currently incorporates? It must be a lot of work". Well, he simply didn't. What's needed is a new pointer environment. But I doubt this will ever appear. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Peter Graf wrote: > For me a Windows PC is never a QL system!!! Point of view. I see it this way: if it smells like tea, tastes like tea and looks like tea, it probably is tea. >>The mentioned PC runs Linux with 100 times (or >>whatever) the speed. > I have a 300 MHz PC where I think factor 5 is much nearer to the truth. Probably. > And when I compare Linux and XWindows boot times and the real > look&feel when working: The difference under Linux it is even less. Mainly depends on the I/O performance, i.e. the used PC hardware. > Q40 Linux is absolutely usable, stable and quick. Not to mention the > Q60. Didn't tell otherwise. > BTW Linux on a PC has the disadvantage that it can't execute native 68k > code! There are some very interesting applications like MAC emulation which > can greatly benefit from a real 68040/68060 CPU under Linux. Well, Macs today are PowerPC systems. >>Now the comparison looks completely differently. > If you publish far too negative figures against the Q40, indeed. No, figures don't matter. The point I'm getting to is: it depends on what you're doing. Regardless of the figures. > Have you even seen Q40 Linux? No. >>This is really a major point, the climate in the scene. I do program >>PC software and I know the difference. > So why don't you write some QL software ;-) ? Well, I do sometimes play with the thought, but there are two simple reasons against it: a) I do maintain a complete QL compatible platform and the OS for this platform. This already eats up pretty much of my private spare time. b) If I say "QL development tools have somewhat the evolutionary status of the stone age" I'm not really exaggerating. A source level debugger is the least I expect nowadays. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
I also want to mention another aspect of Emulation as well. Emulators are supposed to completely "simulate" the native hardware. However QPC doesn't do that with the latest QL hardware (which is the Q40). In this aspect we are driven towards a complete separation. My belief is that QPC should completely incorporate all the features of a Q40 so it could be used as a development system for Q40 on other platforms (and of course) provide a sensible alternative to those that cannot have one (as mentioned above). The whole QL scene could benefit from that. What is the sense of say writing a game which makes use of the SSS if QPC cannot use it? And what about hi-colour modes. Why shouldn't they be compatible across SMSQ/E systems that share similar capabilities? If more than one factors of incompatibility occur, the more difficult it would be to have hi-end programs for SMSQ/E-QDOS. Isn't that going to finally take its toll to the QL scene? Just my two cents of course but Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
- Original Message - From: Phoebus Dokos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again Hehe I kind of anticipated this email Geoff (although I don't know you personally I do admire your work). It wasn't directed to you directly but yours was the first name to come in my mind. No offence taken. I realised you were making a generalisation, and flattering to know I was the first name to come into mind! The point I wanted to make is that we are a "Broad Church" in the QL Community. That is, we embrace a wide range of people and opinions. To survive we have to have a high degree of tolerance. We need both QPC and the Q40 as well as those people who buy neither new hardware or software. Personally I have no interest in the Q40, but I recognise Peter's achievement. As I write in the next QL Today, many people feel the Q40 has helped to arrest the decline in the QL. Perhaps a better example than Just Words! software would be the future internet capabilities of the QL. Is there much sense in running QL internet software on a PC emulator? (Hope this sets off a fierce discussion!). Finally, another important point. In one sense Marcel has it easier than Peter. The infrastructure for software is already there in the form of the QL and PC. A hardware developer often has to produce his own infrastructure, no easy task with instability in component prices, the need to find a manufacturer and difficulties in international currency transactions. Small wonder the Q40 has had logistical and financial problems beyond Peter's control. Geoff Wicks. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.tripod.co.uk/geoffwicks/justwords.htm
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Wolfgang wrote: >I disagree. If it runs Ql software, looks like a QL (on the monitor) >and baves like one, then it is a QL. Never mind whether it is an >elulator or a Q40 (or a "real" Ql, for that matter). 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. >> 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. 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. >> And indeed it is good to have a very good Linux implemetation on a *real* >> 68k QL style computer! > >Why? 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. >> BTW Linux on a PC has the disadvantage that it can't execute native 68k >> code! There are some very interesting applications like MAC emulation which >> can greatly benefit from a real 68040/68060 CPU under Linux. > >What? Linux apps aren't compiled into native code? 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. >> So why don't you write some QL software ;-) ? >> >That's unfair! I would say he does - hence QPC. See the ;-) It is fine by me that Marcel improves QPC. It is fun for him, so why should he do anything else. But I think he would not call his work QL software. IIRC he freely said that he is a Windows user and has no (or not much) interest in writing QL software. AFAIK QPCII is a pure M$ Windows application, can not run on any QL system, and is of not much use for everybody who doesn't want M$ Windows. QL software can run on an expanded black box, on a Goldcard, a QXL, a SuperGoldcard, a Q40, a Q60 and more. (Of course restrictions depending on size and features, but in general it can.) >By the way, I'm STILL wanting to buy a Q60 Fine. Please remember this discussion came up because someone talked about buying a PC and M$ Windows only to run SMSQ/E. All the best Peter
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
On 31 Jan 2001, at 16:41, Marcel Kilgus wrote: > It also crashes more easily, like "JMON 0" crashes straight out back > > into Windoze. > > Couldn't say so. Works just fine. Same here : no problem! Wolfgang Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
On 31 Jan 2001, at 23:24, Peter Graf wrote: > Yes with QPC+PC (+ necessarily M$ Windows!) you get a PC! But when you say > "also" a PC you imply that you get a QL system when you buy such a PC. > > I feel that real QL style hardware users seem to become a minority on this > list, but at this point I still feel free to say: > > For me a Windows PC is never a QL system!!! I disagree. If it runs Ql software, looks like a QL (on the monitor) and baves like one, then it is a QL. Never mind whether it is an elulator or a Q40 (or a "real" Ql, for that matter). > It is a Windows machine plus SMSQ emulator, not less, not more. Umm, just like the Q40 is an m68K machine with SMSQ? > And indeed it is good to have a very good Linux implemetation on a *real* > 68k QL style computer! Why? > > I have a 300 MHz PC where I think factor 5 is much nearer to the truth. And > when I compare Linux and XWindows boot times and the real look&feel when > working: The difference under Linux it is even less. Q40 Linux is > absolutely usable, stable and quick. Not to mention the Q60. Agrh, but who wants linux, anyway? (that'll spark'em off, for sure)! > BTW Linux on a PC has the disadvantage that it can't execute native 68k > code! There are some very interesting applications like MAC emulation which > can greatly benefit from a real 68040/68060 CPU under Linux. What? Linux apps aren't compiled into native code? > So why don't you write some QL software ;-) ? > That's unfair! I would say he does - hence QPC. By the way, I'm STILL wanting to buy a Q60 Wolfgang
RE: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
On 1 Feb 2001, at 8:37, Norman Dunbar wrote: > > Hey, it's only a work PC after all !! - "work PC" - Isn't that an oxymoron (or a simple moron???) Wolfgang
RE: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Per, >> Ok, so its probably a local issue. I can use eg JMON 24 to debug another >> job, but it crashes in the same way as JMON 0 soon as it hits a breakpoint. Makes >> finding out whats going on rather awkward :( I'm ok with JMON 0 or JMON 12 and breakpoints work fine - I was doing some breakpointing yesterday on QLTDis and they were ok. >> In your boot file try something like: >> IF VER$(1) >= '2.98' THEN >> r = $FF0028: g = $FF64: w = $F0 >> PALETTE_QL 0, 0, 0, r, r, g, g, w, w >> END IF No thanks, I like the blue icons - they can stay :o) >> QMON/JMON, (Qjump) should have come with a manual when you bought it. I originally bought QMON when it was QMON and I do indeed have a pink manual. Later on, I upgraded to QMON2 which has JMON included, but no manual relating to JMON. When I saw your email re crashing JMON 0, I tried it out and lo, there was a *movable* window so I can see both the debugger and the debuggee at the same time. Excellent ! >> A great little (de)bugger, and the only one to have stayed compatible with >> QDOS development throughout - or until now, perhaps ;) Indeed, there was talk a while back about a new PE debugger, but nothing since - I hope it wasn't vapourware ! >> Thanks for your input, You're welcome - thanks for yours. Regards, Norman. Norman Dunbar EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Database/Unix administrator Phone: 0113 289 6265 Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. Fax:0113 201 7265 URL:http://www.LynxFinancialSystems.com
RE: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Per Witte wrote : >> When Windoze is running, QPC just about stops whatever it is doing. With QPC >> in the background, my Windoze pointer behaves strangely (sluggish, >> disappears intermittently,..) in some programs. Changing the fore- and >> background settings in the startup menu does not produce any detectable >> effect. On my (work) NT box, an 'idle' QPC session uses 98% of the processor time - at least that's what task mangler tells me. This is when I have QED, GWASL, QLTDIS, JMON and S*Basic running but all are waiting for me to type something. I presume that this is just the scheduler internal to my 'virtual QL' still doing it's stuff ? This is what makes the Windows portion of my QL :o) sluggish. HTH. Norman. PS. Settings on background/foreground priority are lowest. I tried setting to normal, but this made things appear slower. N Norman Dunbar EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Database/Unix administrator Phone: 0113 289 6265 Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. Fax:0113 201 7265 URL:http://www.LynxFinancialSystems.com
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Norman Dunbar writes: > I've had QPC2v2 for a few days now and I am not having problems when I do a > JMON 0 as you are. Ok, so its probably a local issue. I can use eg JMON 24 to debug another job, but it crashes in the same way as JMON 0 soon as it hits a breakpoint. Makes finding out whats going on rather awkward :( > My version is 2.0.0.0 (right click the exe and select properties, then the Same here (and QPC_VER$ = 2.00) > I haven't played around much with the colour drivers yet, but it does look > 'strange' to have my move and resize icons showing in a pale blue colour In your boot file try something like: IF VER$(1) >= '2.98' THEN r = $FF0028: g = $FF64: w = $F0 PALETTE_QL 0, 0, 0, r, r, g, g, w, w END IF Gets rid of most of the psychedelia. > Thanks for the pointer to JMON though - this is very useful - why isn't > there ever any docs on this stuff ? (Or can someone point me at some ?) I QMON/JMON, (Qjump) should have come with a manual when you bought it. A great little (de)bugger, and the only one to have stayed compatible with QDOS development throughout - or until now, perhaps ;) Thanks for your input, Per
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Marcel Kilgus writes: > > up our own file system's much-lamented inadequacy. The windowing > > facility is not one I'll use much (it also crashes on my machine > > when changing between windowed and full-screen). > > Hmm, that's not really supposed to happen. What graphics card do you > use? Latest drivers? Complete crash or just QPC? Under W2k you say? I somehow didnt think you had carefully sat down to plan how to crash the machine by pressing ctrl+f12 ;) It happens (to me) when starting up in non-windowed mode and then changing over. The other way round it works ok. Ive got some S3 Savage 4 device (Diamond Stealth III?), with 16Mb, latest (working) drivers/bios. On one occasion I've crashed the "uncrashable" W2k, but "normally" only QPC just vanishes. > > Not all things changed for the better, though: I cant seem to > > multitask properly with Windoze (W2k) anymore. > > This means what? When Windoze is running, QPC just about stops whatever it is doing. With QPC in the background, my Windoze pointer behaves strangely (sluggish, disappears intermittently,..) in some programs. Changing the fore- and background settings in the startup menu does not produce any detectable effect. > > It also crashes more easily, like "JMON 0" crashes straight out back > > into Windoze. > > Couldn't say so. Works just fine. On W2k? Lucky you ;( - What could it possibly be? <> > Nobody reported anything like this (but then you didn't report, > either... ;-) Just did ;) <> > It's true, speed of some things need improvements, but the Q40 > shouldn't be much faster in this respect. I wasnt complaining about the speed of QPC - I think it fabulous! It is also fast enough on suitable h/w to do SMSQ/E proper justice. What I'm saying is that on a hardware QL, short of a Q40, it cant be much fun. > > For day-to-day use 16 or 256 colours would have been sufficient. > > The catch might be that it is more difficult to implement... I wouldnt know about that. My point is that GD2 may well lead to a further split in the user base due to the fact that this latest QL OS will no longer run on the majority of QLs. M$ can do it, of course, because then everyone just has to rush out and but new hardware - in our case, when it comes to upgrade time, a lot of users may well opt for a different system altogether. > > All in all, QPC2v2 + SMSQ/E really rock! (Might be worth buying a PC just to > > run a copy ;) > > :-) Didnt meant to start a brawl. My comment was intended as an outrageous compliment to QPC, rather than as a serious recommendation ;) Per
RE: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Thanks for pointing that out Marcel, in that case, I have the following : Config = QPC Configuration v2 final Taskbar = QPC II v2 Final QPC_VER$ = 2.00 I have discovered a small (?) problem as follows : QPC running on an Compaq 400 Mhz 128M memory running NT 4. QPC configured for window mode. When the screen saver kicks in, then I press a key, move the mouse etc to kick it out again, the QPC window is totally black (default bacground colour). The pointer cannot be seen in the QPC window and I cannot click on anything (that used to be in the window) or type etc. Have to kill it off with the 'close window' button top right on the caption bar. The workaround is set the screen saver to none, or to kick in after 30 minutes instead of 5 ! Hey, it's only a work PC after all !! Norman. Norman Dunbar EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Database/Unix administrator Phone: 0113 289 6265 Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. Fax:0113 201 7265 URL:http://www.LynxFinancialSystems.com -Original Message- From: Marcel Kilgus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> The real version number >> should be in the title of the configuration dialog, the taskbar and >>available through QPC_VER$.
Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
At 03:19 ìì 31/1/2001, you wrote: >Phoebus Dokos wrote: > > Correct but then again, buying a PC doesn't mean you get a name brand (with > > bundled softare you are right). > > Many people (including myself) want to buy things that will accomodate > > their needs. > >Me too. But most people buy complete systems. > > >>But as with SMSQ/E, > >>which is, as far as I know, also included in the Q40 price, software > >>tends to be cheaper when bundled with hardware. > > Q40 includes SMSQ/E optionally. Standard Q40s have QDOS Classic. > >I see. But the additional cost is still much less than that of a >standalone-SMSQ/E. > > >>You can get almost everything you need for free. > > Interesting, but tell me.. Find me a program on Windows that even comes > > CLOSE to Photoshop or Corel Draw and I will get it in a heart beat... > >Sure, if you tell me where to get the equivalent for the QL world (no, >QDesign doesn't count ;-). I thought we're talking about the same >league? Well now we get to the point! How do we expect real development when native hardware isn't supported. There's no definite standard. Even GD2 falls short in this aspect. Some things work on QPC, others on Auroras and others on Q40/60s > >>But anyway, I am NOT suggesting that buying a PC just for QPC is a > >>better solution than buying a Q40 or anything (or did I write that > >>anywhere? I don't think so). At least not if you don't use the other > >>features a PC can which a Q40 can't. I just considered your > >>calculation to be quite weird, because you really can get 3 PCs for > >>the mentioned price here. > >Only quality components, of course. Otherwise I think one could get 4. > > > Yes but with what kinds of hard drives? 10 Gigs? > >I had something in the region of a IBM DTLA307030 in my mind. 30GB, >7200 rpm, UMDA100. Nice drive, just bought one recently. > > >>I say you can't compare them. Harldy in performance but even less in > >>price. > > Oh but you can. > >Really? With a Q40 you get a QL system but with a QPC+PC combination >you also get a complete PC. So you can only compare the facts under >certain assumptions, like "I use the PC only for QPC". There the Q40 >probably wins. But e.g. one advantage always mentioned for the Q40 was >that it can run Linux. The mentioned PC runs Linux with 100 times (or >whatever) the speed. Now the comparison looks completely differently. >See? All lies in your point of view, it just depends on the things you >actually DO. You mentioned Photoshop. How did you get that to run on >the Q40? Not at all I suppose. If you need that software, a Q40 >probably wouldn't be the best choice, regardless of its price. Well if I HAD a Q40 I would run GimP! But then again I don't have one yet and I still wait for mine (since it was announced) And I agree that Q40 is not the best available platform for Linux but then again, nobody mentioned Linux as the main OS for the Q40. It is an added bonus that's all. Nevertheless to return to what I said earlier, More Q40s/60s sold, the better the chances for software development, the cheaper the prices and the less we have to deal with Windows. And the cheaper peripherals we would need. And I want to ask you something. If we sell say 1 Q40s (imaginary number but good for the sake of argument) would it still sell for 300£? or 150? What do you think? And if it came to that wouldn't that answer our question rather easily? With a 5 port expansion (on a riser) Q40 is capable for and/or the 128Megs the Q60 can accomodate, I could easily attach USB ISA cards (already available) etc. Generic driver frameworks exist for most available hardware. But with an antiquated device driver interface we will never be able to use them. Linux on the other hand provides you with a much easier way of doing this stuff.. which explains why Richard was able to use CDR/Ws and Ethernet cards etc. There was high colour on Q40 under Linux from day 0 but for GD2 to appear it took how long? 4 years? Which brings me back to my point. Support our machines. Or let them perish. Simple. >To make this (again) clear, *I* certainly don't want QPC to be the >only QL platform available, it's GOOD that the Q40 exists (in fact I >was there when it was presented for the first time in Eindhoven and I >was one of the people suggesting to talk to Tony about a SMSQ/E port). Marcel, please keep in mind that I don't have anything against QPC... Don't forget I own it. However a more active support can lead to a greater success of the QL scene in general. And don't forget that in case that Q40 gains success, QPC can easily be turned into a development system for it. Running on a different platform for software writers. Phoebus
