Re: [ql-users] Hardware platforms
Roy wood wrote: >Insider talk has it that Motorola will soon pull out of chip manufacture >altogether. I find this EXTREMELY unlikely. Mot. currently has 5 lines of general purpose CPUs and two lines of DSPs. It is however possible that they will stop selling some of them to the general public as generic devices. They have been movig towards that for some time now - what they want you to do is to order gazillion quantities of custom chips with one (or more) of their CPU or DSP cores and loads of integrated peripherals. Nasta
Re: [ql-users] Hardware platforms
??? 28/10/2002 6:29:33 ??, ?/? Tony Firshman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: > >On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 at 21:54:36, Malcolm Cadman wrote: >(ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) > >> >>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >>Dave P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >> >>>On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Norman Dunbar wrote: >>> I suspect you'll find that scholls nowadays are all 'mainstream' in that they have a pile of PCs running Windows. They are, after all, training the 'yoof of today' to be able to work in the offices of today, or the next >>> >>>Maybe I wasn't clear... :o) >>> >>>Old PC XTs used to be able to share some of the functionality of the beeb, >>>but now we have these superfast, PCI-only (no ISA) PCs, they just CAN'T do >>>a lot of the things they used to, without very very expensive cards. We're >>>not talking about computer departments, we're talking about >>>technology/engineering departments, where robotics, data >>>acquisition/control practical work is done... >>> I'd love to see the QL 'bounce back' but I'm afraid I'm very sceptical when ideas are put forward to get it going as a 'mainstream' computer. I'm sad to say that the QL - and its derivatives - are more than likely destined to remain a hobby. >>> >>>I agree with you on this! The QL will not be making any kind of >>>resurgence. However, elements of the QL can go forward in other things, >>>and in such a way that the community benefits. If we had a really compact >>>embedded board with serial/IR keyboard/programming in BASIC (a bit like a >>>super BASIC STAMP module, but more powerful ;) it could sell by the >>>bucketload. >>> >>>It's all a case of what can we convince people to buy, and still benefit >>>the community from. >> >>Yes, there is a market in this kind of specialism ... provided it can be >>programmed from any 'mainstream' computer host. >> >>The Lego Mindstorms 'brick' is a popular one right now. >Yes - the 'RCX' >It is desperately unsophisticated of course, only 3 I/O lines, very >inaccurate clock, and not dirt cheap. >There is C like (NQC - 'Not Quite C') language support for them - which >Ben (my 12 yr old son) uses. > >IBOX - the thought in the mind of me and Stuart, went a fair way down >this route. I even started building a prototype. >It was planned have Minerva/68xxx/pic. For which I had found 3 clients at the time but never materialised... Nonetheless, a Dragonball based machine that Nasta Proposes, should be relatively easy to build and cheap and perfect for that sort of work... why don't ya all sit down and produce it? BTW Tony, loved the plumbing at Bill's house ;-) Mighty nifty as my wife says :-) Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] Hardware platforms
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes It's only a pity that Mot. decided to deprive us of the component most suited for a 'QL-stamp' - the 68306 (IIRC). The closest to it right now are the Dragonballs (68328 in all it's versions). There is one V2 coldfire that could do the trick too, and although not completely compatible with 68k, this is a case where it would not be a great problem as it would not run any of the traditional QL apps (so the SMSQ/QDOS/Minerva source could just be recompiled via microAPL's cross-compiler), but in this case the benefit to the community is not very big, unless a way is found to funnel the financial proceeds back into it. Insider talk has it that Motorola will soon pull out of chip manufacture altogether. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] mode 33
Dilwyn Jones wrote: > Convert mode 33 to mode 32 GD2 graphics pqiv + my mode 32 patches can do this. It loads mode 33 files and saves mode 32 files (though it says "PIC Q40 High Color"). > Convert mode 32 and 33 screens or PIC files to Windows graphics files > like BMP or GIF or JPG or whatever. Screenshot within QPC2 ;) Marcel
Re: [ql-users] Hardware platforms
??? 28/10/2002 6:20:14 ??, ?/? "Stephen Meech" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??:
>
>There are other problems with QLAY such as it's inability to utilise
>ToolkitII's directory handling commands ("DEST_USE" etc), it's instability
>when trying to run games and, for me, its failure to update's Minerva's second
>screen whilst displaying it. The Qlayt tools are fiddly on the PC.
>
>Whilst recognising some of the arguments for hardware development I am sure
>there are more people like me out there, who would like to continue to play
>with QLAY and some time spent as a project improving it would be the best way
>of maintaining the QL community in the future. I don't think there is any
>money in it though!
As I said, if you wanna do something more than just use an emulator yet you still want
it to be free, get UAE and QDOS Classic
for Amiga (either the ROM flavour or the complete program, which will also give you
native access to the PC filesystem and
other neat goodies)
Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] Hardware platforms
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 at 21:54:36, Malcolm Cadman wrote: (ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >Dave P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >>On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Norman Dunbar wrote: >> >>> I suspect you'll find that scholls nowadays are all 'mainstream' in that >>> they have a pile of PCs running Windows. They are, after all, training the >>> 'yoof of today' to be able to work in the offices of today, or the next >> >>Maybe I wasn't clear... :o) >> >>Old PC XTs used to be able to share some of the functionality of the beeb, >>but now we have these superfast, PCI-only (no ISA) PCs, they just CAN'T do >>a lot of the things they used to, without very very expensive cards. We're >>not talking about computer departments, we're talking about >>technology/engineering departments, where robotics, data >>acquisition/control practical work is done... >> >>> I'd love to see the QL 'bounce back' but I'm afraid I'm very sceptical when >>> ideas are put forward to get it going as a 'mainstream' computer. I'm sad to >>> say that the QL - and its derivatives - are more than likely destined to >>> remain a hobby. >> >>I agree with you on this! The QL will not be making any kind of >>resurgence. However, elements of the QL can go forward in other things, >>and in such a way that the community benefits. If we had a really compact >>embedded board with serial/IR keyboard/programming in BASIC (a bit like a >>super BASIC STAMP module, but more powerful ;) it could sell by the >>bucketload. >> >>It's all a case of what can we convince people to buy, and still benefit >>the community from. > >Yes, there is a market in this kind of specialism ... provided it can be >programmed from any 'mainstream' computer host. > >The Lego Mindstorms 'brick' is a popular one right now. Yes - the 'RCX' It is desperately unsophisticated of course, only 3 I/O lines, very inaccurate clock, and not dirt cheap. There is C like (NQC - 'Not Quite C') language support for them - which Ben (my 12 yr old son) uses. IBOX - the thought in the mind of me and Stuart, went a fair way down this route. I even started building a prototype. It was planned have Minerva/68xxx/pic. It was primarily for I/O but could easily have had keyboard and some sort of display. and it would have fitted inside a 36 way D housing. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@.demon.co.uk 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] Hardware platforms
There are other problems with QLAY such as it's inability to utilise
ToolkitII's directory handling commands ("DEST_USE" etc), it's instability
when trying to run games and, for me, its failure to update's Minerva's second
screen whilst displaying it. The Qlayt tools are fiddly on the PC.
Whilst recognising some of the arguments for hardware development I am sure
there are more people like me out there, who would like to continue to play
with QLAY and some time spent as a project improving it would be the best way
of maintaining the QL community in the future. I don't think there is any
money in it though!
It's a pity the author didn't continue development. It's been a while now so
he's almost certainly lost interest.
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Al Feng
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Hardware platforms
QLAY [downloadable freeware] _is_ a 100% QDOS [or, MINERVA] compatible
emulator on a PC platform. There is a LINUX compatible version, too.
QLAY will probably do 95% of what you are looking for.
The current/persistent limitations of QLAY are its inability to communicate
with SERial or FLP ... files are held on a WIN drive.
QUILL files, for example, can be created and SAVEd, but must be PRINTed
through DOS ... transfers must be done in DOS, etc.
Non-text files may need to be ZIPped before being transferred through DOS for
PC-disk to QL ...
Both of the limitations [i.e., lack of FLP & SERial support] can probably be
overcome if a QLever QUANTA member (OR, any other QLingon reading this LIST)
who can write machine code (or, assembly?) would "complete" the code.
SBYTEd dongled-TK2_code can be used with QLAY.
I have read that QLAY is much slower than QPC when run on the same platform
(factor of 3?). AFAIK, QLAY's speed is dependent on the host platform's
speed -- I think that on anything faster than a 66MHz PC, QLAY will be faster
than the original QL. Again, the QPC emulation will be much faster on a
faster host platform.
---
--
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.408 / Virus Database: 230 - Release Date: 25/10/2002
Re: [ql-users] Vintage Computer Festival
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Timothy Swenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >One of the organizers is from the former East Germany and organizes VCF >Europe in Germany. The next VCF Europe should be this Spring. He even >asked me about getting some Sinclair folks (like the Q60 developers) to >come to the show. At the VCF shows, the more odd and unusual the computer >is, the more interest people have. Sounds like the good old days of computer innovation :-) -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] Hardware platforms
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dave P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Norman Dunbar wrote: > >> I suspect you'll find that scholls nowadays are all 'mainstream' in that >> they have a pile of PCs running Windows. They are, after all, training the >> 'yoof of today' to be able to work in the offices of today, or the next > >Maybe I wasn't clear... :o) > >Old PC XTs used to be able to share some of the functionality of the beeb, >but now we have these superfast, PCI-only (no ISA) PCs, they just CAN'T do >a lot of the things they used to, without very very expensive cards. We're >not talking about computer departments, we're talking about >technology/engineering departments, where robotics, data >acquisition/control practical work is done... > >> I'd love to see the QL 'bounce back' but I'm afraid I'm very sceptical when >> ideas are put forward to get it going as a 'mainstream' computer. I'm sad to >> say that the QL - and its derivatives - are more than likely destined to >> remain a hobby. > >I agree with you on this! The QL will not be making any kind of >resurgence. However, elements of the QL can go forward in other things, >and in such a way that the community benefits. If we had a really compact >embedded board with serial/IR keyboard/programming in BASIC (a bit like a >super BASIC STAMP module, but more powerful ;) it could sell by the >bucketload. > >It's all a case of what can we convince people to buy, and still benefit >the community from. Yes, there is a market in this kind of specialism ... provided it can be programmed from any 'mainstream' computer host. The Lego Mindstorms 'brick' is a popular one right now. -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] mode 33
??? 28/10/2002 3:04:14 ??, ?/? "Dilwyn Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: > >I'm looking for a program which would do (ideally) two functions for >me: > >Convert mode 33 to mode 32 GD2 graphics > >Convert mode 32 and 33 screens or PIC files to Windows graphics files >like BMP or GIF or JPG or whatever. > >I'm pretty sure I've see a program to do at least some of this but >short of ploughing through my entire PD library to check what each can >do, I hope someone on this list can tell me to save a little time! Dilwyn, You saw the sources of my BMP2PIC v. 3 and that's what you probably remember... I need to re install VB6 to recompile it though as I don't have a binary now... Phoebus
RE: [ql-users] Hardware platforms
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, ZN wrote: > > If we had a really compact embedded board with serial/IR keyboard/ > > programming in BASIC (a bit like a super BASIC STAMP module, but > > more powerful ;) it could sell by the bucketload. > > PRECISELY > This is THE market for QL-like hardware and SMSQ. I have looked through > various offerings in this area and even with Mot. (in all their 'wisdom') > making undue problems with 68k/MCF availability, a 'QL-stamp' would win > hands down just on the strength of (a) Sbasic (b) multitasking. Heck, I > would be buying them right now. I think these type of devices are moving "up market" and gaining features and increasing in price. My Stamp 2sx cost me $60, but that's for a simple 4,000 line 10,000 instructions/sec miniature module with the most elemental of interfaces. I think something more capable could be used for many more up-market tasks... Dave
[ql-users] mode 33
I'm looking for a program which would do (ideally) two functions for me: Convert mode 33 to mode 32 GD2 graphics Convert mode 32 and 33 screens or PIC files to Windows graphics files like BMP or GIF or JPG or whatever. I'm pretty sure I've see a program to do at least some of this but short of ploughing through my entire PD library to check what each can do, I hope someone on this list can tell me to save a little time! -- Dilwyn Jones
Re: [ql-users] Sbasic extensions & toolkits
>1 - There must be a way of maintaining a list of currently existing >keywords, list which could be sent out to anyone interested. I'm >willing to compile and maintain such a list, provided I'm supplied >with the toolkits that contain these new keywords. Please note that >this would only be a word list, without any reference of what these >keywords actually do. Hi Wolfgang, to get this started I'll send (privately) the list and binary for DJToolkit which Norman Dunbar wrote to my spec. If needed I'm sure I can get the source to you too. >I'd gladly have somebody else do it - any volunteers? Isn't there >already somethinbg available (commercially?) that contains the >names of many toolkits (Sbasic reference manual?). It does contain a list of toolkit names in alphabetical order, but not complete lists for individual toolkits. >Surely it is possible to change the names of conflicting keywords >directly in the file they are contained in, with a file editor (as a >blatant case of advertising, Wined comes to mind). S_Edit available from my website contains a binary file editing facility. -- Dilwyn Jones
Re: [ql-users] WANTED
In a message dated 28/10/02 12:57:03 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You'll probably get loads of people telling you this but Sintech can supply both of these. The URL is www.sintech-shop.de The hard microdrive connectors are 3 Euro each (I bought one myself recently) not sure about the flexible ones though. Unfortunately, Sintech are also running out, that is why the plea for second hand ones.. :-) -- Rich Mellor RWAP Software 35 Chantry Croft, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JH TEL: 01977 610509 http://hometown.aol.co.uk/rwapsoftware
RE: [ql-users] Hardware platforms
On 28/10/02 at 18:30 Dave P wrote: >Maybe I wasn't clear... :o) >... > If we had a really compact embedded board with serial/IR keyboard/ > programming in BASIC (a bit like a super BASIC STAMP module, but > more powerful ;) it could sell by the bucketload. PRECISELY This is THE market for QL-like hardware and SMSQ. I have looked through various offerings in this area and even with Mot. (in all their 'wisdom') making undue problems with 68k/MCF availability, a 'QL-stamp' would win hands down just on the strength of (a) Sbasic (b) multitasking. Heck, I would be buying them right now. It's only a pity that Mot. decided to deprive us of the component most suited for a 'QL-stamp' - the 68306 (IIRC). The closest to it right now are the Dragonballs (68328 in all it's versions). There is one V2 coldfire that could do the trick too, and although not completely compatible with 68k, this is a case where it would not be a great problem as it would not run any of the traditional QL apps (so the SMSQ/QDOS/Minerva source could just be recompiled via microAPL's cross-compiler), but in this case the benefit to the community is not very big, unless a way is found to funnel the financial proceeds back into it. Nasta
RE: [ql-users] Hardware platforms
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Norman Dunbar wrote: > sorry - I did indeed get the wrong end of the stick. I thought you meant for > general use in IT departments. No, I was thinking of those tasks where the controller may need to be incorporated into the project, or where it has to be sturdy/small unlike a PC, or where there have to be so many of them that the reduced hardware/software licensing costs make it interesting... Dave
RE: [ql-users] Hardware platforms
Hi Dave, >> we're talking about >> technology/engineering departments, where robotics, data >> acquisition/control practical work is done... sorry - I did indeed get the wrong end of the stick. I thought you meant for general use in IT departments. Cheers, Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.
RE: [ql-users] Hardware platforms
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Norman Dunbar wrote: > I suspect you'll find that scholls nowadays are all 'mainstream' in that > they have a pile of PCs running Windows. They are, after all, training the > 'yoof of today' to be able to work in the offices of today, or the next Maybe I wasn't clear... :o) Old PC XTs used to be able to share some of the functionality of the beeb, but now we have these superfast, PCI-only (no ISA) PCs, they just CAN'T do a lot of the things they used to, without very very expensive cards. We're not talking about computer departments, we're talking about technology/engineering departments, where robotics, data acquisition/control practical work is done... > I'd love to see the QL 'bounce back' but I'm afraid I'm very sceptical when > ideas are put forward to get it going as a 'mainstream' computer. I'm sad to > say that the QL - and its derivatives - are more than likely destined to > remain a hobby. I agree with you on this! The QL will not be making any kind of resurgence. However, elements of the QL can go forward in other things, and in such a way that the community benefits. If we had a really compact embedded board with serial/IR keyboard/programming in BASIC (a bit like a super BASIC STAMP module, but more powerful ;) it could sell by the bucketload. It's all a case of what can we convince people to buy, and still benefit the community from. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Hardware platforms
Ian wrote: > Rewriting SMSQ in C and then, like Linux, porting it to run on various > hardware platforms starting with Intel based? Yes, that's the idea. Or maybe port an emulator for use that hardware :) > The idea has been discussed here before. (i'm new members of this list) > But what would be the motivation for doing that? More use flexibility for us. > If your main interest is writing fast powerful applications for the largest > potential user base, then you are better off writing them directly under > Linux or Windows. ¿¿?? QDOS or SMSQ/E can't do it? > ...emulators are probably the best way to go - only the emulator itself >would need to be ported. If and emulator can be revised and ported, why not and OS who can use an Hadware Abstraction Layer? > Why do people still use QLs? > Nostalgia has to be the major reason. The speed, memory, storage > capacity are clearly not a big issue. It is a hobby. This it is the problem. It will only continue being hobby if we did not think about other uses for the QL. >The idea of a new little black box as a modern QL however, appeals. > I've been quite happy with my Q40, but it doesn't really feel like a >substitute QL. Why not? > I'd be happy with 1Mb (which can be done with a couple of 512k > statics), including 512x256 graphics, or maybe some extra RAM if >1024x512 is necessary and a pair of floppy disks for storage, and try not >to show up the deficiencies of SMSQ/E. Even built-in Microdrive or >CompactFlash for storage would add disproportionately to the cost (but >could be optional external add-ons). Keep it cheap and QL-like, and not >too expandable otherwise you never feel like you've got a complete >finished product; let the Q60 satisfy the power hungry. All we did not harvest the happiness in the same orchard. > Ian. Regards Ian. Javier Guerra Sinclair QL Spanish Resources http://badared.com/QL
Re: RE: [ql-users] Hardware platforms
??? 28/10/2002 11:13:57 ??, ?/? [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??: > >GBP 65 = EUR 100.17. So on the contrary, you're actually getting a bargain by buying >from Jochen. >;o) >Tomorrow it will probably be a bargain with Q Branch again. I think Dave got caught in the irrationality of the US banking system again ;-) You should see the prices they charge for foreign currency here :-) I think you should compare the Euro and the Pound instead of Dollar vs Euro and Dollar vs Pound Ah the beauty of the financial systems! Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] Hardware platforms
Dave P wrote: > Emulators are great, but you can't carry an emulator around with you, Sure I can. It fits on a floppy disc for example ;-) Actually emulators on laptops are the only portable QLs at the moment. > I think it is vital that some people continue using the original > hardware, and that some people strive to make new hardware! Yes, I think so, too. Ciao Marcel
RE: [ql-users] Hardware platforms
GBP 65.00 = USD 99.19 EUR 99.90 = USD 98.93 >-Original Message- >From: Pine, Ian >Sent: 28 October 2002 16:14 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [ql-users] Hardware platforms > > > >GBP 65 = EUR 100.17. So on the contrary, you're actually >getting a bargain by buying from Jochen. >;o) >Tomorrow it will probably be a bargain with Q Branch again. > >>-Original Message- >>From: Dave P [mailto:dexter@;spodmail.com] >>Sent: 28 October 2002 17:10 >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: Re: [ql-users] Hardware platforms >> >> >> >> >> >>On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> If more of the people on this list subscribed to QL Today >>and/or Quanta, they >>> would be able to inform you that the full version of QPC2 v3 >>costs £65 from >>> QBranch, or Eur 99,90 from Jochen Merz. >> >>*grins* >> >>So how come it's so much cheaper from QBranch? 65 quid is a >>lot less than >>100 euros... >> >>Dave >> >> >> > >Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com > >This message contains confidential information and is intended only >for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you >should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please >notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this >e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. > >E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free >as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, >arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore >does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents >of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If >verification is required please request a hard-copy version. This >message is provided for informational purposes and should not be >construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or >related financial instruments. > > Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. This message is provided for informational purposes and should not be construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or related financial instruments.
RE: [ql-users] Hardware platforms
Hi Dave, >> I picture the target market as an "open system" for sale into schools. I suspect you'll find that scholls nowadays are all 'mainstream' in that they have a pile of PCs running Windows. They are, after all, training the 'yoof of today' to be able to work in the offices of today, or the next couple of years. The days of the BBC micro and QL etc in schools are sadly long gone. I'd say (off the top of my head) that it is about 90% Windows and 10% Linux - and because that is where most businesses are using, (not counting all the Unix servers out there !) then that is what the kids will be taught. I'd love to see the QL 'bounce back' but I'm afraid I'm very sceptical when ideas are put forward to get it going as a 'mainstream' computer. I'm sad to say that the QL - and its derivatives - are more than likely destined to remain a hobby. Sorry, but that's how I see it - disagreeable as it may be. Regards, Norman. (Ducking under the parapet again!) - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.
Re: [ql-users] Hardware platforms
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Michael Berger wrote: > But ... since it is a VERY straightforward conclusion that someone who > starts developing a QL successor must be an enthusiast, they would naturally > start with an optimistic forecast on the price. However - real life is Price is a target we aim towards, and meet with some degree of success or not! In this scene, the biggest difficulty is the variable availability and cost of parts. For example, some outlets charge $500+ for an '060, and if you shop on eBay you could get the same part for $20! Also, the QL has an "interesting" design, and copying it tends to require expensive components. Emulators are great, but you can't carry an emulator around with you, or sell it to a school science lab, and the principle of only having emulators is a bit like only remembering the QL as some kind of dream. I think it is vital that some people continue using the original hardware, and that some people strive to make new hardware! Every expansion someone has in their QL either fixes a problem, adds a feature, or replaces something which became inadequate over time. It doesn't cost significantly more to make a QL replacement than to design a high quality expansion for one... Emulators are for those whose need to use the software is greater than their need to use the hardware, and that's what iright for them. imho Dave
RE: [ql-users] Hardware platforms
GBP 65 = EUR 100.17. So on the contrary, you're actually getting a bargain by buying from Jochen. ;o) Tomorrow it will probably be a bargain with Q Branch again. >-Original Message- >From: Dave P [mailto:dexter@;spodmail.com] >Sent: 28 October 2002 17:10 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [ql-users] Hardware platforms > > > > > >On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> If more of the people on this list subscribed to QL Today >and/or Quanta, they >> would be able to inform you that the full version of QPC2 v3 >costs £65 from >> QBranch, or Eur 99,90 from Jochen Merz. > >*grins* > >So how come it's so much cheaper from QBranch? 65 quid is a >lot less than >100 euros... > >Dave > > > Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. This message is provided for informational purposes and should not be construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or related financial instruments.
Re: [ql-users] Hardware platforms
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If more of the people on this list subscribed to QL Today and/or Quanta, they > would be able to inform you that the full version of QPC2 v3 costs £65 from > QBranch, or Eur 99,90 from Jochen Merz. *grins* So how come it's so much cheaper from QBranch? 65 quid is a lot less than 100 euros... Dave
Re: [ql-users] Hardware platforms
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, ZN wrote: > Well, the part that I disagreed on was 'on board'. It is a big decision and > has to do with what you decide is going to be 'the board'. If the expansion > needs to be very fast and/or flexible, it is a great problem to design it. > But something very simple, a quick 'hook up a chip' port is quite easy and > this is why the GF still has old QL bus capability. It is FAR simpler to > work with than enything more modern. The electrical questions are very separate from the physical questions. My personal preference is simply to have everything available through standard connectors, and have the expansion in a small but flexible format where if people need more space they can do it. I have always been quite taken with the idea of a mezzanine board, but that allows generally one expansion. Some slot-based expansion has flexibility advantages but electrical disadvantages (a la RiscPC backplane). Whether or not something is the 'right' or 'wrong' way depends very much on how the thing will be used, and someone may want to expand it in the future, which is a very hard thing to guess. > Yes, something like the flexATX size, it's about 1/3-1/3 micro ATX area, > and it's not a rigid size standard, as long as it encompases 4 of the > perscribed mounting holes. Ok, let me elucidate my vision... A compact, self-contained unit which has the functionality of a QL, the expansion capabilities of a BBC B, and the price of a ZX81. Ok, that's asking a lot and demands compromises... I picture the target market as an "open system" for sale into schools. The PC and Mac aren't very good at what the BBC model B was good at. With its open IO and delicious BASIC capabilities for control and monitoring, you have the answer to why the model B is still in use in so many school labs today. I think the QL, with a sensible storage system and rationalised BASIC (which it already has) can fit that role very well, and is as near to a real-time OS as a school could get. I think if it's tiny, and looks like a super-PDA, and has a rechargeable battery but less expansion, it could also find a market. I'm not comfortable in the capability of the community to produce timely or suitable software for that format though... There are many other formats and target "markets" that could benefit from something. But face facts, anything made for QL users only will be a non-profit non-venture of limited scope. Anything made for a wider market, like the technology department of schools, not to teach computing, but to teach all that other automation/controls stuff, well that may actually sell enough to be worthwhile... This is why Nasta firmly told me many moons ago that the GF wasn't being designed solely for this market - he definitely has other uses in mind too... Now there are GHz+ embedded ARM processors, I still consider the whole hidden-emulated possibility, just because it lowers costs so much, but on the other hand people want an actual QL. What to do, what to do... I guess the real question is that if one were to forget about all performance considerations, and were just to try and reproduce the QL exactly, but with modern interfaces on-board, how much would this save? Dave
[ql-users] NESQLUG website, Q-Word etc...
Hi all, in about a week or so the new NESQLUG website will be on: www.dokos-gr.net/~nesqlug and for NESQLUG matters the director's (Al Boehm) email will be [EMAIL PROTECTED] (You may want to check with Al's regular address before you start sending him email to the new address however). We are currently gathering all past NESQLUG newsletters and software to be available from one place. Any NESQLUG members reading the list please contact me at phoebus@-gr.net for more info. In other news, I FINALLY found the time to upload all the updated material from Dilwyn's website making the mirror up-to-date (by the time you read these lines I will have also updated the index file). Also, I updated Dilwyn's QL Emulators CD which now includes WinUAE for the following platforms: (Windows, DOS, Linux x-86, Linux PPC, Linux-Arm, BeOS and MacOS) and Mark's QDOS Classsic rom as well as his support file disk images. The WinUAE / QDOS Classic emulator supports SSS, hi-end 68K processors (ie 68040), QubIDE rom (you got to have workbench and kickstart roms to do so) and is adding a multitude of systems where QL emulation is possible. Finally, some news about Q-Word from RWAP Software and Just Words! (where I am involved too at least). Preliminary specs: - A. Graphics 1. 16 bit colour on Qx0 and QPC 2 (Modes 33 and 32) 2. 256 colours on Auroras (Mode 256) 3. Mode 8 on Regular QLs 4. Mode 12 on Thor XVIs (preliminary and may not be implemented - If someone wants this feature, please contact either me or Rich Mellor) 5. 64 or 256 colours on QDOS Classic Amiga and UAE QDOS Classic (Thanks to info from Simon Goodwin... the man is a wealth of info plain and simple! That may take some time however) B. Sound 1. SSS for FX (Thanks to MS and SG) on Qx0s and QDOS Classic Amiga (QPC2 too when the feature is implemented) 2. Music via QL General Midi driver support (Currently only using QL-Net to MIDI adapter, however pending an email from Al Boehm support for serial to MIDI adapter may even be possible) (Thanks to NESQLUG and Simon Goodwin, yes him again :-) 3. Music on QPC2 via the CD (as a separate track) Progress Report: 1. All Graphics are completed 2. Music is almost done 3. Sounds are already digitized and edited, only sox is needed to transfer them to ub format 4. The main core of the program is already done by Rich and Geoff (a while ago too... it's my fault of course that graphics weren't completed until now :-) If anyone wants to see screenshots of how Q-Word will look like, please drop me a line and I will send you GIF or JPG files That's all for now, Phoebus
RE: [ql-users] Hardware platforms
> Personally, I'm very happy for being able to use QLAY nowadays, but we perhaps must >think about not repeating the history. If QLAY, uQLx, > QPC or other emulators are what we want to conserve for the future... well, but an >independent operating system of the propietary hardware > would be, in the long run, more adaptable, and would offer to the programmers an >development a via based on software who is independent > of the machine in which it is going to work. Rewriting SMSQ in C and then, like Linux, porting it to run on various hardware platforms starting with Intel based? The idea has been discussed here before. Trouble is you would still need a plug-in emulator to run existing [68k code] QL software, or else all that software would have to be rewritten. But what would be the motivation for doing that? For running SBASIC code only, as fast as possible, yes there are benefits (but don't forget the risk of incompatibilities for example if all the floating point handling was moved to FPU). If your main interest is writing fast powerful applications for the largest potential user base, then you are better off writing them directly under Linux or Windows. For SMSQ ported to different hardware platforms to be of interest to enough people to be worth the effort, a huge library of existing software, certainly the development tools, would need to be ported along with it. For this reason emulators are probably the best way to go - only the emulator itself would need to be ported. Maintenance is easier; any failure of applications to run on newly supported hardware would be down to bugs in the porting of the emulator. If instead you chose to port all the applications, there would be a huge testing effort and different versions of code to maintain in parallel. Why do people still use QLs? Nostalgia has to be the major reason. The speed, memory, storage capacity are clearly not a big issue. It is a hobby. You keep using a machine you enjoy using and feel comfortable with, as long as it still does the things you want to do, whether or not you can earn a living from it. And the QL crossed a boundary, being small and easy to program as a home 'toy' computer, with all the direct access to hardware that the more adventurous electronicky hobbyists in those days demanded, but also powerful enough to do useful work on (the microdrives offered a random access filesystem, even if quite slow), and the OS allowed multitasking and windows. The idea of a new little black box as a modern QL however, appeals. I've been quite happy with my Q40, but it doesn't really feel like a substitute QL. I've been running Linux on it recently, and it seems more like a PC than a QL (helped by being in a PC case :o). Indeed the Qx0 machines have more latent capability than SMSQ is able to capitalize on, somehow holding them back. I think a new custom hardware platform should not try to compete with these machines but instead aim to be inexpensive and closer to the original QL on the performance scale. Even talk of 64 or 128Mb RAM seems like overkill to me. I'd be happy with 1Mb (which can be done with a couple of 512k statics), including 512x256 graphics, or maybe some extra RAM if 1024x512 is necessary and a pair of floppy disks for storage, and try not to show up the deficiencies of SMSQ/E. Even built-in Microdrive or CompactFlash for storage would add disproportionately to the cost (but could be optional external add-ons). Keep it cheap and QL-like, and not too expandable otherwise you never feel like you've got a complete finished product; let the Q60 satisfy the power hungry. Ian. -Original Message- From: QL recursos en castellano [mailto:sinclairql@;badared.com] Sent: 27 October 2002 17:52 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] Hardware platforms Hi, AL Wrote: QLAY will probably do 95% of what you are looking for. Yes, maybe, but QLAY have limitations. Regards Javier Guerra Sinclair QL Spanish Resources http://badared.com/QL P.D.: I feel if I did not express myself with the correct expressions, but believe that the general concept will be well understood. Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. This message is provided for informational
Re: [ql-users] Sbasic extensions & toolkits
Hi all, I've read this thread about names clashes in toolkits etc. with quite some interest. It would seem to me that, at least for the time being, the path of least resistance would rather be to make sure that names just don't clash, rather than try to devise various -very ingenious- schemes by which this can be avoided at load time. There would be several aspects here: 1 - There must be a way of maintaining a list of currently existing keywords, list which could be sent out to anyone interested. I'm willing to compile and maintain such a list, provided I'm supplied with the toolkits that contain these new keywords. Please note that this would only be a word list, without any reference of what these keywords actually do. I'd gladly have somebody else do it - any volunteers? Isn't there already somethinbg available (commercially?) that contains the names of many toolkits (Sbasic reference manual?). 2 - There must be a way of making sure that names, old or new, don't clash anymore. I would propose the following in this respect: When I (or somebody else?) get the toolkits and compile these lists, we can already single out the clashes. Whenever possible, the authors of the programs could be contacted, in an attempt to have the names changed by them. If the source code exists, that should be possible. That way, at least a list of potential clashes can be published. Th writers of future software could get the list (total words + clashes) from me, or I could push it into this list periodically, if needed. Please note that there is absolutely no way that I could enforce any kind of order, I could only give the already existing names to software authors, if they still wanted to reuse old names, I couldn't help it. A problem exists when only the toolkit exists, without the source (and the author can't be contacted). Surely it is possible to change the names of conflicting keywords directly in the file they are contained in, with a file editor (as a blatant case of advertising, Wined comes to mind). This is entirely feasible, but for copyright reasons, we couldn't release the new binary file. However, a small basic program that made the changes in the toolkit could be released... 3 - As a guideline, perhaps authors of future toolkits might want to envisage that they should, indeed, preface their extensions with, say, their initials, such as WL_ASEARCH instead of ASEARCH etc. This depends, of course, on your cooperation, but it might make future clashes less likely. What do you think? (And, finally, I had already renamed SEARCH etc in newer versions of the fie and am sending his direct to François). Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] WANTED
You'll probably get loads of people telling you this but Sintech can supply both of these. The URL is www.sintech-shop.de The hard microdrive connectors are 3 Euro each (I bought one myself recently) not sure about the flexible ones though. On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 11:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Does anyone have any spare microdrive connectors (either the flexible ones > which go from the Interface 1 or QL to a microdrive unit, or the hard ones > which connect several microdrive units)?? > > Also does anyone have a working 48K spectrum for sale?? > > -- > Rich Mellor > RWAP Software > 35 Chantry Croft, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JH > TEL: 01977 610509 > http://hometown.aol.co.uk/rwapsoftware
[ql-users] WANTED
Does anyone have any spare microdrive connectors (either the flexible ones which go from the Interface 1 or QL to a microdrive unit, or the hard ones which connect several microdrive units)?? Also does anyone have a working 48K spectrum for sale?? -- Rich Mellor RWAP Software 35 Chantry Croft, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JH TEL: 01977 610509 http://hometown.aol.co.uk/rwapsoftware
[ql-users] Vintage Computer Festival
Time for a little Sinclair news from the West Coast. I attended the 5th Vintage Computer Festival, held at Moffet Field, CA (in the heart of Silicon Valley). I exhibited my Sinclair collection (ZX80, ZX81, T/S 1000, T/S 1500, T/S 2068, Spectrum, Sprectrum+, QL, and Z88). I had a display board that covered the history of Sinclair Research Ltd and the various systems. In front of each system I had a card that described the hardware of each system (CPU, Memory, I/O, etc). The attendees (regular, exhibitor, and vendors) all voted for their favorite exhibit. You'll be happy to know that my display won third place. Second place went to a gentleman with a whole bunch of Mac's and Mac portables. First place went to a gentleman displaying Xerox 8065 workstations. I did get a lot of complements from folks. Some were interested because they had used a ZX81 or T/S 1000 years ago. Others were interested in seeing systems like the QL that they had not seen before. Most were puzzled over the Microdrive cartridges. One guy even said that the size reminded him of those new IBM hard drives, called .. Microdrives. There was an attendee from the UK who brought over a number of UK systems (Acorn, Dragon, & Sinclair). One UK QL went for $75. A 48K Spectrum went for $40. One of the organizers is from the former East Germany and organizes VCF Europe in Germany. The next VCF Europe should be this Spring. He even asked me about getting some Sinclair folks (like the Q60 developers) to come to the show. At the VCF shows, the more odd and unusual the computer is, the more interest people have. At the show I met Peter Jenning, who wrote the first Chess program microcomputers (on a Kim-1). His company went on to become Visacorp, who ruled the market with Visicalc, the first spreadsheet program. He said that for 5 years his company was bigger than Microsoft and that the two companies almost merged. I also met Mr. and Mrs. Jolitz, who did the first work on porting BSD Unix to the 386 chip (and published in Dr. Dobb's Journal). There also was a guy who helped develop the Amiga and had the design breadboards for some of the customer Amiga chips. Now I have to figure out what to do next year to win first place. :-) Tim Swenson
