Re: [ql-users] One box or two
Now, that is really dreaming! I am partly involved with DVD playback where I work and many a person has fried their brains trying to get it to work. jim Anyone up for writing DVD/video s/w for SMSQ? :o) 800 MHz or not Video playback of ANY kind won't be feasible (unless you have 1Gig of memory or so) until true background IOSS operation is possible (ie rationalization of the IO, metadrivers etc...) Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] QPC on a Mac
So the next question is - does he have Virtual PC to run QPC under? jim On Monday, November 18, 2002, at 09:52 PM, Phoebus Dokos wrote: ??? 18/11/2002 11:11:18 ??, ?/? James Hunkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: Dave, Have you run (or anyone else) QPC under Virtual PC on a Mac. I am interested in getting some performance comparisons and also to see if anyone has had any issues with multiple key entries (such as in QD). Jim Jim, Dave doesn't have QPC -or QD- (I should know he just bought SMSQ/E for the QXL) but I will send him the Demo version for him to try pair together with QSBB and other benchmarks in a QXL.WIN file :-) I want to know too :-) Phoebus
Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two
??? 18/11/2002 6:33:43 ??, ?/? Dave P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: >What makes the QL not relevant is that people are WILLIGN to pay an arm >and a leg to get something that will use up the resources of a 3GHz >machine. Scary! > Yep and they end up losing the other two as well when they repeatedly bang them against the wall when the PeeCee hangs just at the moment they were backing the damn thing up :-) >800MHz coming, eh? Anyone up for writing DVD/video s/w for SMSQ? :o) > 800 MHz or not Video playback of ANY kind won't be feasible (unless you have 1Gig of memory or so) until true background IOSS operation is possible (ie rationalization of the IO, metadrivers etc...) Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] QPC on a Mac
??? 18/11/2002 11:11:18 ??, ?/? James Hunkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: > >Dave, > >Have you run (or anyone else) QPC under Virtual PC on a Mac. I am >interested in getting some performance comparisons and also to see if >anyone has had any issues with multiple key entries (such as in QD). > >Jim Jim, Dave doesn't have QPC -or QD- (I should know he just bought SMSQ/E for the QXL) but I will send him the Demo version for him to try pair together with QSBB and other benchmarks in a QXL.WIN file :-) I want to know too :-) Phoebus
[ql-users] QPC on a Mac
Dave, Have you run (or anyone else) QPC under Virtual PC on a Mac. I am interested in getting some performance comparisons and also to see if anyone has had any issues with multiple key entries (such as in QD). Jim On Monday, November 18, 2002, at 08:59 AM, Dave P wrote: Well, mine's a mere dual 733 G4, but it's faster than a 3GHz P4 in most things. Interestingly, I chose the slower clocked Mac because it was "The Tool For The Job" of editing video. It stomps all over my dual Athlon 1800+, has never crashed and "Just Works"...
Re: [ql-users] MKPART
18/11/2002 7:27:10 ??, "P Witte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Phoebus Dokos writes: > ><> >> I am not sure if I should use Atari FDISK from the Linux Distro instead... >any help? > >Use fdisk v1.16 (atafdisk-0.7.1.src.tar.gz) or later. If you get the sources >check out the readme file for some useful information on the hard disk >format. Thanks Per, much appreciated... Also thanks to Fabrizio :-) > >BTW youve got [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the header but I havent >received it on that account. Did you sent it there? > >Per > Yes but its not there yet! >
Re: [ql-users] MKPART
Phoebus Dokos writes: <> > I am not sure if I should use Atari FDISK from the Linux Distro instead... any help? Use fdisk v1.16 (atafdisk-0.7.1.src.tar.gz) or later. If you get the sources check out the readme file for some useful information on the hard disk format. BTW youve got [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the header but I havent received it on that account. Did you sent it there? Per
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ-E Development
Wolfgang Lenerz writes: <> > > No. You would be in control of all relevant UPloads to the site. > > Will that be such a good idea? I can already see people protesting > that I have too much control over what is happening on the website. You already have a lot of control ;) Only if that control is shown to be beneficial, efficient and fair will it have any meaning. Openness will provide continuous proof of that as well as many other benefits. A web-based framework as I have sketched seems to answer. However there is little point in discussing this further as neither I nor you are going to put this into practise, and no one else seems interested in even discussing the matter. No skin of my nose. Ill go along with any plan that does the job. So, what is the plan, guys? Or dyall think we can develop a complex, multi-component system, targeted at a variety of platforms and a multitude of users, put to a plethora of different uses - some of which may not even be thought of yet - simply with the aid of this list (sporting discussions ranging from hardware to haggis) plus the private communication between individual, voluntary developers and a benign registrar? > > They will anyway. > > Will they? > > > But with a central, open site at least we'll all have the > > chance to see what the results of those discussions are as soon as the > > outcomes have been agreed. > > > > > NOT saying that this is a bad thing but it will mean that > > > development will be made on a more ad hoc basis. As the software > > > registrar, with a mission to try to keep unified versions where > > > possible (and thus, trying to steer the thing a bit), that must leave > > > me with fixed feelings, of course since my power to influence > > > things will be diminished (if it ever existed). But again, if this serves > > > the community, I have no problems with it > > > > I think the best you can ever hope for is to have some control over the > > integrity of the sources. > Which I won,'t if you can exchange them that easily. Again, I'm not > saying this because I want absolute control over the sources, butif I > don't have any, we can all forget the registrar... Sorry if I didnt make myself clear... > > What facilities and improvements will be developed > > will be entirely up to the interests and abilities of the people involved. > > True - but then again, if I'm thje central hub, I *might* be able to > push development more in one (common) direction. We'll see. > > At present there is virtually no control over who legal users are. If a > > reseller went down, or if there was a corrupt reseller (God forbid!) there > > is currently no way of knowing. > > So? I mean, tough luck. > > > My proposal is that each user license > > would come with its own serial number that the customer could use to > > register with the database to allow free upgrade downloads or support > > entitlement. > NO! > I want to keep the commercial side and the development side > TOTALLY separate. > I may be responsible as software registrar to get the binaries to the > resellers - but the relation between them and the users is NONE of > my concern, and it shouldn't be. > Support must be handled by the people who sold you your > SMSQ/E. You are quite right. Suggestion withdrawn. > Of cxourse, if a bug is discovered, I think veryone will try to correct > it, but there is a difference between that and the support supplied > by the resellers! I sincerely hope that in the event of a bug being discovered, not everyone will try to correct it ;) <> Per
Re: [ql-users] One box or two
18/11/2002 6:49:29 ìì, Roy Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tony Firshman ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >>>I/O is the key in many other aspects. Have you ever tried an optical >>>mouse? If so, would ever want to go back to a ball mouse? I don't >>>think so. Without a PS/2 connector or USB on the Qx0's it will >>>be hard to find a mouse for the serial port in general, let alone a >>>hi-tech mouse (although cordless and optical are fairly cheap nowadays). >>It should be possible to use a ps2 to serial converter. USB though is a >>major problem. >The PS2 to Serial conversion cable or plug is very much tied to the >object it is connecting to. You cannot use any converter with any >device. They just don't work. Hi Roy, You misunderstood Dave, he talked about AN ACTUAL Serial to PS/2 converter not a device dependent one... The one he mentions costs some money, not just pence\ Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] One box or two
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dave P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes Well, mine's a mere dual 733 G4, but it's faster than a 3GHz P4 in most things. Interestingly, I chose the slower clocked Mac because it was "The Tool For The Job" of editing video. It stomps all over my dual Athlon 1800+, has never crashed and "Just Works"... Not very relevant to QLs though. This is really the point. I have only had contact with two or three people who had any real need for a QL or QL emulator faster than a QXL or Q40. Given that 99% of QL programs are very uncomplicated speed does not really come into it at all. It is the same with most PCs. People go out and buy a 2.4GHz P4 to run office applications. Live fast - die stupid. -- 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] One box or two
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tony Firshman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes I/O is the key in many other aspects. Have you ever tried an optical mouse? If so, would ever want to go back to a ball mouse? I don't think so. Without a PS/2 connector or USB on the Qx0's it will be hard to find a mouse for the serial port in general, let alone a hi-tech mouse (although cordless and optical are fairly cheap nowadays). It should be possible to use a ps2 to serial converter. USB though is a major problem. The PS2 to Serial conversion cable or plug is very much tied to the object it is connecting to. You cannot use any converter with any device. They just don't work. -- 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: RE: [ql-users] One box or two
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Phoebus wrote: > Of course it is relevant! It is always relevant... What's not relevant > is to pay an arm and a leg to buy overhead (That's essentially what > Windows is... added overhead... why do you think I still > use Windows NT 4? What makes the QL not relevant is that people are WILLIGN to pay an arm and a leg to get something that will use up the resources of a 3GHz machine. Scary! 800MHz coming, eh? Anyone up for writing DVD/video s/w for SMSQ? :o) Dave
Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two
n Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:59:13 -0600 (CST), Dave P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: > >> Hehe, what about dual 1.2GHz PowerPC G4s? (Dave can give you figures there >> :-) > > Well, mine's a mere dual 733 G4, but it's faster than a 3GHz P4 in most > things. > > Interestingly, I chose the slower clocked Mac because it was "The Tool For > The Job" of editing video. It stomps all over my dual Athlon 1800+, has > never crashed and "Just Works"... > > Not very relevant to QLs though. > > So, Motorola is releasing an 800MHz M68k? When? How much? Why is this > relevant to a QL user, since performance isn't a critical dynamic in such > a small, tight OS? :o) > > Dave > Of course it is relevant! It is always relevant... What 's not relevant is to pay an arm and a leg to buy overhead (That 's essentially what Windows is... added overhead... why do you think I still use Windows NT 4? Phoebus
[ql-users] MKPART
Hi all, Does anyone have a newer version of MKPART than the one that shipped with SMSQ/E 2.91? (Or at least some instructions for it?) Mine acts up big time, the numbers it shows make no sense and I suspect it cannot read my Hdd's info correctly (It does format however, but the partition sizes are totally wrong). On the other hand Phil Borman's QubIDE's v.2.01 partition_exe finds the hard drive immediately (Also says it runs on a Q40 - Nice little touch there ;-) and partitions like a dream (Pity you can't use it with SMSQ/E) I am not sure if I should use Atari FDISK from the Linux Distro instead... any help? Phoebus
Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two
??? 18/11/2002 11:59:13 ??, ?/? Dave P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: >So, Motorola is releasing an 800MHz M68k? When? How much? Why is this >relevant to a QL user, since performance isn't a critical dynamic in such >a small, tight OS? :o) See the "Development Path" (or something like that is what they call it ;-) at their m68k pages... It will be around 2003 IIRC... ColdFire Core v5 is already out with improved M68K Compatibility and partial superscalar units Phoebus
[ql-users] GhostScript
I have today been experimenting with GhostScript on my Q60/80 and on my SGC/Aurora combination. With simple line diagrams it works on both but what a lot of memory it uses! On the 4MB SGC, I had to strip out Emacs and MView before I had (just) enough memory to print out a diagram comprising two circles and a rectangle. Is this everyone else's experience? What will happen when I get round to downloading some fonts - does the use of text make a difference? Christopher Cave
Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: > Hehe, what about dual 1.2GHz PowerPC G4s? (Dave can give you figures there :-) Well, mine's a mere dual 733 G4, but it's faster than a 3GHz P4 in most things. Interestingly, I chose the slower clocked Mac because it was "The Tool For The Job" of editing video. It stomps all over my dual Athlon 1800+, has never crashed and "Just Works"... Not very relevant to QLs though. So, Motorola is releasing an 800MHz M68k? When? How much? Why is this relevant to a QL user, since performance isn't a critical dynamic in such a small, tight OS? :o) Dave
Re: [ql-users] One box or two
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 at 14:46:00, Jochen Merz wrote: (ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) > >Hi, > >I think that the average user is not too worried about the fact that one >system may be a bit faster than the other one on number crunching or >Benchmarks. The daily work is not benchmark, it is usually a lot of >everything, including I/O (I think that's what Roy said some time ago). > >Printing over the PAR device on a Q40 was very slow, for example. Indeed. The problem as I recall was that the Q40 hardware was not expecting a momentary IRQ. We had to disable the hardware interrupt, and Tony T did it with software timing. I assume that is why its slow. >I/O is the key in many other aspects. Have you ever tried an optical >mouse? If so, would ever want to go back to a ball mouse? I don't >think so. Without a PS/2 connector or USB on the Qx0's it will >be hard to find a mouse for the serial port in general, let alone a >hi-tech mouse (although cordless and optical are fairly cheap nowadays). It should be possible to use a ps2 to serial converter. USB though is a major problem. > -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two
On 18/11/02 at 14:27 Colin Parsons wrote: >What about a 3.1 Ghz PC Considering that it would still just barely beat the Q60 I think you would be better off with a Q60 since the whole thing costs less than the 3.1GHz CPU alone - assuming you find one that will actually run at that speed. Nasta
Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two
??? 18/11/2002 9:27:41 ??, ?/? "Colin Parsons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: > >What about a 3.1 Ghz PC Hehe, what about dual 1.2GHz PowerPC G4s? (Dave can give you figures there :-) Phoebus
Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two
What about a 3.1 Ghz PC Cheers Colin - Original Message - From: "Phoebus Dokos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 1:48 PM Subject: Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two > > ??? 18/11/2002 6:09:14 ??, ?/? Claude Mourier 00 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: > > > > >Conclusion : it's sad Motorola never released fasters 68k processors. > >80Mhz is 1/20 compared with 1,6Ghz. > > > > It actually has and it will keep on releasing faster ones for quite some time... > > The colfdfire v.5 and 6 cores (esp. the v.6 core which will be 100% 68K compatible and > offer two full superscalar units will initially run at 800 MHz. which means that a 1.6 > GHz Intel CPU won't be very far away :-) > > > Phoebus > > >
Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two
??? 18/11/2002 6:09:14 ??, ?/? Claude Mourier 00 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: > >Conclusion : it's sad Motorola never released fasters 68k processors. >80Mhz is 1/20 compared with 1,6Ghz. > It actually has and it will keep on releasing faster ones for quite some time... The colfdfire v.5 and 6 cores (esp. the v.6 core which will be 100% 68K compatible and offer two full superscalar units will initially run at 800 MHz. which means that a 1.6 GHz Intel CPU won't be very far away :-) Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] One box or two
Hi, I think that the average user is not too worried about the fact that one system may be a bit faster than the other one on number crunching or Benchmarks. The daily work is not benchmark, it is usually a lot of everything, including I/O (I think that's what Roy said some time ago). Printing over the PAR device on a Q40 was very slow, for example. My old ATARI TT was printing at about 4 times the speed with the first SMSQ/E. After Tony Tebby and I spent quite some time on fiddling with the interrupt and generating them without the printer's help, we managed to speed up printing a bit - but it was still slower than on the ATARI TT. Peter Graf sent me a program which printed a file to the parallel port much faster, but this was then done in a loop and not through the device. That wasn't a real solution for me - a bit tedious not to be able to print to PAR, but to a file first and then have the file spooled to the port. I am a bit of a "port maniac" because I need several printers, but here is QPC more than helpful. Up to 8 serial ports, up to 4 parallel ports (or printers connected somewhere somehow, e.g. USB or LAN) give me the highest flexibility I can think of. Even if we manage to print to EPSON emulators or via postscript or whatever (I am refering to the printer language problem here), there is the problem that most modern printers only come with USB connectors. The more expensive models come with USB and PAR, but how long is this going to last? More and more printer models have the PAR connector removed. I/O is the key in many other aspects. Have you ever tried an optical mouse? If so, would ever want to go back to a ball mouse? I don't think so. Without a PS/2 connector or USB on the Qx0's it will be hard to find a mouse for the serial port in general, let alone a hi-tech mouse (although cordless and optical are fairly cheap nowadays). You all probably know that I was an ATARI fan for many, many years, and I like my TT very much. However, since technology moves on, and QPC got better and better, I somehow did not like to have to go back to the "old" stuff after I got used to the new, much better devices on my PC and QPC. And as I said: when Marcel introduced the very many IO ports this made my TT obsolete. I was worried about the USB etc. already years ago when I still favoured my TT, but there was no real solution. Nowadays, the situation is much more pro-USB. There are problems (driver problems, "unknown device" etc. and for the QL programmers USB must be a nightmare), but when the devices work they are great! And you really don't have a choice anyway. Don't get me wrong: I am not telling you that you should buy a PC because it's a PC to run Windows, no, I am trying to give you an idea how flexible QPC can be used on it - and what you have to consider in terms of I/O, connecting devices, monitors, flat screens, printers, mice, modems, and whatever. This should all go into your decision before you spend a lot of money on either product. Both have their advantages, both have their disadvantages, but talking about the speed only is quite misleading (and I don't know or don't care whether a Q60 is faster or slower than a state-of-the Art PC and which product is cheaper or more expensive ... just seeing a leaflet of a brandnew, ridiculously cheap ALDI PC here with virtually everything in it - NO, I am NOT tempted to buy it!) The main question should be: how are YOU going to use the system, what are you going to do with it and what do you want/plan to connect to it. Regards Jochen
RE: [ql-users] One box or two
Conclusion : it's sad Motorola never released fasters 68k processors. 80Mhz is 1/20 compared with 1,6Ghz. Claude -Message d'origine- De : Duncan Neithercut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Envoyé : dimanche 17 novembre 2002 20:57 À : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet : RE: [ql-users] One box or two Hi, etc...
