[ql-users] added zip and pdf format
Hi We has been added the 'Sinclair QL Service Manual' ZIP and PDF file formats in the url: http://badared.com/QL/mans/qlsm/qlsm_en.html Regards Javier Guerra Sinclair QL Spanish Resources http://badared.com/QL
[ql-users] diagrams and ilustrations in HTML QL Service Manual
Hi Somebody can scan the illustrations of this manual to incorporate them to the HTML manual? Contact through email: sinclairql[A]badared[dot]com Regards Javier Guerra Sinclair QL Spanish Resources http://badared.com/QL
Re: [ql-users] QL Calendar for 2003
From: Malcolm Cadman snip How about: Everybody takes their QL stands in front of a local famous landmark and gets someone to photograph them. We could have QL with Eifeltower, QL and the Golden Gates, QL on the Eiger, QL on Britonbeach, QL and Big Ben, QL ... ... and a spanish monument, of course. Javier Guerra Sinclair QL Spanish Resources.
[ql-users] QL Service Manual in HTML Format
The document QL Service Manual has been turned to HTML by one of the collaborators of the page Sinclair QL Spanish Resources One is to your disposition in the URL: http://badared.com/QL/mans/qlsm/qlsm_en.html I hope that it is to you of interest and utility. Javier Guerra Sinclair QL Spanish Resources http://badared.com/QL
Re: [ql-users] Keyboard Membranes
Hi I am interested in 2 membranes, but I haveinterested people. In the end I calculate we will be able to need 7 membranes. I am sure that there is more people interested outside this list. Greetings Javier Guerra Sinclair QL Spanish Resources http://badared.com/QL - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 10:34 PM Subject: [ql-users] Keyboard Membranes Well,It is a sad thing to say that only 5 people have added their details to the mini-poll I was running on the keyboard membranes. I wonder if anyone else has received more response after several people on this list seemed to want new membranes??Maybe it just reflects the fact that people on this list are not willing to actually put their money on the table (or am I wrong), or more hopefully, it is that the people on this list are using an emulator and therefore don't need a working proper QL!!--Rich Mellor RWAP Software35 Chantry Croft, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JHTEL: 01977 610509http://hometown.aol.co.uk/rwapsoftware
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: [ql-users] Hardware platforms
Hi, AL Wrote: QLAY will probably do 95% of what you are looking for. Yes, maybe, but QLAY have limitations. - Use an anfitrion OS. - Emulate the original QDOS only (not add advanced features) - etc... uQLx can be the solution, but its useother OS (Linux) if QLAY or uQLx were thought for a computer with generic hardware, would be QL for many years. We do not forget the history.Q40 or any other propietary hardware will finish being obsolete. A very clear exampleare Linux and BeOS (in the future OpenBeOS). Both Operating systems chose to migrate to an opened platform, where the hardware was cheap and easily preemtive. A similar dilemma undergoes theAmiga users. Apple even uses already generic componentfor its equipment. The effort truely would consist of creating software.I understand that it is a inutil effort if thinks about him from the commercial point of view.But I believe that to work in advanced emulators it supposes the same effort. It is certain that the price of an emulator is important.QLAY is free, and QPC or another emulator have asmaller costthan theof a complete computer one, but whom they buy a Q40 wants somethingmore.They want a new machine, with new characteristics and look for independence. This it is, mainly, the point of view of my reasoning. All we have old computers,old Pentiums thatwe usedto put linux like http or FTP server or similar things. If I must pay by a software that emulates the QL, I'll prefer that it was a software able to work in my old Pentium for example. Good, all this are only ideas. I am conscious of the work and the effort of as much people that make us arrive their wonderful programs and extensions from hardware. 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 andevelopment a viabased on software who is independentof the machine in which it is going to work. 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.
Re: [ql-users] Hardware platforms
I am not safe of haver understood. My English is very limited :) QDOS Classic for Q40 is an example of which I was proposed, and personally, would be arranged to pay by something thus adapted to a PC. Javier Guerra - Original Message - From: ZN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 2:26 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Hardware platforms On 26/10/02 at 20:18 QL recursos en castellano wrote: Why we do not use a partition with an emulator of 68000 (and other chips) and SMSQ/E in PC-style computer or use any PPC actual machine directly? We cannot use a PPC machine directly, an emulator must be used on these just as on anything else that is not 68k compatible. QPC for DOS or QLAY (or anothers) can be adapted for use any formated partition or QL-format partitions. It would be a solution for the future at a low cost. I don't see why anyone would want a solution past QPC then - unless they want something for nothing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not disparaging other emulators. But free emulators must only use free versions of the OS, which in effect means you are stuck with JS or developements from it. Anyone that decides to 'clone' something more modern, like SMSQ, will either be breaking the rules, or putting in so much work that it definitely will not be free - or, if it will, it will come very late (and, considering I've been cooking up GF for ages now, believe me, I know what I'm talking about). For most cases where users want to use a QL as a QL, an emulator is a good solution. For some cases, namely those that may actually generate applications outside the ever shrinking community, this is not true. For instance, I got QPC 1 from Marcel and use it on a laptop because it alowes me to address some of the hardware directly, which I in turn use for various creative things - the latest of which is a reader for diagnostic codes for car electronics. In fact, I have so many PAYING projects that would be a matter of hours with a simple QL 'hardware module' which alowes simple hardware to be programmed in Sbasic, that I would certainly be in a FAR better situation financially, and otherwise, if I had it. The uses for such a simple and small hardware system, even if it is not cheap, are so large that, financially speaking, the QL market is negligible in comparison. To anticipate a question: so why don't I do it? Simple: it requires the OS and software to be modified and licenced to work on such hardware. Or, I could ask for the SMSQ source and just use it without telling anyone - it's hardly a problem of someone going to look insaide various black boxes to see what's really driving them. The problem with that approach is that nothing comes back to the community, and the community is the prime source of software and people who can produce it. It would be only fair to give something back - but then, if you read carefully, maybe you have noticed that there is a job for more than one person in this endevour. Nasta
Re: [ql-users] Keyboard membranes
I believe that there are many potential clients. I am one of them. Greetings. Badaman
[ql-users] New QL Web Site
Hi I'm a new user of this mailing list. I'm working in a new Sinclair QL Web site (in spanish only, sorry) called "Siclair QL, Recursos en Castellano" (Sinclair QL Spanish Resources) You can visitthis URL: http://badared.com/QL -- QL must be in caps. Bye Javier Guerra Spain
