[ql-users] Q60 / 80
Hi 68k folks, One week ago, I posted a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], but got no anwser then. I also tried [EMAIL PROTECTED], but got no anwser too. Where can I buy a Q60 / 80? Cheers. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
[ql-users] Q60 / 80
Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote: Hi 68k folks, One week ago, I posted a message to sales at q40.de, but got no anwser then. I also tried webmaster at q40.de, but got no anwser too. Derek Stewart of DD Systems is just back from a trip, I guess he'll check the sales account soon. Where can I buy a Q60 / 80? The Q60 is sold from DD Systems in England. It touches me to see that folks still want native highend 68k systems although we are nowhere able to compete with the price of a PC based emulator. We are not even advertising in the magazines anymore but orders keep coming. When folks invest so much money there still must be more in a native QL system that just the capabilty to execute a QL OS. What is this today? Is it the simplicity of the system? Power consumption issues / fanless CPU operation? Direct access to the hardware without emulated software layers? The fast boot into the 68k OS after power-on? The option to do totally without Windows or Linux? Intel outside? Nostalgia? Tinkering and learning? A little bit of all of them? Something else? Peter ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] Q60 / 80
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:02:23PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Derek Stewart of DD Systems is just back from a trip, I guess he'll check the sales account soon. Derek just told me in private my mail did not come through in the first place, so I simply mailed him again to its own email address. It touches me to see that folks still want native highend 68k systems although we are nowhere able to compete with the price of a PC based emulator. We are not even advertising in the magazines anymore but orders keep coming. I am so delighted to hear that. Right, m68k hardware is not yet dead! ;D When folks invest so much money there still must be more in a native QL system that just the capabilty to execute a QL OS. What is this today? Of course, it is. ;) Is it the simplicity of the system? Power consumption issues / fanless CPU operation? Direct access to the hardware without emulated software layers? The fast boot into the 68k OS after power-on? The option to do totally without Windows or Linux? Intel outside? Nostalgia? Tinkering and learning? A little bit of all of them? Something else? Well, I do not know for the other people. However, in my case, it could be criticise by QL native system people like you who prefer using the original system. Of course, all your hypothesis are also my concern. ;) I am a Debian GNU/Linux m68k contributor, I need decent hardware to: 1/ Learn the architecture. Of course, I can do that with an Atari Falcon, an Apple Quadra 650, or an Amiga 4000T, but that last one is at most a 68060 at 56 MHz. There are some new extensions boards for Falcon with a 68060 at 105 MHz http://www.czuba-tech.com/CT60/english/prices.htm, but Linux does not support them yet. I need to get in touch with people working on the related kernel part, before getting my money into it. :) 2/ Learn Linux kernel inner-working for the m68k port flavours, and Linux kernel generic behaviour. Well, the 68LC060 is well supported by the kernel, and I have been told FPU emulation runs smoothly. ;) 3/ Help the building of Debian packages on m68k by setting up an auto-builder. The goal is to get the fastest hardware to have the building done. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/03/msg02441.html to know why. By the way, there is *NO WAY* yet to get a fast emulation of an MMU which is required by Linux. See http://atari.sh.cvut.cz/~aranym/aranym/msg07758.html and http://atari.sh.cvut.cz/~aranym/aranym/msg07763.html. BasiliskII for Mac68k has no MMU support. ARAnyM for Atari has a huge MMU implementation which consumes a lot, even when Videl graphics emulation is offline. I was at 15 MHz at most on a dual Athlon MP 2400+ and 20 MHz at most on a dual G5 at 2 GHz. UAE for Amiga has an old unstable MMU implementation which does not work anymore. Cheers. -- ((__,--,__)) Aurélien GÉRÔME .---. `--)~ ~(--` Free Software Developer / \ .-'( )`-. Unix Sys Net Admin [EMAIL PROTECTED]@./ `~~`@) (@`~~` /`\_/`\ | |.''`. // _ \\ | | : :' : | \ )|_ (8___8) `. `'` /`\_` _/ \ `---` `- \__/'---'\__/ ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] Q60 / 80
an Atari Falcon, an Apple Quadra 650, or an Amiga 4000T, Just an erratum : Apple Quadra 950. ;) ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] Q60 / 80
Peter Graf wrote: When folks invest so much money there still must be more in a native QL system that just the capabilty to execute a QL OS. What is this today? Is it the simplicity of the system? Power consumption issues / fanless CPU operation? Direct access to the hardware without emulated software layers? The fast boot into the 68k OS after power-on? The option to do totally without Windows or Linux? Intel outside? Nostalgia? Tinkering and learning? A little bit of all of them? Something else? Peter I think a combination of all these things. I am content with QPC2 and a PC, but would probably buy a Q60 if I had the money and the space in the house. For me, it is the ability to use a different type of computer to that which I use every day in work. In QDOS or SMSQ I can write my own programs and generally tinker which I would not do on other computer systems. There is also the general level of friendship of the QL community. We all try to help each other. People who stay with the QL generally do so for reasons other than profit, so we end up being a very friendly crowd. Dilwyn Jones ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] Q60 / 80
Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote: By the way, there is *NO WAY* yet to get a fast emulation of an MMU which is required by Linux. Actually, I wouldn't be so sure. Using decent JIT technology a 68k core (without MMU) with at least 200Mhz (relative to 68060) could be possible on current PCs (my guess is more like 300 to 400Mhz). I cannot believe that an MMU emulation would slow that down to 1/10th. Frankly, I just don't see any market for it, otherwise I would have tried. Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] Q60 / 80
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:39:06 -0400, Marcel Kilgus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Aurlien GRME wrote: By the way, there is *NO WAY* yet to get a fast emulation of an MMU which is required by Linux. Actually, I wouldn't be so sure. Using decent JIT technology a 68k core (without MMU) with at least 200Mhz (relative to 68060) could be possible on current PCs (my guess is more like 300 to 400Mhz). I cannot believe that an MMU emulation would slow that down to 1/10th. Frankly, I just don't see any market for it, otherwise I would have tried. Yes but that would be beyond the scope of QPC (to run Linux) anyway; plus SMSQ/e doesn't require it. Ffibys ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] Q60 / 80
Phoebus R. Dokos wrote: Yes but that would be beyond the scope of QPC (to run Linux) anyway; Of course. Who would want to do that if native Linux is better supported and magnitudes faster? The JIT idea itself I've toyed with often, but I guess most people are already happy with the speed as it is. QemuFast is a remarkable achievement in this respect. Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] Q60 / 80
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:01:02 -0400, Marcel Kilgus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Phoebus R. Dokos wrote: Yes but that would be beyond the scope of QPC (to run Linux) anyway; Of course. Who would want to do that if native Linux is better supported and magnitudes faster? There are reasons like learning the architecture or testing executables in an emulated environment. After all for most applications where a 68K architecture is involved, development takes place in another system. The JIT idea itself I've toyed with often, but I guess most people are already happy with the speed as it is. QemuFast is a remarkable achievement in this respect. Absolutely, however the tradeoff with specifically QemuFast is reduced compatibility (unless steps are taken to trap the problems) Ffibys ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] Q60 / 80
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:39:06PM +0200, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote: By the way, there is *NO WAY* yet to get a fast emulation of an MMU which is required by Linux. Actually, I wouldn't be so sure. Using decent JIT technology a 68k core (without MMU) with at least 200Mhz (relative to 68060) could be possible on current PCs (my guess is more like 300 to 400Mhz). I cannot believe that an MMU emulation would slow that down to 1/10th. Frankly, I just don't see any market for it, otherwise I would have tried. Maybe I have incorrectly express myself. :) I should have said there is no software yet rather than there is no way. JIT is a nice idea, but for an MMU emulation, even with JIT, it is just too much ressources consuming, really to much. By the way, I took the example of ARAnyM which emulates more than a single processor, but a graphic card, system buses, and some other peripherals. Hence, my remark was misplaced. ;) Cheers. -- ((__,--,__)) Aurélien GÉRÔME .---. `--)~ ~(--` Free Software Developer / \ .-'( )`-. Unix Sys Net Admin [EMAIL PROTECTED]@./ `~~`@) (@`~~` /`\_/`\ | |.''`. // _ \\ | | : :' : | \ )|_ (8___8) `. `'` /`\_` _/ \ `---` `- \__/'---'\__/ ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] Q60 / 80
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote: Hi 68k folks, One week ago, I posted a message to sales at q40.de, but got no anwser then. I also tried webmaster at q40.de, but got no anwser too. Derek Stewart of DD Systems is just back from a trip, I guess he'll check the sales account soon. I spoke with Derek a short time ago and I gather he is going into hospital for an operation soon. This may be why there is no reply. -- Roy Wood Q Branch. 20 Locks Hill, Portslade, Sussex.BN41 2LB Tel: +44 (0) 1273 386030fax: +44 (0) 1273 430501 skype : royqbranch web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
