Re: [ql-users] Quality of Software
On 10 Apr 2004 at 17:50, Malcolm Cadman wrote: (...) Yet future has to hold something new and better for us to move forward with ... this maintains interest. Wouldn't something in the shape of (better) applications be nicer? Wolfgang www.scp-paulet-lenerz.com ___ QL-Users Mailing List
Re: [ql-users] Quality of Software
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wolfgang Lenerz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On 9 Apr 2004 at 20:22, Malcolm Cadman wrote: (...) With the QL we already have many divergent routes, that inevitably leave some users outside - original QDOS on original hardware and its upgrades, SMSQ, QXL cards, Q40's and Q60's, emulators like QPC2 and QEmulator. And let's not forget the Aurora. One heartening thing, though, on most of these machines: SMSQ/E runs on them and presents a unified OS. Is there an answer that will keep enough in common to keep us all interested ? Isn't that enough? It is good ... that is why we are still here. Yet future has to hold something new and better for us to move forward with ... this maintains interest. -- Malcolm Cadman ___ QL-Users Mailing List
Re: [ql-users] Quality of Software
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wolfgang Lenerz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On 7 Apr 2004 at 23:11, Malcolm Cadman wrote: That is the different approach - the latter is a hard-coded OS with some system software support. The former is a soft-loaded OS with some hardware support. I wonder about SMSQ/E then It can be hard or soft loaded - even on the same machine. :-))) Wolfgang Yes, great that with SMSQ/E we can be different :-) -- Malcolm Cadman ___ QL-Users Mailing List
