On Wednesday 14 February 2007 02:51, Daniele Terdina wrote:
> It would be great to be able to fit a PC in a QL case, with a 100%
> compatible QL emulator running on it and able to access the microdrives (or
> better 1 mdv and a memory card reader in the right slot) and QL keyboard,
> plus plenty of
Daniele Terdina wrote:
> It would be great to be able to fit a PC in a QL case, with a 100%
> compatible QL emulator running on it and able to access the microdrives
> (or better 1 mdv and a memory card reader in the right slot) and QL
> keyboard, plus plenty of USB ports on the back for floppy d
rom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> d.com] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 7:16 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [ql-users] SDGC
>
> Rick Chagouri-Brindle wrote:
>
> > I think so too . . . looking at it objectiv
On 13 Feb 2007, at 22:06, Dilwyn Jones wrote:
>
> But if a 'Super QL' were made to fit the original case, it would of
> course have nostalgia value, as the original QL case design was one of
> its great features.
If a SuperQL was made as a new motherboard, but incorporating
connectors for MDV,
Dilwyn Jones wrote:
> But if a 'Super QL' were made to fit the original case, it would of
> course have nostalgia value, as the original QL case design was one of
> its great features.
>
>
Absolutely . . . are there certainly seems a market for nostalgia at the
moment . . .
There's a Dutch c
Peter Graf wrote:
> I wonder if the QL motherboard needs to stay to keep the thing
> subjectively attractive. Or could the QL be filled with completely
> new
> life, just keeping the black case?
I think that an Aurora card can in principle be built into a QL case,
but it's not easy. Probably easier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Rick Chagouri-Brindle wrote:
>
>
>> I think so too . . . looking at it objectively if you replace too much
>> of the original QL you are no longer really using the QL, but the fact
>> that it is still in the black box is subjectively attractive.
>>
>
> I wonde
Rick Chagouri-Brindle wrote:
> I think so too . . . looking at it objectively if you replace too much
> of the original QL you are no longer really using the QL, but the fact
> that it is still in the black box is subjectively attractive.
I wonder if the QL motherboard needs to stay to keep the
>So MY ideal machine would be one that is capable of using the full
>potential of SMSQ/PEv2 (only QPC2 and Qx0 can do that now, both Aurora/SGC
>and QXL suffer from lack of memory) and can be fitted in a black box (or
>my MaxiQL or MinisQL).
>QL Today v10i2 had an article of the June 2005 Ein
Op Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:50:25 +0100 schreef Tony Firshman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think is is just nostalgia for the first experience.
> For the people who liked the original black box, the add-ons to that are
> attractive, and one feels one is still using the original.
>
The design of the Sinc
>
> I think is is just nostalgia for the first experience.
> For the people who liked the original black box, the add-ons to that are
> attractive, and one feels one is still using the original.
>
> Tony
I think so too . . . looking at it objectively if you replace too much
of the original QL you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there has always been a number of QL folks who want native hardware, but
> weren't satisfied with the concept of the Q60. They kept looking for a
> "Super Duper Gold Card". I often tried to understand what they rea
Hi,
there has always been a number of QL folks who want native hardware, but
weren't satisfied with the concept of the Q60. They kept looking for a
"Super Duper Gold Card". I often tried to understand what they really have
in mind but failed. Some of them seem on this list now, maybe my curiosi
13 matches
Mail list logo
