The most important thing to remeber is that the survey only shows the views of the people on the list.
The real question we have to tackle is how do we attract new members to the community? Or put it differently what is the advantage of QDOS or SMSQE over all the other operating systems out there? It is essential to think like Window users, what is annoying them and what our system does better to answer that question. Also we have got to factor in the easier it is for them to learn what to do the more likely they are to join the QL community. So what is better? > >> The main survey page is here: >> >> http://www.nonstickglue.com/QL_Hardware_Library/Survey.html > > Nicely laid out, Dave. > > Some comments, for discussion, based on just a quick look through the > results earlier this morning: > > Question 1: Only 3% with a 128K or 640K QL. Seems to fly in the face > of Geoff's survey for Quanta a few years ago when a surprising number > of members were using a basic QL. But, add in the first 4 results > (above QXL) and it suddenly becomes 26% of people using a QL with any > type of expansion up to Super Gold Card. I did rather expect that the > QL emulators section would be the single largest category, even if 45% > (commercial) plus 5% (free) seemed larger than I expected. And 9% > using Q40/Q60 as a main QL system surprised me, I'd expected about > half that. > > Question 12: glad I'm doing something right! > > Question 13: 95% able to program in SuperBASIC. Rather surprises me, > but assuming replies came mostly from list-members, I've always > thought that most people on this list might consider themselves more > experienced than, say, a lot of Quanta members or QL Today readers? > Does that sound elitist? Wasn't meant to. > > Question 14: 56% able to program in Assembly Language - Norman > Dunbar's QL Today articles have obviously worked well here! > > Question 16: given that the survey was mainly publicised through > ql-users list, I'm surprised only a third of people said they > subscribed to it??? > The low percentage of people subscribing to Quanta and QL Today > probably speaks for itself (although later answers substantially > increase these figures), but could be partially due to people who are > not as active on the QL scene as they used to be, but remain in > contact with the QL scene via this list, which is probably why this > particular survey gives Quanta and QL Today a poor result. I suspect > we've seen plenty of comments on this list including someting like "I > no longer subscribe to Quanta/QL Today, but...". The question is, do > people remain on this list just to keep in touch without the cost of > subscribing to anything (no real reason to subscribe if they are not > regularly using a QL), or is there something that both organisations > could do to entice these back? Comments from people who are on this > list and not subscribing to either organisation welcome. > > Question 17: 15% members of Quanta in Q.16, 29% here. Is the doubling > a statistical blip caused by a fairly small number of responses, was > one of the questions worded so as not to extract the same reply or > what? > ID 4347254: The response about the overseas delivery, "...belief that > sending the newsletter to foreign countries should come AFTER all the > domestic members received their and thus show an inability to factor > in 10+ extra days of transit -- THAT is symptomatic of how they view > the World and/or the membership ... i.e., it's a local club that they > allow others to contribute to" > I'm not quite sure what to make of this - I presume that John Gilpin > has been sending ALL issues out at the same time (not checked with > him), and if so, is the suggestion that Quanta should hold posting UK > mags back for 10 days? I've been a member of Quanta since 1984, my > postal copy regularly seems to arrive one or two days after other UK > members get theirs, even though it's the same British postal system > (probably just the usual "West of Chester" syndrome). > > Question 18: As with the Quanta figures, this shows 50% more QL Today > subscribers than the original Question 16?!?! > > Question 20: 71% sharing files via email - to be expected in this day > and age, figure may be a little higher here as this is a survey where > all users by definition use email to know about this survey, but the > 21% still using floppies surprises me. > > Question 21: 78% using their QL for programming and personal use. In > line with my expectations. > > Question 22: I'm surprised the response wasn't even higher in citing > internet access as "critical". Of course, QPC2, QemuLator and uQLx > have the base ability here, but we only have Jonathan Hudson's > programs as applications. Dave - get working on those apps you > mentioned - they'll do well! > > Question 24: 46% using a Windows system, no surprises there. The > figure for OSX is a little higher than I'd expected, but it looks like > Daniele correctly predicted the need for a OSX QemuLator here. > > In summary, this survey was a fairly smal and limited one, as others > have remarked. Hopefully, the experience from this one should mean > even better results from the next one. Well done to Dave for putting > it together quickly and getting the results out pronto (even if the > list did sabotage his first results effort). > > Dilwyn Jones > > > > _______________________________________________ > QL-Users Mailing List > http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm > ----------------------------------------- Planet Ink Club is a great way to save money and help the environment. Join today (http://www.planetinkclub.com) This message has been scanned by Supanet for viruses and dangerous content using ClamAV and SpamAssassin. _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
