Re: [ql-users] Operating Systems
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Malcolm Cadman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Yet applications like Browsers, DTP, Graphics, etc, are not part of what is supplied. Which makes sense, as this keeps the market open for the development of software. But they are still developed. Go to Tucows and see how many shareware browsers there are. I do not care if there are big companies doing it. Little ones do this sort of stuff and do it very well and I buy a lot of shareware from these people. Development of replacement components for Windoze continues. The other problem with 'in-built' facilities is that they will always need upgrading, so the OS will need upgrading - as all users will become discontent. Allowing the software applications to be built on top of the OS allows for easier flexibility - only some users become discontent, are they have a solution in adding newer application versions, or new software entirely. Nonsense. I have upgraded I.E. a couple of times with out changing the O/S. It is very easy. I have even changed versions within an O/S. You can do the same with Media Player and any of the other applications. -- Roy Wood Q Branch. 20 Locks Hill, Portslade, Sussex. Tel: +44 (0) 1273 386030fax: +44 (0) 1273 430501 web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk ___ QL-Users Mailing List
Re: [ql-users] Printer help
Click on 'View devices by connection'. Highlight the device, and view its Properties. If they make sense it is OK. If not try an 'automatic' install, or if that fails a manual install. Then delete any unwanted versions, as you could end up with several - that is, if you haven't already :-) ? I did. A partial installation is actually a full installation it seems, but a non-working installation defaulting to all sorts of wrong defaults. Uninstall clears it, but next time you try to install it goes back to the same useless defaults. It only seems to clear to clean machine status by finding epson's .inf file for the printer. Even though the software's been uninstalled, Windows seems to remember what and where the driver was so the only way to make it forget is to find and delete this .inf file. To test if it's the onboard USB I've ordered a cheap USB-PCI card. Only two sockets on it, and it only costs about a fiver, so if that works I'll know the onboard USB needs to go to hospital. Paah, Windoze :-( ___ QL-Users Mailing List
Re: [ql-users] failure messages - we should change this. Qualityof Software
The trouble here is that people like to take pot shots at their favourite targets and M$ is every computer users favourite. I find some of their software exasperating and deeply annoying in the way that it works. I also marvel at the things it leaves out. However some of it works well and it does improve as it goes along. I did use Open Office once and hated it. I found the user interface face very clunky, it tried to take over the entire front end of the machine and it was not easy to exchange information with a M$ user and maintain the format. This was a couple of years ago and it may well have improved. I get all the M$ software on the action pack licence so for me it is cheap. It does what I want the PC to do. Agreed. When I worked for Patientline, they used to have something which I think was called Star Office or some similar name and although the company claimed it as good enough as a cheap M$ office, everybody hated it. It did pretty much the same things as Word, Excel et al but was totally frustrating to use if you were familar with Word, Excel etc. Not sure if that was because M$ got it right or if staff simply couldn't handle change from what they were used to. Yet despite everything these fancy programs could do, I still used to sneak in a QPC2 disk and use QL Xchange for simple tasks like typing out simple memos or one-off spreadsheets that didn't need to be kept. It was simply less hassle (and less crashes!) to use Quill and Abacus. Some people swear modern M$ software is stable. I've yet to work anywhere where the computers didn't crash almost daily, the main exceptions being an office using a BBC micro in pre-PC days running a program a colleague and I had written to handle studio bookings and at Snowdon Railway where the only computer which didn't crash was the Linux server at the centre of the office admin block. One theory I've always had is that more people use Windows, so numerically the crashes are going to be greater and the machines which crash also have non-M$ software running (QPC excepted of course, and Marcel isn't paying me to say that). -- Dilwyn Jones ___ QL-Users Mailing List
Re: [ql-users] One last try...
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Sadler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes - Original Message - From: Dave P [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 8:47 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] One last try... That is the question. The OS could sure use it! However, it isn't necessary, and while I think it is desirable, others may prefer emulation. One option is to incorporate the linux QL emulator into a custom linux kernel patch, and have a machine that boots directly to a QL desktop. I don't know what the emulation penalty would be, but it would open doors to having ARM assembly modes, etc... There are lots of options and I have no fixed ideas. What is possible, desirable, even practicable are all up for discussion. I just want to fully explore the options/possibilities with better minds than mine. I have been suggesting for a while is to create something that runs as a QL on a Linux kernel. It is the only way I can see of cracking the hardware problem. It also has the advantage that it run on any hardware that Linux will run on. This is a circular argument. Which results in use Linux. The point of SMSQ/E is that it isn't Linux. Which is why we use it. The advances in computing power on the horizon indicate that there will be enough room, power, speed, call it what you like; to be able to run any OS the user may please. Or indeed several at the same time ! SMSQ/E as it is now ... or its improved successor, needs application software and hardware access to make it popular. -- Malcolm Cadman ___ QL-Users Mailing List
[ql-users] Alternative OS
A recent discussion has begun around developing the QL /SMSQ/E OS on to new hardware, as well as developing the OS itself.. The following is an abstract from a newsletter the shows that M$ are also into cross-platform thinking : [REVIEWS] Windows Services for Unix 3.5 http://newsletters.zdnetuk.cneteu.net/t/9657/956044/3766/0/ Microsoft wants people to use its operating systems and applications rather than anyone else's. No surprise there. Providing a toolkit to help users migrate from other platforms to Microsofts own isnt exactly unprecedented either. But to provide a toolkit that makes Windows behave like Unix may sound a little far fetched, especially when it contains open-source software. When you consider that all this is given away, it sounds too good to be true. Unfortunately, in some respects this is the case. April 5, 2004 -- Malcolm Cadman ___ QL-Users Mailing List
Re: [ql-users] One last try...
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, Malcolm Cadman wrote: The advances in computing power on the horizon indicate that there will be enough room, power, speed, call it what you like; to be able to run any OS the user may please. Or indeed several at the same time ! Well, yeah... Kinda... I don't see any machines coming up that will be within two orders of magnitude to leading edge machines. Yes, two orders of magnitude. The only option that takes advantage of these high speeds is emulation in a shared environment. SMSQ/E as it is now ... or its improved successor, needs application software and hardware access to make it popular. Ironic, isn't it. The existing software is the biggest thing to encourage people to use SMSQ. It's also the biggest thing holding it back. It's painfully clear to me that the will simply doesn't exist to create a new OS in a more likely environment. If something is to happen it would involve emulation, and that's already well covered. It is really discouraging. No matter what path a project takes, 2/3rds of people won't approve and of those that do, few will participate. Having a highly developed, fast, full featured emulator on cheap, easy hardware just isn't important to most people. They're happy with what they've got. I don't blame them, but I don't feel that way. It's kind of stagnant? I see two good opportunities for major developments that have minimal cost. One is SMSQ on a good emulator on linux on an ARM board (or other highly predictable hardware). The other is that 'someone' invites Nasta to the UK and gives him a room, power, and a network connection. He is *so* close to a complete coldfire machine that a truly *tiny* investment and support would see the project through to completion. Maybe we could all sponsor him to the tune of 10 pounds each per week - just a few people could share the costs to house and equip him - he already has almost everything he needs... It would be cool to at least explore both possibilities. It's all a matter of opening up options, and even if they don't benefit us directly it's still a long term benefit if it opens up opportunities for getting new users. Respectfully, Dave ___ QL-Users Mailing List
Re: [ql-users] Operating Systems
(.) But it is in modern terms. This is the crux of what I started ages ago. Our concept of a computer lives in the past. Today that idea is not want is wanted by Joe public. -- Roy Wood I have followed/am following this discussion with interest. I think all the extra-list friends I have who are ethusiastic about computers would agree with Roy... as I do. We 'listees' are all 'conditioned', the products of our (different from the average) computer experience. And, in my case anyway, this is very different to the experience of all I help to set and maintain their systems. They are 100% Woodites. They appreciate the value of having a 'deeper' understanding - as long as someone else has to have it. But, no thanks, it's not for them. However they all - at one and the same time - want (and expect) an all singin' and dancin' computer. The Woods have it! ;-) John in Wales ___ QL-Users Mailing List
Re: [ql-users] Printer help
Dilwyn, If you have a CD, put it in drive, if it does not autostart, click Start, then Run, and browse. From the Dir that comes up select setup, or boot, or install, whatever the .exe file is, and it should install itself. Regards Mike MacNamara [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: QL Users List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 8:47 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Printer help Click on 'View devices by connection'. Highlight the device, and view its Properties. If they make sense it is OK. If not try an 'automatic' install, or if that fails a manual install. Then delete any unwanted versions, as you could end up with several - that is, if you haven't already :-) ? I did. A partial installation is actually a full installation it seems, but a non-working installation defaulting to all sorts of wrong defaults. Uninstall clears it, but next time you try to install it goes back to the same useless defaults. It only seems to clear to clean machine status by finding epson's .inf file for the printer. Even though the software's been uninstalled, Windows seems to remember what and where the driver was so the only way to make it forget is to find and delete this .inf file. To test if it's the onboard USB I've ordered a cheap USB-PCI card. Only two sockets on it, and it only costs about a fiver, so if that works I'll know the onboard USB needs to go to hospital. Paah, Windoze :-( ___ QL-Users Mailing List ___ QL-Users Mailing List
Re: [ql-users] Printer help
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Click on 'View devices by connection'. Highlight the device, and view its Properties. If they make sense it is OK. If not try an 'automatic' install, or if that fails a manual install. Then delete any unwanted versions, as you could end up with several - that is, if you haven't already :-) ? I did. A partial installation is actually a full installation it seems, but a non-working installation defaulting to all sorts of wrong defaults. Uninstall clears it, but next time you try to install it goes back to the same useless defaults. It only seems to clear to clean machine status by finding epson's .inf file for the printer. Even though the software's been uninstalled, Windows seems to remember what and where the driver was so the only way to make it forget is to find and delete this .inf file. No - edit the registry. -- Roy Wood Q Branch. 20 Locks Hill, Portslade, Sussex. Tel: +44 (0) 1273 386030fax: +44 (0) 1273 430501 web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk ___ QL-Users Mailing List
Re: [ql-users] Wikipedia
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 at 12:34:15, Lau wrote: (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) I've just (well, nearly just) found Wikipedia and I couldn't resist correcting the QDOS link on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_QL to *not* go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QDOS, as that's the ancient Intel precursor of MS DOS. I guess we could all have a go at improving the QL entry - adding lots of links back, or even start really *using* the Wiki. I couldn't even bring myself to add a single link, out of lack of confidence. :) (8-)# Worldnews use wiki for our internal info and contact details. It is a very good system, but a little too easy for all and sundry to edit. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@surname.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List
Re: [ql-users] Operating Systems
Hi I agree with Roy on this, Windoze is what you make it, its just as much fun to tinker with as Qdos. The latest renditons, XP, XP64bit, office 2003. are as solid as rocks, and on 64 bit CPUs, really fly. Easily tweaked to suit your self. Does QPC2 run on 64 bit processors yet? Regards Mike MacNamara [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Roy wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 11:33 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Operating Systems In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], J G Hitchcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes (.) But it is in modern terms. This is the crux of what I started ages ago. Our concept of a computer lives in the past. Today that idea is not want is wanted by Joe public. -- Roy Wood I have followed/am following this discussion with interest. I think all the extra-list friends I have who are ethusiastic about computers would agree with Roy... as I do. We 'listees' are all 'conditioned', the products of our (different from the average) computer experience. And, in my case anyway, this is very different to the experience of all I help to set and maintain their systems. They are 100% Woodites. They appreciate the value of having a 'deeper' understanding - as long as someone else has to have it. But, no thanks, it's not for them. However they all - at one and the same time - want (and expect) an all singin' and dancin' computer. The Woods have it! ;-) To be fair I was only arguing the case from the perspective of the modern computer user. However, if you make the effort, you can learn to hack Windoze around a lot. There are 'tweak' programs that allow you to explore and change settings you would otherwise have no access to and there is the ubiquitous registry which is where it is all controlled from. If some of the users applied themselves to understanding that they could control a lot more of the O/S. To a degree this is the same for most of us in some respects. I can 'understand' my car but I take it to the garage to get it fixed. I 'understand' the central heating system but I call a plumber and so on. A computer is just another 'end used device' now and no end of carping will change that. When I bought my first computer it was to run a database and do some word processing but I got interested and, in those days, you could fiddle around with it and make it your own. The same goes for my first cars. These days I have no time for this and I want to use the browser, get email and do some of the other stuff that the computer does without any effort. If I have some time to tinker then I do it in QPC and that is why we are all here talking and discussing things. -- Roy Wood Q Branch. 20 Locks Hill, Portslade, Sussex. Tel: +44 (0) 1273 386030fax: +44 (0) 1273 430501 web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk ___ QL-Users Mailing List ___ QL-Users Mailing List
