On 16 Oct 2001, at 8:50, Marcel Kilgus wrote:
Das QL? I'd say it's masculine.
Not in my ususal mode of address:
Das Sch... *+=8% QL Dings, da
wolfgang
(hey, after thhat much dutch, we're entitled to some german...)
-
www.wlenerz.com
On 16 Oct 2001, at 17:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glad its not feminine, Die QL sounds a bit rash in english!
It's already happened, anyway.
Wolfgang
(runs to shelter)
-
www.wlenerz.com
Is the QL masculine or feminine in gender ?
In Italian masculine: Il QL
And in Welsh, as we all know, masculine: Y QL hwn
--
Dilwyn Jones
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html
In message 3BCD4547.6743.1997C9@localhost, Wolfgang Lenerz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On 16 Oct 2001, at 22:23, Malcolm Cadman wrote:
In English 'objects' or artefacts are seen as being neutral, or
inanimate. However, most English people do attach a gender to objects
... like cars = the 'old
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote:
Is the QL masculine or feminine in gender ?
For us Germans, of course, it's a neutrum...
Das QL? I'd say it's masculine.
Marcel
Jerome Grimbert wrote:
} Das QL? I'd say it's masculine.
Isn't Das for Neutral, and Der for masculine
(Die being for feminine ) ?
Exactly. And Das QL just doesn't sound good ;-)
Marcel
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jerome
Grimbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Malcolm Cadman makes some magical things to make me read
} He .. he ... I got my 'le' and 'la' mixed up then :-)
}
} Is the QL masculine or feminine in gender ?
In french, it is masculine.
I do not know for german and
Malcolm Cadman makes some magical things to make me read
} Alas, it's survival is limited to about 2 or 3 times the longuest subscription.
} (But who cares about that, it's easy money now!, and maybe in the meantime
} we can sell the magazine team to some other publisher..., just like selling
}
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jerome
Grimbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
} Alas, it's survival is limited to about 2 or 3 times the longuest
subscription.
} (But who cares about that, it's easy money now!, and maybe in the meantime
} we can sell the magazine team to some other publisher..., just
On 15 Oct 2001, at 17:46, Malcolm Cadman wrote:
Is the QL masculine or feminine in gender ?
--
Malcolm Cadman
For us Germans, of course, it's a neutrum...
Wolfgang
-
www.wlenerz.com
At 09:54 ìì 15/10/2001 +0200, you wrote:
On 15 Oct 2001, at 17:46, Malcolm Cadman wrote:
Is the QL masculine or feminine in gender ?
--
Malcolm Cadman
For us Germans, of course, it's a neutrum...
Wolfgang
-
www.wlenerz.com
Ha! For Greeks is either a male or a
Malcolm Cadman makes some magical things to make me read
} He .. he ... I got my 'le' and 'la' mixed up then :-)
}
} Is the QL masculine or feminine in gender ?
In french, it is masculine.
I do not know for german and english (neutral ?).
Then again QDOS DOES have bugs anyways...every program does :-)
(Even
yours
;-)) Remember some funny things with FP numbers about 1 year
ago?)
hehe
Phoebus - that well known computer murphy's law does state that by the
time the last bug is removed, the program is obsolete (says Dilwyn
Back in the late '70s/early '80s I used to buy computing mags like
Practical Computing and Computing Today because they were very 'DIY'
based with articles on programming and building bits of hardware, but
when they changed to nothing but reviews of commercial software and
hardware I lost
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jerome
Grimbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Malcolm Cadman makes some magical things to make me read
} Ah ! I think it was just a french problem where magazines looks more an more
} catalogues with lot of advertising and propaganda (guru Bill do this, guru
} Bill
Ah ! I think it was just a french problem where magazines looks more an more
catalogues with lot of advertising and propaganda (guru Bill do this, guru
Bill thinks that...)
-Message d'origine-
De : Malcolm Cadman
(...)
OT - yet computer magazines today are largely just product reviews,
Marcel Kilgus wrote:
Claude Mourier 00 wrote:
I wonder what is QPC overhead (it's not to offense Marcel : QPC is a
great
product) : does anybody know the slowdown factor eaten by the emulator,
or
in other word, what is the factor to apply to the speed of SMSQ under
QPC
to
have an idea
On 10 Oct 2001, at 22:13, Marcel Kilgus wrote:
Anyway x86 assembler is something nobody wants to program really,
especially when coming from the 68k corner, believe me.
It sure isn't! Segments - B
Wolfgang
-
www.wlenerz.com
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote:
Anyway x86 assembler is something nobody wants to program really,
especially when coming from the 68k corner, believe me.
It sure isn't! Segments - B
Actually segments aren't used anymore (thank God). However, the
instruction set is still quite horrible. And
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Claude Mourier 00 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Ah ! I think it was just a french problem where magazines looks more an more
catalogues with lot of advertising and propaganda (guru Bill do this, guru
Bill thinks that...)
-Message d'origine-
De : Malcolm Cadman
Hmmm, it's that time of year again
So I had a good idea for a flaming (I need it since it's cold in
Pennsylvania now ;-)
What about rewriting QDOS/SMS (or converting the assembly sources) in order
to run NATIVELY on x86 processors.
There are a number of nice tools available for that
Phoebus,
You are really sad :o)
Why leave a perfectly good Greece for a home in Pennsylvania ?
I can see a couple of (minor) flaws with your suggestion, but as an
exercise, it appeals to my sense of humor quite a bit. The flaws are :
what happens if we use PortAsm/68K and there are bugs in
At 01:50 ìì 10/10/2001 +0100, you wrote:
Phoebus,
You are really sad :o)
Oh yeah! :-)
Why leave a perfectly good Greece for a home in Pennsylvania ?
Hmmm I still wonder, but fear not I'll be back to Europe soon (3/4
years... once I am done with college)... It's plainly too dangerous at
: Norman.Dunbar
Sent: 10 October 2001 13:50
To: ql-users
Cc: Norman.Dunbar
Subject: RE: [ql-users] Need some flaming :-) - What about re-writing
QDOS for x86 processors
Phoebus,
You are really sad :o)
Why leave a perfectly good Greece for a home in Pennsylvania ?
I can see a couple
-Message d'origine-
De : Phoebus Dokos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Envoyé : mercredi 10 octobre 2001 15:41
À : QL Users' mailing list
Objet : [ql-users] Need some flaming :-) - What about re-writing QDOS
for x86 processors
Hmmm, it's that time of year again
So I had a good idea for a flaming
Ian,
BTW I missed most of the assembler articles in QL Toady. Are they
available online, or as back issues?
Not yet I'm afraid, but I'm sure that there are back issues available.
The main problem is, I write one article but Jochen decides that I cannot be
allowed to use up 80% of the
Phoebus,
Then again QDOS DOES have bugs anyways...every program does :-) (Even
yours
;-)) Remember some funny things with FP numbers about 1 year ago?)
hehe
No I don't remember (honest) I remember some problems with QLiberator though
! And what bugs do you refer to :o)
Regards,
Trolling
Writing an OS for a processor family is nothing, compared to the needed writing for
peripheral supports.
So, as well as generic x86 support, what about GENERIC x86 compatible supports
of hardware in the OS. Natively of course, NO PC BIOS. (there is no Bios on some
embeded card, so
At 02:52 ìì 10/10/2001 +0100, you wrote:
Phoebus,
Then again QDOS DOES have bugs anyways...every program does :-) (Even
yours
;-)) Remember some funny things with FP numbers about 1 year ago?)
hehe
No I don't remember (honest) I remember some problems with QLiberator though
! And
At 04:10 ìì 10/10/2001 +0200, you wrote:
Trolling
Writing an OS for a processor family is nothing, compared to the needed
writing for peripheral supports.
So, as well as generic x86 support, what about GENERIC x86 compatible supports
of hardware in the OS. Natively of course, NO PC BIOS.
At 10:34 ðì 10/10/2001 -0500, you wrote:
At 02:52 ìì 10/10/2001 +0100, you wrote:
Phoebus,
Then again QDOS DOES have bugs anyways...every program does :-) (Even
yours
;-)) Remember some funny things with FP numbers about 1 year ago?)
hehe
No I don't remember (honest) I remember some
PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ql-users] Need some flaming :-) - What about re-writing
QDOS for x86 processors
At 02:52 ìì 10/10/2001 +0100, you wrote:
Phoebus,
Then again QDOS DOES have bugs anyways...every program does :-) (Even
yours
;-)) Remember some funny things with FP numbers about 1
calls in NASM.
Ian.
-Original Message-
From: jerome.grimbert
Sent: 10 October 2001 15:10
To: ql-users
Cc: jerome.grimbert
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Need some flaming :-) - What about re-writing
QDOS for x86 processors
Trolling
Writing an OS for a processor family is nothing
In message Hb5f1151beb4.1002729565.ln4p1327.ldn.swissbank.com@MHS,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Norman has just sent me the texts of his articles, but the back issues
are still of interest generally.
Back in the late '70s/early '80s I used to buy computing mags like
Practical Computing and
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Phoebus
Dokos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
All the system variables, Basic variables, interrupts, vectors, traps
whouldn't be there any more so we'd have to either code in C - oops, forgot,
we can't, no C compiler :o)
True partially. A compiler could be (relatively)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
QL Toady back issues:-
Clip
Never bought any as I've been a subscriber from day one :-))
Are you sure that wasn't the 'day after', day one ... :-)
--
Malcolm Cadman
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
k, Norman Dunbar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
-
Norman Dunbar EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Database/Unix administratorPhone: 0113 289 6265
Fax:
Claude Mourier 00 wrote:
I wonder what is QPC overhead (it's not to offense Marcel : QPC is a great
product) : does anybody know the slowdown factor eaten by the emulator, or
in other word, what is the factor to apply to the speed of SMSQ under QPC to
have an idea of SMSQ speed written
38 matches
Mail list logo
