In a message dated 10/03/2007 12:43:08 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Why do we have have a split, I have both emulators and native hardware. >I have never understood, why I can not have it all... I suppose you >could call it supporting the hardware and software developers. >Derek I agree competely with Derek. Diversity is essential to survival and evolution. I was recently reading some old Quanta magazines around 2000-01 when there was a previous debate about the future of the QL. One contributor began his views with the statement that the QL was now a logical concept rather than a specific bit of hardware (black box 128k) or an emulator (QPC2) or a successor bit of hardware(Aurora Q40). Conceptually that struck a cord as hardware wise or software (emulator) wise there are many other ways of achieving the same programming ends on PC/MAC systems. One thing the the QL as a logical concept offers is a system that is a bit more open as opposed to closed in its concept and evolution than PCs, windows and MACs. It probably also offers others, but it is not about hardware vs emulators. Roy, I imagine that the reason you are proposing such a debate is to try to clarify the future well in that case what about a SWOT analysis of the future of the QL instead of the old debate of hardware vs emulators? Duncan _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
