> At least for our QL-generated data we have the advantage that the > size > of that data is comparatively small (except in Dilwyn's case > (http://www.dilwyn.uk6.net/index.html), of course ;o) Hmmm, yes, it's a good job we've moved on from floppy disks or my QL software collection would need a real warehouse to store them ;-))
Hence yesterday's fight with the new 250GB monster :-( > However, the greatest danger to our data is the obsolescence of the > hardware/software to run the software to properly access the data! > Most > of my most importnt personal data is still generated on the QL, as I > reckon I have more control that way. Unless you run into a problem you can't handle on a QL, even after all this time it's generally still valid to work on a QL, although I suspect most "QLers" are emulator or other compatible (Q60, Aurora, QXL...) users these days. A QL with disk interface and 512K or 640K RAM is still remarkably OK for many jobs and there are still plenty of people who use those - I guess Rich "Wiki" Mellor probably still shifts lots of that kind of hardware second hand. You're right about having control with a QL. I used to be anti-PC, I'm not now, I just don't know enough about them! Both QLs and PCs are useful machines (PC+QPC2 is my favoured system of course) but as I have more knowledge of QLs than of PCs, I just find it easier to use a QL program where one exists. -- Dilwyn Jones _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
