Hi Marcel, > In fact it's now the other way round, there is no native hardware that > can match QPC in speed or features. That's why I was a bit mystified > by your choices. Just saying.
no offense intended at all, but are you not counting the now much faster PC hardware (which you didn't design) and the Windows features (which you didn't write, e.g. TCP/IP) as QPC achievements? If the speed and features were part of your system, written in a QL compatible form, I would sort of agree. But the sorry fact that Freescale (former Motorola) makes no new 68k chips, is really not a QPC achievement. There has been about a decade without new QL hardware, and maybe even you might have noticed that this has not really vitalized the QL. Even your own emulator will finally become pointless if nobody cares about the original(s) anymore. So why not allow a little "bias" toward QL hardware once in a while? It is really really hard to make new QL hardware possible... I find public statement that QL hardware "can not match" in features somewhat depressing... Wouldn't a new and cool device in a QL's microdrive slot be a feature as well? To "see and feel" something is a feature for me - we humans are not fully virtualized... I can not somehow beam QPC into my QL and match this ;-) Not everyone is biased toward "emulating SMSQ/E under Windows" - which is what QPC is restricted to. Qemulator(Fast) is very fast emulator as well. Unlike QPC it allows to run a choice of operating systems which is a big feature and major point when it comes to define a "platform". Just saying. Live and let live :-) All the best Peter _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
