Hi Marcel, >> 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... > > It's not that it can't match it. It's that, at this time, it doesn't > match it.
It depends on the definition again :-) I can hold my QL hardware in my hand, tinker with it, extend it. I can run the operating system of my choice and interest on it, change the OS and it still runs, because the interfaces are defined. QPC does not give me those features, so even now, QL hardware clearly wins in terms of features for me. > We probably just define "platform" differently. Certainly :-) > QemuLator is without a doubt a great product. But it mostly emulates > other computers. Be it a standard QL, a Gold Card QL, more recently > probably even an Aurora. And when it does that, it's a standard QL, > a Gold Card QL... you get my drift. Which is in my eyes not a weaker, but a stronger feature compared to QPC. Because there is at least _some_ definition which allows to change/write/run an operating system. QPC's definitions are all buried, secret, unfixed and therefore not offering what a system platform has to provide in common sense of computer business. > QPC is never any of those. QPC is QPC, and that's that. No dispute here... your baby, you define it :-) > In your eyes this might be a bad thing Not at all :-) > but this is the reason I call it a platform on its own. I do not think your definition of a system platform would match the one that's commonly used. If you want your own system platform, I'd say define and fix your interfaces! I still can not follow you, but it's okay... All the best Peter _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
