On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Marcel Kilgus <[email protected]>wrote:
> Peter Graf wrote: > > 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? > > So? Does this change the reality in any way? No. I'm inclined to agree with both of you here. The speed of QPC is not an "achievement" but it is an accomplishment of the platform - it runs on the fastest hardware available. > > 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. I think the point here is that emulators have to emulate something. If there's nothing innovative to emulate, even the emulator cannot move forward - it can just go faster at the same old stuff. If there are to be new developments, they NEED to come from native hardware, then be emulated. Emulators introducing new features is a hurdle because it is then harder to implement that in original hardware in a practical and efficient way. My point was simply that brushing QPC > aside as "just an emulator" is wrong. Not more, not less. I have not > and will never argue against native hardware. Marcel, it is not my intent to "brush QPC aside." In fact, the opposite is true. However, for the purposes of the initial survey, I am simply finding out the proportions of people using paid vs free emulators vs original hardware and replacement hardware. Obviously emulation is far more popular and far more practical, and also obviously, QPC is the premiere emulator - nobody is questioning that or challenging QPC's position. Dave _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
