Peter Graf wrote: >>> 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.
If "I can hold it in my hands" is a feature for you, then, yes, QPC2 cannot provide this. I was however talking about speed, TCP/IP or the simple fact that I can use any damn LCD monitor I want. > QPC does not give me those features, so even now, QL hardware > clearly wins in terms of features for me. I grant you the thing about having clear interfaces et al. Could be seen as a feature, but mostly from a developer position really. I was however arguing from a user point of view. Still, I can appreciate your point. >> 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. I can see why you see it this way, and I beg to differ, but I guess we can simply agree to disagree here ;) >> 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... You see the "platform" from the eyes of a hardware designer, which is fine. I see it from the eyes of a (QL) software developer, and in that sense QPC simply is a "platform" to reckon with. Marcel _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
