Plastic wrote: > 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.
I think this is a logical fallacy here. Why should an emulator be restricted to the things actual hardware can do? Emulators had TCP/IP on QDOS for years now. *Of course* this is because it's magnitudes easier to implement when the host OS already provides this functionality, but that's hardly the emulator's fault. Should the emulators have waited for the hardware platforms to first have TCP/IP? > 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. Point taken. I still somewhat think simply including the 4 or 5 emulators would already have given you a complete and detailed overview of what people use, without the need for a second survey to drill into the details... in any case, I didn't want this here to be such a huge thing. Sorry. Marcel _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
