You know there is something about typing away on the black box that is
frustrating especially when you come back to the QL after so many years, not
all the keys are in the same place as the keyboard at work I am used to, some
of the basic keys are missing especially delete, to which you have to
combination press to get the equivalent. But, the QL keys feel nicer to the
touch go figure.
I am also reminded of
If it looks like a sausage, feels like a sausage, tastes and smells like a
sausage then...
Lee Privett
¦--------------------------------------------------------¦
Sent from my Laptop running XP
but emulating the QL using QPC2
¦--------------------------------------------------------¦
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Firshman
To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
Peter Graf wrote, on 13/Feb/11 23:10 | Feb13:
> 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 :-)
>
... and we should welcome *both*.
I too (of course) prefer to use *real* hardware. It is good to be able
to window another system inside a laptop ..... well inside an XP
emulation inside my macbook (8-)#
However I don't get the same feel, like Peter.
Of course one could then start a debate about black box vs Aurora and
Qn0 (8-)#
Live and let *ALL* live.
Tony
--
QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:257/67) +44(0)1442-828255
t...@firshman.co.uk http://firshman.co.uk
Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman
TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
_______________________________________________
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
_______________________________________________
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
