Hi Marcel, >> 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.
Agreed, QL hardware is outdated! Especially better LCD monitor support is long overdue. Hardware for TCP/IP is there though. Even native SMSQ/E support almost was - I was close to add it almost a decade ago, when Wolfgangs license made it impractical for me. (Have it for QDOS Classic, may release with Minerva someday if I've not forgotten too much...) I also agree the speed race is lost for QL hardware. With an open source SMSQ/E license, I still think I'd have risked to launch my 266 MHz V4e back then - I had hardware support to overcome the instruction incompatibility problems. So I might have held the speed advantage for QL hardware for a longer period of time than the Q60. But even with 3 times Q60 speed, the race would be lost today. Besides the "material" electronics and retro aspects of QL hardware, which are indeed features for me (and probably also for others given the massive response to the QL-SD idea) I like that I can simply switch on my QL hardware, and it is a QL - no boot time for host OS, no updating host, virus scannes, service packs etc. Not that I want to exaggerate this, but such "independence" features still have some positive aspects now and then. > 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, Which is also fine :-) Just a pity that your big ones like PS2 printer emulation and TCP/IP are not QL software. I'd have been your customer :-) > and in that sense QPC simply is a "platform" to reckon with. Maybe not quite the point here. You had complained QPC didn't appear like a separate QL hardware platform in Dave's list. I tried to say, if you wanted to fit such a scheme, the minimum common ground with all other mentioned platforms would be a stable and defined interface for a QL OS. I don't criticize QPC therefore in any way. QPC covers the need of other users, that's fine. I just think you could be very relaxed and allow a little bias toward QL hardware once in a while - seldom enough in the history of this mailinglist ;-) All the best Peter _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
