On 14/02/2011 16:27, Peter wrote:
Marcel Kilgus wrote:
You have mentioned this stuff numerous time, which is what triggered
this response, not just this one mail. But I accept that you don't
care anymore, okay.
Not about the SMSQ/E license. I still care about QL hardware of course,
and keep the viewpoint about what happened - not that you get me wrong.
Then, as I said, simply release the stuff for QDOS and let other's
worry about SMSQ/E. That should work fine, too, I guess.
As I said, I can not "simply" release unfinished software I didn't touch
for years. Currently I'd have to offer a new release of QDOS Classic which
would sort of make me OS maintainer - no thanks. Other QL work has
priority now, and only if that can be finished, I might have time to dig
native TCP/IP out again - I hope Minerva based then.
Peter
_______________________________________________
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
I thought I would just offer my take on this discussion before it gets
out of hand.
For those relatively new to the QL users list, you may be surprised by
some of the comments here, but there is a lot of history about the
SMSQ/e license which is a sort of mis-match between a public domain
license and a commercial license. No-one wants to go back over that old
history, the license was borne out of Tony Tebby's wishes at the time
that he released SMSQ/e sources, and several years down the line, his
views will no doubt have changed - although this may be too late for
people to want to dig up old projects and start on them afresh if the
license was changed.
As it stands, SMSQ/e has been developed since Tony Tebby released the
sources, but development has been slow - to some extent because various
people felt that they could not work with the license as it stands, but
also because of the lack of developers providing input into the project.
Let's move on - we all want to see new projects and more development of
the operating system, but basically we need new hardware and drivers to
be able to find a reason to develop SMSQ/e (how many QL users would love
to run it on their machines, but lack the Gold Card or Super Gold Card
which are needed)?
The debate over QPC2 and whether it is an emulator or a new QL platform
is neither here nor there in my mind. To the end user, it is just a
means of being able to accomplish everyday tasks in a familiar QL
environment, much the same as Q-emulator, QLAY, QL2K, uQLx, a Q40, Q60
or even a standard QL.
And here, Peter, I have to apologise, in that as a trader I have not
completed the survey, as I feel my answers would be pointless (eg. how
many QLs do you have? Answer - over 30 but only 2 or 3 which I
regularly use, depending on what I need to do!)
More importantly is maybe how I look at emulators, QPC2 and hardware
choices..... I think this may be helpful for other users and maybe the
debate.....
Much of the comment has shown that a lot of people still prefer the
original hardware - and so do I for certain tasks.
As to whether QPC2 offers the best upgrade, just depends on what you
need QDOS / SMSQ/e for....
For me, if I want to promote the QL and its software to attract a wider
audience, then actually q-emulator is the better solution - as it can
run more of the older software (especially games) on Windows based PCs,
which is what the large majority of people without a QL have access to.
However, if I want to test things and be able to access devices
directly, then the original QL remains much better than any PC based
solution (where, let's face it, the number of ports accessible to
software running on the PC is becoming less and less every day).
For my business which still uses QL based databases and accounts,
software development, and testing things out in different resolutions,
colour depths etc, then QPC2 remains a favourite with the speed of the
PC, ability to move files to and from the PC easily and to use QPCPrint
to print out information as I no longer have a QL compatible printer
(don't get me on that subject... I get about 2 phone calls a week from
people looking for DOS or QL compatible printers...).
Whilst the QL suffers with the ability to connect to modern printers
easily, QPC2 and Q-emuLator now suffer from inability to easily
read/write disks on a USB disk drive under Windows 7 because it is
reliant on the drivers in Windows. The most infuriating bit of this is
that if I format a DD disk from within DOS, I can then use the drive
successfully from QPC2 or q-emulator - but this takes much longer than
firing up the QL to make a couple of disks. The Windows drivers are
just not stable enough - if my PC goes to sleep for too long, the USB
disk drive, even a USB camera or USB card reader, or USB printer are not
recognised / available until maybe 10-15 minutes after I first try to
use them!
That is why the QL remains useful, but also why an SD card device is so
desparately needed for users swapping between the two systems, or who
need to store more information on their QL to make access quicker than
swapping several floppy disks (if you can find the right one!).
So I believe there is plenty of scope for development for the QL, both
from a hardware and software point of view, and all sides of the debate
need to be encouraged to keep up their hard work.
--
Rich Mellor
RWAP Services
http://www.rwapsoftware.co.uk
http://www.rwapservices.co.uk
-- Try out our new site: http://sellmyretro.com
_______________________________________________
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
