On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 17:27:37 +0100, Peter Graf wrote:
> > I therefore (and I don't think I'm alone with that feeling) don't
> > consider "genuine QDOS" (and QL hardware) compatibility as a requirement,
> > especially not when it involves forbidding myself to use more modern
> > hardware or simply to keep my systems up to date with modern peripherals
> > (such as a monitor).
>
> Then let me understand, why do you still want native hardware at all?
Perhaps because I want to keep the computers I got (in order of
acquisition: ZX-81, QL, Thor XVI, PC+QXL, Atari 1040 STE, SGC+Aurora,
Falcon 030, Q60, several PCs, and a few more "minor" computers) fully
functionnal, even if I won't use some of them more than once a year ?
Call me nostalgic or conservative... :-D
> You seem to want native hardware as up-to-date as possbile. Wouldn't it
> be better then to concentrate efforts on the FPGA-based Q68 approach?
Perhaps because I spent a lot of money for the Q60 ?
Perhaps because the Q60 is still the fastest native hardware I can run
SMSQ/E onto and which, as a bonus, can also run Linux ?
> I mean the Q68 is based on a 8 year old chip and reaches QXL speed
> without caching already. It is only a matter of time, when FPGAs will
> surpass the Q60.
I'd love to see this happening: I could then consider adding a new
computer to my collection. ;-)
> I understand this, but reading such a statement from one of the last QL
> developers who are at least reachable, is a bit depressing. I ask myself
> wether the only way I can bring forward a piece of QL hardware, is to do
> EVERYTHING on the software side myself?
Alas, the QL world lost a load of excellent programmers to pragmatism,
lack of time, lack of incentive, financial constraints, etc...
One programmer (or even ten very competent and proficient programmers)
can't fill the gap which now separates the QL-compatible computers with
modern computers. Now is a time of networking, 3D real time rendering,
video streaming, etc, all of which can't be done (or only in an
extremely rudimentary way, e.g. for networking) with a QDOS/SMS machine.
Back in 2001, when I released the ATAPI driver for the Q60 (and Qubide,
but it was really originally developed for and on the Q60), I still had
plenty of projects (I first wanted to finish the CDROM driver and make
it into a proper, full fledged level3 SMS driver, then I wanted to write
an Ethernet driver and port a C-written lightweight TCP/IP stack to
SMSQ/E... among other projects).
But professionnal and life constraints decided otherwise, and when I
could again get access to my Q60, two years later, things already
dramatically changed, both in the QL world, and in the PC world...
That's when I realized that the way of the pragmatism was, sadly, the
only way for me...
Believe me, I'd like that each day would count 72 hours: then, perhaps
I would be able to do everything I want to do, including programming
old computers, even if just for the fun of it.
So, yes, it's kind of depressing. But I'm not really someone who wallows
in depressive mood. ;-D
> The first QL-SD drivers were developped by myself, I was at least
> capable to understand the code and to change it. I moved to Adrians
> drivers, because I was glad for the help, but he suddenly left the
> scene, and now I don't have the time to learn and debug his code. His
> driver seems to have an issue which conflicts the Pointer Environment -
> on both Qemulator and the Q68. I tried to motivate others to debug this,
> but failed.
>
> Do you think your decision "pragmatism over passion" is final? If not,
> what could be an incentive?
I learned by experience, over the past 5 decades, that "you can never say
never", and neither I. I just don't see things changing favorably in a
foreseeable future.
The problem is not as much the incentive (I'd really love to develop again
under QDOS/SMS on 68K hardware, just for the fun of it) as the lack of
free time.
> > Again, I don't see why you exclude the possibility to bring the necessary
> > signals to the daughter board via "flying" wires soldered on the
> > corresponding pads under the Q60 PCB... I'd rather use a solder iron once
> > and for all than loose performances with a kuldgy display driver.
>
> Because the wiring is HF-critical,
66MHz is not *that* high a frequency, and using short, flat wires ("câbles
en nappe" in French: I don't remember the name in English) would likely do
just fine.
> and because I would have to organize a service who does it in a
> professional manner! A normal user could not just buy and insert a board,
> but would need to remove the Q60 mainboard from his system, ship it
> somewhere with risk of damage and loss, etc.
I was more seeing it as a hobbyist DIY mod... Time for a poll among Q60
owners ?
> > Problem: as I understand it, you'd use additional RAM on the daughter
> > board, but that RAM won't be dual ported, like the Q60 VRAM is, so the
> > access to it would be much slower... Not really appealing...
>
> You misunderstand. The FPGA and RAM would be so fast, that access from
> video side and CPU side would interleave without any need for waits.
> Effectively faster than the Q60 VRAM.
Interesting. However, the modifications to the video drivers would not
be as trivial.
Thierry.
_______________________________________________
QL-Users Mailing List
