Marcel wrote:
>Really? With a Q40 you get a QL system but with a QPC+PC combination
>you also get a complete PC.
Yes with QPC+PC (+ necessarily M$ Windows!) you get a PC! But when you say
"also" a PC you imply that you get a QL system when you buy such a PC.
I feel that real QL style hardware users seem to become a minority on this
list, but at this point I still feel free to say:
For me a Windows PC is never a QL system!!!
It is a Windows machine plus SMSQ emulator, not less, not more.
>But e.g. one advantage always mentioned for the Q40 was
>that it can run Linux.
And indeed it is good to have a very good Linux implemetation on a *real*
68k QL style computer!
Q40 Linux is meant to complement QODS/SMSQ, not to offer a Linux-only machine.
>The mentioned PC runs Linux with 100 times (or
>whatever) the speed.
I have a 300 MHz PC where I think factor 5 is much nearer to the truth. And
when I compare Linux and XWindows boot times and the real look&feel when
working: The difference under Linux it is even less. Q40 Linux is
absolutely usable, stable and quick. Not to mention the Q60.
BTW Linux on a PC has the disadvantage that it can't execute native 68k
code! There are some very interesting applications like MAC emulation which
can greatly benefit from a real 68040/68060 CPU under Linux.
>Now the comparison looks completely differently.
If you publish far too negative figures against the Q40, indeed.
Have you even seen Q40 Linux?
>This is really a major point, the climate in the scene. I do program
>PC software and I know the difference.
So why don't you write some QL software ;-) ?
Peter
