At 03:19 ìì 31/1/2001, you wrote:
>Phoebus Dokos wrote:
> > Correct but then again, buying a PC doesn't mean you get a name brand (with
> > bundled softare you are right).
> > Many people (including myself) want to buy things that will accomodate
> > their needs.
>
>Me too. But most people buy complete systems.
>
> >>But as with SMSQ/E,
> >>which is, as far as I know, also included in the Q40 price, software
> >>tends to be cheaper when bundled with hardware.
> > Q40 includes SMSQ/E optionally. Standard Q40s have QDOS Classic.
>
>I see. But the additional cost is still much less than that of a
>standalone-SMSQ/E.
>
> >>You can get almost everything you need for free.
> > Interesting, but tell me.. Find me a program on Windows that even comes
> > CLOSE to Photoshop or Corel Draw and I will get it in a heart beat...
>
>Sure, if you tell me where to get the equivalent for the QL world (no,
>QDesign doesn't count ;-). I thought we're talking about the same
>league?
Well now we get to the point! How do we expect real development when native
hardware isn't supported.
There's no definite standard. Even GD2 falls short in this aspect. Some
things work on QPC, others on Auroras and others on Q40/60s
> >>But anyway, I am NOT suggesting that buying a PC just for QPC is a
> >>better solution than buying a Q40 or anything (or did I write that
> >>anywhere? I don't think so). At least not if you don't use the other
> >>features a PC can which a Q40 can't. I just considered your
> >>calculation to be quite weird, because you really can get 3 PCs for
> >>the mentioned price here.
>
>Only quality components, of course. Otherwise I think one could get 4.
>
> > Yes but with what kinds of hard drives? 10 Gigs?
>
>I had something in the region of a IBM DTLA307030 in my mind. 30GB,
>7200 rpm, UMDA100. Nice drive, just bought one recently.
>
> >>I say you can't compare them. Harldy in performance but even less in
> >>price.
> > Oh but you can.
>
>Really? With a Q40 you get a QL system but with a QPC+PC combination
>you also get a complete PC. So you can only compare the facts under
>certain assumptions, like "I use the PC only for QPC". There the Q40
>probably wins. But e.g. one advantage always mentioned for the Q40 was
>that it can run Linux. The mentioned PC runs Linux with 100 times (or
>whatever) the speed. Now the comparison looks completely differently.
>See? All lies in your point of view, it just depends on the things you
>actually DO. You mentioned Photoshop. How did you get that to run on
>the Q40? Not at all I suppose. If you need that software, a Q40
>probably wouldn't be the best choice, regardless of its price.
Well if I HAD a Q40 I would run GimP! But then again I don't have one yet
and I still wait for mine (since it was announced)
And I agree that Q40 is not the best available platform for Linux but then
again, nobody mentioned Linux as the main OS for the Q40.
It is an added bonus that's all. Nevertheless to return to what I said
earlier, More Q40s/60s sold, the better the chances for software development,
the cheaper the prices and the less we have to deal with Windows. And the
cheaper peripherals we would need. And I want to ask you something.
If we sell say 10000 Q40s (imaginary number but good for the sake of
argument) would it still sell for 300£? or 150? What do you think? And if
it came to that wouldn't that answer our question rather easily?
With a 5 port expansion (on a riser) Q40 is capable for and/or the 128Megs
the Q60 can accomodate, I could easily attach USB ISA cards (already
available) etc. Generic
driver frameworks exist for most available hardware. But with an antiquated
device driver interface we will never be able to use them. Linux on the
other hand provides you with a much easier way of doing this stuff.. which
explains why Richard was able to use CDR/Ws and Ethernet cards etc. There
was high colour on
Q40 under Linux from day 0 but for GD2 to appear it took how long? 4 years?
Which brings me back to my point. Support our machines. Or let them perish.
Simple.
>To make this (again) clear, *I* certainly don't want QPC to be the
>only QL platform available, it's GOOD that the Q40 exists (in fact I
>was there when it was presented for the first time in Eindhoven and I
>was one of the people suggesting to talk to Tony about a SMSQ/E port).
Marcel, please keep in mind that I don't have anything against QPC... Don't
forget I own it. However a more active support can lead to a greater
success of the QL scene in general. And don't forget that in case that Q40
gains success, QPC can easily be turned into a development system for it.
Running on a different platform for software writers.
Phoebus
