Peter Graf wrote:
> For me a Windows PC is never a QL system!!!
Point of view. I see it this way: if it smells like tea, tastes like
tea and looks like tea, it probably is tea.
>>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.
Probably.
> And when I compare Linux and XWindows boot times and the real
> look&feel when working: The difference under Linux it is even less.
Mainly depends on the I/O performance, i.e. the used PC hardware.
> Q40 Linux is absolutely usable, stable and quick. Not to mention the
> Q60.
Didn't tell otherwise.
> 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.
Well, Macs today are PowerPC systems.
>>Now the comparison looks completely differently.
> If you publish far too negative figures against the Q40, indeed.
No, figures don't matter. The point I'm getting to is: it depends on
what you're doing. Regardless of the figures.
> Have you even seen Q40 Linux?
No.
>>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 ;-) ?
Well, I do sometimes play with the thought, but there are two simple
reasons against it:
a) I do maintain a complete QL compatible platform and the OS for this
platform. This already eats up pretty much of my private spare time.
b) If I say "QL development tools have somewhat the evolutionary
status of the stone age" I'm not really exaggerating. A source level
debugger is the least I expect nowadays.
Marcel
