Peter Graf wrote:
> There are a lot of reasons why a M$ Windows PC is not a QL system. One of
> them you have given yourself: It would have to behave like a QL! When I
> need minutes to boot the machine and my emulator crashes because of a
> Windows graphic driver problem I really don't have the impression it is a QL.
Firstly, this is a very rare problem.
Sencondly, the problem only appears when switching between fullscreen
and windowed mode or between SMSQ/E and windows. If you only use
SMSQ/E, you're fine.
> Obviously not. Among other things the Q40 has similar memory layout,
> directly hardware compatible screen layout with the original QL modes,
> similar interrupt handling.
QPC does have all that, too. Isn't that amazing?
> And, what is very important: Like the QL it has a easy to program
> hardware and you have full control over it.
IMO this is the job of the operating system, but OK, if somebody wants
that this is fine.
> It is fine by me that Marcel improves QPC. It is fun for him, so why should
> he do anything else. But I think he would not call his work QL software.
Yes. But it results in QL software. ;-) I know several QL developers
who would have abandoned the QL scene completely if QPC wasn't
available.
> IIRC he freely said that he is a Windows user and has no (or not much)
> interest in writing QL software.
Partly true. I don't use the QL for my daily work. How could I, my
daily work is accessing the internet and writing PC software. I'd
like to write QL software. But as I said, time and development tools
are the problem.
> Fine. Please remember this discussion came up because someone talked about
> buying a PC and M$ Windows only to run SMSQ/E.
But that was more a joke after all.
Marcel
