Marcel 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.
Hm. If it smells like Bill Gate's feet, tastes a little like Pentium
silicon and sometimes looks like coffee, I have my doubts that it is tea.
(just joking)
Look at it this way: If a Windows PC is a QL, then a Sun workstation is an
Amiga, an AIX server is a gameboy, and a Macistosh is a Windows PC.
Software is Hardware, emulation is native, and everything is everything.
For me a QL is also defined by hardware and system level aspects, and not
only by the capability to software-emulate SMSQ.
>> 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.
Doesn't matter. Enough Mac software today comes as a fat binary, hence
contains native 68k code as well.
>No, figures don't matter. The point I'm getting to is: it depends on
>what you're doing. Regardless of the figures.
Of course figures do matter. Speed can decide what you are doing. You said
a PC runs Linux with about 100 times the speed of a Q40. If that was
realistic, it would mean the Q40 isn't useful for up-to-date Linux
applications.
I could as well say a Q60 runs SMSQ/E with 100 times the speed of a PC.
>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.
You are right. But the sad thing is: The less QL software development is
done, the smaller is the chance of better tools. BTW GDB would be a thing I
could imagine for QDOS/SMSQ.
Peter
