Marcel 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.
No, I don't think that graphic driver problems are rare. And graphic
drivers are only *one* example of what trouble Windows can cause. It is not
the fault of QPC II!!! But QPC II depends on M$ sh.., so sh.. happens.
BTW I was talking of my own PC. QPC II demo often crashes immediately after
its starting screen or after the first disk access. I spent enough time
downloading other graphic drivers and so on. I won't spend even one more
minute on that issue.
>> 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?
IIRC QPC has not. For example try an old program that directly accesses the
QL screen. Anyway I was talking Q40 and QL versus other 68K hardware here,
not about QPC.
>> 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 not only fine. It is almost necessary in the QL scene. We would
probably still have no color drivers and no sound for the QL community if
the Q40 had a hardware like a PC.
>> 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.
Yes, but there was also another effect. My impression is that QPC supported
the transition of QL users to Windows. Once they were on Windows, most made
Windows their major platform. Just like you.
I think it is native hardware that keeps a system alive. A system that
mostly depends on emulation is dead.
>I'd like to write QL software.
That would be great!!!
>But as I said, time and development tools are the problem.
QPC is already a good emulator. You could leave it as is and write QL stuff
in the time you save :-))) With your excellent SMSQ/E knowledge, that would
IMHO give the whole QL community enormous progress.
Peter
