Marcel wrote:
>> Why can't you accept the fact, that QPC is just a software emulator,
>> emulating one single OS?
>
>Sure, it is. It's designed for that. But the only direct link between
>QPC and SMSQ/E is the way the configuration works, because it is read
>out of the SMSQ/E file.
Still QPC and SMSQ are integrated in a way that nobody can access the
interfaces. So in effect there is no interface. Don't get me wrong, I don't
want to criticise your work here. Maybe commercial aspects have influenced
the decision to integrate QPC with SMSQ.
>> I think because the Q40 format has 64 greyscales, which allows
>> photorealistic greyscale pictures. The PC format has only 32 greyscales or
>> you get color errors.
>
>Well, but the incompatibilities are not worth it.
No. But the Q40 was the first platform for the color drivers, so it can not
be blamed for the incompatibility. Why do you only accept standards if they
come from the PC instead from the QL scene?
It is much easier to change a software implementation than a video
hardware. I am sure QPC and QXL could have been implemented the Q40 way.
Somebody decided not to do so, and that person has caused the
incompatibility. Not the Q40.
Nevertheless if I had known at design time that the emulators will get a
different format, I would have added the other modes to the Q40.
>> Hehe. You have the SMSQ/E sources. You could switch off SLAVEing ;-)
>
>Would really like to do that. But unfortunately for that my knowledge
>of the internal functions is far too limited. And debugging SMSQ/E is
>really no fun with the given tools.
For Tony Tebby it must be easy. SLAVEing really sucks. For example before
one boots Q40 Linux he shouldn't forget to waste 90% of his memory or he
can have a good drink from the coffee cup until the kernel is loaded. Not
even talking about playing music/video.
Peter
