In article <001c01c08eac$6dc1a420$f4075cc3@default>, Dilwyn Jones
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>This is specific to QPC2v2final, the old QPC2 and QPC1 on the same PC
>and none of my other systems do this. I could understand it if it was
>a FLUSH requirement (the old Falkenberg hard disk system had a similar
>problem when deleting files that you had to do a WIN_FLUSH to really
>delete files). Most likely something Windows related I'd have thought
>as it's inconsistent and the mere act of opening a channel to the
>device causes a 'flush' of sorts.
>
>
>Although the 'QPC2v2 again' thread is getting a bit long, the
>discussion has been very interesting and shows that we need both an
>emulator and a native hardware way forward. The emulator scene is very
>well served at the moment. Let's hope that the future of
>Q40/Goldfire/any other SGC successor is as good as the emulator scene.
Yes, I've enjoyed reading this thread ... and not contributed until now.
It has certainly livened up discussion.
QPC2v2 is a great product, it just a pity that it is now mainly us more
'expert' QL users that are left to use it. Many of those who have
abandoned the QL OS for the pleasures :-( of PC Windows would really be
happy and impressed if they were to return to using the QL this way.
Unfortuneately along with all the other new things that are good in the
QL world today there is a lot of configuring to do to get the best out
it. If someone could put this all togther in an easy 'idiot proof' way
I feel that we have the potential to ignite returning and new interest.
Having QPAC2 windows alongside QPC2 Windows windows is an easy
environment to work in ... yet it is mainly 'experts' who are doing
this.
As regards hardware. This is always in the end the best option for pure
speed and reliability. Let us hope that Q40/Q60 and Goldfire get
adopted by enough users.
--
Malcolm Cadman
