Peter Graf writes:
> 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.
There are processors available with programmable microcode, ie they can run
either i86 or m68k _natively_. What have you got when youve got your Qx0 or
your QPC2vx running on one of those? At this point the argument becomes
irrelevant - or rather, its irrelevance becomes apparent, because this
discussion is simply about different, but valid, approaches, and the one is
not more "real" than the other. A dedicated QLer should probably have both!
Per
