I am not safe of haver understood. My English is very limited :) QDOS Classic for Q40 is an example of which I was proposed, and personally, would be arranged to pay by something thus adapted to a PC.
Javier Guerra ----- Original Message ----- From: "ZN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 2:26 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Hardware platforms > > On 26/10/02 at 20:18 QL recursos en castellano wrote: > > >Why we do not use a partition with an emulator of 68000 (and other chips) > >and SMSQ/E in PC-style computer or use any PPC actual machine directly? > > We cannot use a PPC machine directly, an emulator must be used on these > just as on anything else that is not 68k compatible. > > >QPC for DOS or QLAY (or anothers) can be adapted for use any formated > >partition or QL-format partitions. It would be a solution for the future > at a low cost. > > I don't see why anyone would want a solution past QPC then - unless they > want something for nothing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not disparaging other > emulators. But free emulators must only use free versions of the OS, which > in effect means you are stuck with JS or developements from it. Anyone that > decides to 'clone' something more modern, like SMSQ, will either be > breaking the rules, or putting in so much work that it definitely will not > be free - or, if it will, it will come very late (and, considering I've > been cooking up GF for ages now, believe me, I know what I'm talking > about). > > For most cases where users want to use a QL as a QL, an emulator is a good > solution. For some cases, namely those that may actually generate > applications outside the ever shrinking community, this is not true. For > instance, I got QPC 1 from Marcel and use it on a laptop because it alowes > me to address some of the hardware directly, which I in turn use for > various creative things - the latest of which is a reader for diagnostic > codes for car electronics. In fact, I have so many PAYING projects that > would be a matter of hours with a simple QL 'hardware module' which alowes > simple hardware to be programmed in Sbasic, that I would certainly be in a > FAR better situation financially, and otherwise, if I had it. The uses for > such a simple and small hardware system, even if it is not cheap, are so > large that, financially speaking, the QL market is negligible in > comparison. > > To anticipate a question: so why don't I do it? Simple: it requires the OS > and software to be modified and licenced to work on such hardware. Or, I > could ask for the SMSQ source and just use it without telling anyone - it's > hardly a problem of someone going to look insaide various black boxes to > see what's really driving them. The problem with that approach is that > nothing comes back to the community, and the community is the prime source > of software and people who can produce it. It would be only fair to give > something back - but then, if you read carefully, maybe you have noticed > that there is a job for more than one person in this endevour. > > Nasta > >
