|
Javier,
QLAY [downloadable freeware] _is_ a 100% QDOS [or, MINERVA] compatible
emulator on a PC platform. There is a LINUX compatible version, too.
QLAY will probably do 95% of what you are looking for.
The current/persistent limitations of QLAY are its inability to communicate
with SERial or FLP ... files are held on a WIN drive.
QUILL files, for example, can be created and SAVEd, but must be PRINTed
through DOS ... transfers must be done in DOS, etc.
Non-text files may need to be ZIPped before being transferred through DOS
for PC-disk to QL ...
Both of the limitations [i.e., lack of FLP & SERial support] can
probably be overcome if a QLever QUANTA member (OR, any other QLingon
reading this LIST) who can write machine code (or, assembly?) would "complete"
the code.
SBYTEd dongled-TK2_code can be used with QLAY.
I have read that QLAY is much slower than QPC when run on the same platform
(factor of 3?). AFAIK, QLAY's speed is dependent on the host platform's
speed -- I think that on anything faster than a 66MHz PC, QLAY will be faster
than the original QL. Again, the QPC emulation will be much faster on a
faster host platform.
Hope that helps you.
Al
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 03:16:03 +0100 "QL recursos en castellano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> > 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 > > > > > > > |
