> Personally, I'm very happy for being able to use QLAY nowadays, but we perhaps must >think about not repeating the history. If QLAY, uQLx, > QPC or other emulators are what we want to conserve for the future... well, but an >independent operating system of the propietary hardware > would be, in the long run, more adaptable, and would offer to the programmers an >development a via based on software who is independent > of the machine in which it is going to work.
Rewriting SMSQ in C and then, like Linux, porting it to run on various hardware platforms starting with Intel based? The idea has been discussed here before. Trouble is you would still need a plug-in emulator to run existing [68k code] QL software, or else all that software would have to be rewritten. But what would be the motivation for doing that? For running SBASIC code only, as fast as possible, yes there are benefits (but don't forget the risk of incompatibilities for example if all the floating point handling was moved to FPU). If your main interest is writing fast powerful applications for the largest potential user base, then you are better off writing them directly under Linux or Windows. For SMSQ ported to different hardware platforms to be of interest to enough people to be worth the effort, a huge library of existing software, certainly the development tools, would need to be ported along with it. For this reason emulators are probably the best way to go - only the emulator itself would need to be ported. Maintenance is easier; any failure of applications to run on newly supported hardware would be down to bugs in the porting of the emulator. If instead you chose to port all the applications, there would be a huge testing effort and different versions of code to maintain in parallel. Why do people still use QLs? Nostalgia has to be the major reason. The speed, memory, storage capacity are clearly not a big issue. It is a hobby. You keep using a machine you enjoy using and feel comfortable with, as long as it still does the things you want to do, whether or not you can earn a living from it. And the QL crossed a boundary, being small and easy to program as a home 'toy' computer, with all the direct access to hardware that the more adventurous electronicky hobbyists in those days demanded, but also powerful enough to do useful work on (the microdrives offered a random access filesystem, even if quite slow), and the OS allowed multitasking and windows. The idea of a new little black box as a modern QL however, appeals. I've been quite happy with my Q40, but it doesn't really feel like a substitute QL. I've been running Linux on it recently, and it seems more like a PC than a QL (helped by being in a PC case :o). Indeed the Qx0 machines have more latent capability than SMSQ is able to capitalize on, somehow holding them back. I think a new custom hardware platform should not try to compete with these machines but instead aim to be inexpensive and closer to the original QL on the performance scale. Even talk of 64 or 128Mb RAM seems like overkill to me. I'd be happy with 1Mb (which can be done with a couple of 512k statics), including 512x256 graphics, or maybe some extra RAM if 1024x512 is necessary and a pair of floppy disks for storage, and try not to show up the deficiencies of SMSQ/E. Even built-in Microdrive or CompactFlash for storage would add disproportionately to the cost (but could be optional external add-ons). Keep it cheap and QL-like, and not too expandable otherwise you never feel like you've got a complete finished product; let the Q60 satisfy the power hungry. Ian. -----Original Message----- From: QL recursos en castellano [mailto:sinclairql@;badared.com] Sent: 27 October 2002 17:52 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] Hardware platforms Hi, AL Wrote: QLAY will probably do 95% of what you are looking for. Yes, maybe, but QLAY have limitations. <SNIP> Regards Javier Guerra Sinclair QL Spanish Resources http://badared.com/QL P.D.: I feel if I did not express myself with the correct expressions, but believe that the general concept will be well understood. Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. This message is provided for informational purposes and should not be construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or related financial instruments.
