Ian wrote: > Rewriting SMSQ in C and then, like Linux, porting it to run on various > hardware platforms starting with Intel based?
Yes, that's the idea. Or maybe port an emulator for use that hardware :) > The idea has been discussed here before. (i'm new members of this list) > But what would be the motivation for doing that? More use flexibility for us. > 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. ��?? QDOS or SMSQ/E can't do it? > ...emulators are probably the best way to go - only the emulator itself >would need to be ported. If and emulator can be revised and ported, why not and OS who can use an Hadware Abstraction Layer? > 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. This it is the problem. It will only continue being hobby if we did not think about other uses for the QL. >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. Why not? > 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. All we did not harvest the happiness in the same orchard. > Ian. Regards Ian. Javier Guerra Sinclair QL Spanish Resources http://badared.com/QL
