Dilwyn Jones wrote:
> Not sure why this would be different on QPC2v2 to the old QPC2, but
> still.
I did already fix that problem in QPC2, but QPC2v2 got a completely
new PAR driver... ;-)
> I hope Marcel or Tony will be able to integrate the modification to
> SMSQE in time.
It is integrated,
>> GO to SBASIC, enter OPEN#3,PAR and you'll find that seems to flush
out
>> the printed output, if it's the same problem as I have with
>> QPC2v2final.
>
>It wasnt, but thank you all the same. However, it is now fixed. Yet
Im not
>the wiser as to when or how that happened. Im not the sort of user
Marcel Kilgus writes:
> P Witte wrote:
> > 10 a = 0
> > 20 OPEN#1;'con_0x0'
> > 30 PAUSE#1; 200
> > it zaps QPC.
>
> Cannot reproduce that. OS? Memory settings?
I did mention you had to EX it? The cut-of value is at 2x2; 1x1 and 0x0 both
kill QPC2v2.
M$ Windoze 2000 5.00.2195
AMD Athlon 700MHz
Peter Graf writes:
> >Of course Im interested in a Q60, but I know very little about them,
like:
<>
Thanks for all that, Peter. I hope there were many more interested readers
out there. I shant sport with your collective patiences by replying to it
all in detail ;) I should be happy to be kept po
Dilwyn Jones writes:
> Exactly the same problem as I reported a week or so ago.
>
> GO to SBASIC, enter OPEN#3,PAR and you'll find that seems to flush out
> the printed output, if it's the same problem as I have with
> QPC2v2final.
It wasnt, but thank you all the same. However, it is now fixed.
Per wrote:
>Of course Im interested in a Q60, but I know very little about them, like:
>cost, delivery, compatibility, reliability, how difficult is it to assemble
>(special equipment required, etc), networking (can you network two+ of them
>under Linux, for example?), upgradability (CPU, RAM), e
P Witte wrote:
> 10 a = 0
> 20 OPEN#1;'con_0x0'
> 30 PAUSE#1; 200
> it zaps QPC.
Cannot reproduce that. OS? Memory settings?
Marcel
P Witte wrote:
> Help! I just discovered I cant print from QPC2v2!
Please wait for QPCv2.02.
Marcel
Exactly the same problem as I reported a week or so ago.
GO to SBASIC, enter OPEN#3,PAR and you'll find that seems to flush out
the printed output, if it's the same problem as I have with
QPC2v2final.
--
Dilwyn Jones
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html
>Help! I just discovered
More on my QPC2v2 setup:
If I EX a program, such as the SB snippet below
10 a = 0
20 OPEN#1;'con_0x0'
30 PAUSE#1; 200
it zaps QPC. A call to WINDOW#ch; 0, 0, 0, 0 does the same. (Some bracketing
clauses also appear to need to be there.) Looks like an SMSQ/E bug to me,
but QPC shouldnt really cr
On 6 Feb 2001, at 22:40, Peter Graf wrote:
>
> BTW I have used the same case for a Q60. (Thanks to Keith.) Possible, but
> it means a lot of tinkering since Tony Firshman has not yet developed a Q60
> Mini-Backplane ;-)))
>
Knowing Tony, it won't be long in coming
Does that mean the Q60
Help! I just discovered I cant print from QPC2v2! The old version runs fine,
but the new one doesnt talk to the printer (though it had a quick stab at
the fax device (using the default setting)). Tried both the new Printer
setting,
then LPT1 (to which my Epson is connected) - no joy! As I said; th
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 at 02:07:57, Peter Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(Ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>Tony wrote:
>
(In fact the small size of the MinisQL and a
monitor switchbox meant I could have two in the space of one! although
I mainly use the QPC2 system).
>>>
>>>BTW I have used the
Tony wrote:
>>>(In fact the small size of the MinisQL and a
>>>monitor switchbox meant I could have two in the space of one! although
>>>I mainly use the QPC2 system).
>>
>>BTW I have used the same case for a Q60. (Thanks to Keith.) Possible, but
>>it means a lot of tinkering since Tony Firshman
On Feb 7, 12:09am, P Witte wrote:
> The problem with upgrading computers is disposing of the old ones humanely
> (ie, with the least possible trouble to oneself ;). They do tend to take up
> a lot of space, and operating with more than a couple of keyboards, half a
> dozen rodents, and assorted mo
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001 at 22:40:25, Peter Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(Ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>Dilwyn wrote:
>
>>Same here really. While I'd love to buy a Q40 or Q60, space
>>considerations, wife's considerations etc etc mean one computer space
>>is all I'm allowed now. (In fact the small size
Dilwyn Jones writes:
<>
The problem with upgrading computers is disposing of the old ones humanely
(ie, with the least possible trouble to oneself ;). They do tend to take up
a lot of space, and operating with more than a couple of keyboards, half a
dozen rodents, and assorted monitors (not to f
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tony Firshman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>On Tue, 6 Feb 2001 at 19:05:38, Dilwyn Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>.uk> wrote:
>(Ref: <00ed01c09076$7b5850e0$ad075cc3@default>)
>
>>
>>>Yes, it is a great product ... so many people can benefit. I use the
>>>QPC2 style of QL'
Dilwyn wrote:
>Same here really. While I'd love to buy a Q40 or Q60, space
>considerations, wife's considerations etc etc mean one computer space
>is all I'm allowed now. (In fact the small size of the MinisQL and a
>monitor switchbox meant I could have two in the space of one! although
>I mainly
Roy Wood wrote:
>The real problem that faces us is a lack of any really new software for
>the QL in general and the longer that situation persists the more people
>we will lose to other computers.
Yes, this is the biggest problem. I didn't mention it directly, but I think
good native hardware le
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001 at 19:05:38, Dilwyn Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.uk> wrote:
(Ref: <00ed01c09076$7b5850e0$ad075cc3@default>)
>
>>Yes, it is a great product ... so many people can benefit. I use the
>>QPC2 style of QL'ing now more than I do 'black box' or derivatives
>way.
>>Although I often have
>Yes, it is a great product ... so many people can benefit. I use the
>QPC2 style of QL'ing now more than I do 'black box' or derivatives
way.
>Although I often have both running at the same time. I'm lucky
enough
>to have a small room stuffed full of gear !
>
>>As for Q40/Q60 - I'd love one, b
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,
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter
Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>I have also enjoyed the thread. However, is there any news, yet, of
>Text87 in full colour? That would fill my cup completely.
I have been negotiating with Fred Toussi about this and he needs TT to
write a section of code (d
Marcel wrote:
>Anyway, let's call it a /QL compatible/ platform of it's own.
How about/SMSQ only/ platform of it's MS Windows? :-)
Still think interfaces that nobody can access don't make a platform. But
surrounded by SMSQ-on-Windows users it looks like I must give up :-)
Peter
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marcel Kilgus
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>Wolfgang Lenerz wrote:
>> 0100,0100,0100
>
>Erm, Wolfgang... ;-)
>
>>> QDOS. I can run a different operating system on it, not only QDOS. The
>>> interfaces to the hardware are defined and accessible.
>> All right, then QPC
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Norman Dunbar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>>> QPC2v2 is a great product, it just a pity that it is now mainly us more
>'expert' QL users that are left to use it.
>
>I agree, but I'm not that much of an expert - so I just use it in the manner
>of a QL, to do what I
Tony Firshman wrote:
>Do you get initial screen blanking, and then
>nothing (I wish TT did a splash screen!).
Or better: A progress indicator while starting up.
You probably miss the old QL way of a screen memory test you can *watch* :-)
>Describe exactly, because, like the QL, the various fau
Original Message from Malcolm [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, 4 Feb
2001 23:17:25 +
> In article <001c01c08eac$6dc1a420$f4075cc3@default>, Dilwyn Jones
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
> >This is specific to QPC2v2final, the old QPC2 and QPC1 on the same PC
> >and none of my other systems do t
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote:
> 0100,0100,0100
Erm, Wolfgang... ;-)
>> QDOS. I can run a different operating system on it, not only QDOS. The
>> interfaces to the hardware are defined and accessible.
> All right, then QPC must be a platform as well, because you could
> adopt another OS for it, too. (I
> Although the 'QPC2v2 again' thread is getting a bit long, the
> discussion has been very interesting and shows that we need both an
> emulator and a native hardware way forward. The emulator scene is very
> well served at the moment. Let's hope that the future of
> Q40/Goldfire/any other SGC suc
On 4 Feb 2001, at 10:36, Peter Graf wrote:
> Of course the QL is a platform. It is not true that the QL is restricted to
> QDOS. I can run a different operating system on it, not only QDOS. The
> interfaces to the hardware are defined and accessible.
All right, then QPC must be a platform as wel
>> QPC2v2 is a great product, it just a pity that it is now mainly us more
'expert' QL users that are left to use it.
I agree, but I'm not that much of an expert - so I just use it in the manner
of a QL, to do what I want to do.
>> Many of those who have abandoned the QL OS for the pleasures
In article <001c01c08eac$6dc1a420$f4075cc3@default>, Dilwyn Jones
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>This is specific to QPC2v2final, the old QPC2 and QPC1 on the same PC
>and none of my other systems do this. I could understand it if it was
>a FLUSH requirement (the old Falkenberg hard disk system had
At 03:50 ðì 4/2/2001, you wrote:
>On 3 Feb 2001, at 16:15, Peter Graf wrote:
>
> > I wasn't talking about what QPC *could* do if it was *changed*. You called
> > QPC a platform all by itself, and I think it is not. Because IIRC the only
> > thing that can be run are <=68008 coded SMSQ/E applicatio
>> to work. Sadly I was wrong, printing will still stop after say
after
>> half a page of graphics or a couple of pages of text. The
interesting
>> thing is: if I go to SBASIC and just enter the command OPEN#3,PAR
it's
>> enough to make printing resume and finish! I am completely unable
to
>> pred
Wolfgang wrote:
>> I wasn't talking about what QPC *could* do if it was *changed*. You called
>> QPC a platform all by itself, and I think it is not. Because IIRC the only
>> thing that can be run are <=68008 coded SMSQ/E applications.
>
>Right, then QL, then, isn't a platform, either, because al
On 3 Feb 2001, at 16:15, Peter Graf wrote:
> I wasn't talking about what QPC *could* do if it was *changed*. You called
> QPC a platform all by itself, and I think it is not. Because IIRC the only
> thing that can be run are <=68008 coded SMSQ/E applications.
Right, then QL, then, isn't a platf
Dilwyn Jones writes:
<>
> to work. Sadly I was wrong, printing will still stop after say after
> half a page of graphics or a couple of pages of text. The interesting
> thing is: if I go to SBASIC and just enter the command OPEN#3,PAR it's
> enough to make printing resume and finish! I am complete
On Sat, 3 Feb 2001 at 17:23:34, Peter Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(Ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>Bill wrote:
>
>>Presently I run a Q40 and a PC sharing a Sony monitor and epson printer
>>, no switchboxs required, the monitor has two inputs and its own switch
>>for selection, the printer runs on
On Sat, 3 Feb 2001 at 18:00:43, Bill Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
(Ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>Well now, I recall when I installed the i/o card there was a problem (
>turned out to be not connecting to motherboard) and I checked all the
>jumpers, are there not about forty of them?
Yes- that i
Peter Graf wrote:
>
> Wolfgang wrote:
>
>
> >> I think it is native hardware that keeps a system alive. A system that
> >> mostly depends on emulation is dead.
> >>
> >No.
Maybe the Ql is not dead enough (:-{
There is a movement about called Retro, people are looking for something
that is mis
Peter Graf wrote:
>
> Bill wrote:
>
> >Presently I run a Q40 and a PC sharing a Sony monitor and epson printer
> >, no switchboxs required, the monitor has two inputs and its own switch
> >for selection, the printer runs on USB from the PC and Parallel from the
> >Q40
>
> Very good idea.
>
> >
Wolfgang wrote:
>QPC presumes (and rightly so) that you have a running
>and functioning Windows machine.
Exactly. That is IMHO one of the reasons why a Windows PC is not a QL system.
On a QL/Q40 I don't have to fight with Windows problems to keep my QL/Q40
from crashing.
>I don't know about
Marcel wrote:
>> Why can't you accept the fact, that QPC is just a software emulator,
>> emulating one single OS?
>
>Sure, it is. It's designed for that. But the only direct link between
>QPC and SMSQ/E is the way the configuration works, because it is read
>out of the SMSQ/E file.
Still QPC and
Wolfgang wrote:
>> The size of problems depends not only on development itself.
>>
>> After I developed a program, I need a stack of disks or some Webspace.
>> But what after I developed a mainboard?
>>
>> See the difference? Dealing with the production+service issue might have
>> cost me more
Bill wrote:
>Presently I run a Q40 and a PC sharing a Sony monitor and epson printer
>, no switchboxs required, the monitor has two inputs and its own switch
>for selection, the printer runs on USB from the PC and Parallel from the
>Q40
Very good idea.
>only one proviso the printer must be off
Peter Graf wrote:
> I wasn't talking about what QPC *could* do if it was *changed*.
No, QPC can stay the same for this task.
> Why can't you accept the fact, that QPC is just a software emulator,
> emulating one single OS?
Sure, it is. It's designed for that. But the only direct link between
Q
On 2 Feb 2001, at 9:37, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote:
> On 2 Feb 2001, at 8:21, Norman Dunbar wrote:
>
> >
> > It could also have been a contradiction in terms, especially if I said
> > 'working PC' !!
> Well yes, but nobody would have believed it, anyway
>
> Wolfgang
>
On 3 Feb 2001, at 2:05, Peter Graf wrote:
>
> No, I don't think that graphic driver problems are rare.
But graphics drivers with QPC are - and that's what was being
discussed. QPC presumes (and rightly so) that you have a running
and functioning Windows machine.
> IIRC QPC has not. For exam
On 3 Feb 2001, at 2:06, Peter Graf wrote:
>
> There are, and I know several. For obvious reasons they are on this list.
NOT on the list, you mean.
> But who says that you must give up your PC if you want the speed of a Q40
> or Q60. There are keyboard/mouse/screen switch boxes to help switching
>
On 3 Feb 2001, at 2:08, Peter Graf wrote:
> The size of problems depends not only on development itself.
>
> After I developed a program, I need a stack of disks or some Webspace.
> But what after I developed a mainboard?
>
> See the difference? Dealing with the production+service issue might
Phoebus Dokos wrote:
snip
only one proviso the printer must be off when you switch on the Q40
> >else the Q40 will not boot properly ( why?)
> >This is not a problem I just bring power to the Q40 and from Q40 to PC
> >so Q40 has to be fired up first or nothing works.
>
> Most probably a power
At 10:11 ðì 3/2/2001, you wrote:
>Peter Graf wrote:
>
> > But who says that you must give up your PC if you want the speed of a Q40
> > or Q60. There are keyboard/mouse/screen switch boxes to help switching
> > between a real QL and a real PC. Many people have more than one computer.
> >
> > Peter
Peter has said -
>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.>
I've contributed absolutely nowt to this fascinating thread -
Phoebus said -
>Nuff said (as my American Friends say)>
When I worked for Castrol (Ellesmere Port, UK) there was at the end of one
expansive production floor a giant space-heater. Her name was "Fairy Nuff".
I know this because it was chalked on her, in large letters, just above her
ample and ro
Peter Graf wrote:
> But who says that you must give up your PC if you want the speed of a Q40
> or Q60. There are keyboard/mouse/screen switch boxes to help switching
> between a real QL and a real PC. Many people have more than one computer.
>
> Peter
Presently I run a Q40 and a PC sharing a
Marcel wrote:
>> QPC can't do that. For examle it can not run QDOS.
>
>QDOS had to be adapted to run on the Q40, the same as SMSQ/E was. I
>could adapt QDOS classic to run on QPC.
I wasn't talking about what QPC *could* do if it was *changed*. You called
QPC a platform all by itself, and I thin
Peter Graf wrote:
> QPC can't do that. For examle it can not run QDOS.
QDOS had to be adapted to run on the Q40, the same as SMSQ/E was. I
could adapt QDOS classic to run on QPC. Instead of writing to some
hardware ports for opening a serial port, one does a "dc.w qpc.sopen".
Not a big differenc
Peter Graf wrote:
>>QPC does have all that, too. Isn't that amazing?
> IIRC QPC has not. For example try an old program that directly accesses the
> QL screen.
Does work if you actually are in 512x256 mode.
> Yes, but there was also another effect. My impression is that QPC supported
> the tran
At 03:13 ìì 2/2/2001, you wrote:
>Don't denigrate people who don't buy new software and hardware. We can still
>learn from them, if only to discover why they don't. With a bit of luck we
>may learn what to produce to start them buying again. Last year a black
>box/gold card QDOS user upgraded
Marcel wrote:
>> There are a lot of reasons why a M$ Windows PC is not a QL system. One of
>> them you have given yourself: It would have to behave like a QL! When I
>> need minutes to boot the machine and my emulator crashes because of a
>> Windows graphic driver problem I really don't have the
Wolfgang wrote:
>Well, I'd say that a hardware developper has hardware problems,
>and a software developper has software problems... I don't think
>that developping either QPC or the Q40 was a mean feat!
The size of problems depends not only on development itself.
After I developed a program,
Marcel wrote:
>> For me a Windows PC is never a QL system!!!
>
>Point of view. I see it this way: if it smells like tea, tastes like
>tea and looks like tea, it probably is tea.
Hm. If it smells like Bill Gate's feet, tastes a little like Pentium
silicon and sometimes looks like coffee, I have m
Marcel wrote:
>Of course not. QPC is a platform all by itself. It does not need to
>imitate anything.
IMHO QPC is a good software emulator, but not a platform by itself. If it
was a platform, you could run an operating system on it!
QPC can't do that. For examle it can not run QDOS. Or any othe
Wolfgang wrote:
>> It was just an example. Lets say I want to use MAC software. Under Q60
>> Linux it can run native and fast (because of the 68060), but on PC Linux I
>> need to emulate a MACs CPU so I lose 95% of the speed.
>
>A rather bad example, because I could say the same for PC
>programs
- Original Message -
From: Phoebus Dokos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
"Hehe, the reason was your really useful work software. (It is not useful to
me as my needs do not include english (and thesaurus or spell checking
algorithms are generally unu
Norman Dunbar wrote:
>>> I then got a huge black hole on the screen for my troubles, which
>swallowed
>>> my mouse any time it ventured near it. More or less same
phenomenon
>whether
>>> QL- or full-colour modes used.
>
>AHA - I get this when my screen saver has been running and I then
kick it
>ou
- Original Message -
From: Wolfgang Lenerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
> On 1 Feb 2001, at 20:06, Geoff Wicks wrote:
>
>
> > The point I wanted to make is that we are a "Broad Church" in the QL
> > Community. That is,
Personaly I think QPC2 and Q40 are both importants. But considering the lack
of production, QPC2 is nowaday the only way to upgrade your QL (and have
access to GD2). And it is a good product that gives us the opportunity to
have SMS evrywhere with only a HD disk (and a CD if you need applications)
URL:http://www.LynxFinancialSystems.com
-Original Message-
From: Marcel Kilgus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 12:36 PM
To: ql-users
Subject: Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
P Witte wrote:
> QPC2:
> CreatSurface(GetDesktopMode) failed
> Error code: (and this I found particularly rude:) 887600e1.
Well, unfortunately there is no function which translates error
codes into readable text. And there are hundreds of them. 887600e1
is a DirectDraw err
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote:
> I'm not so sure. If the users show enthusiasm, the software
> developers may do more. I think that Marcel wouldn't have done
> QPC2 if he hadn't had much feedback from all concerned.
Let's say it this way: the original plan was to release QPC1 v1.00 and
then go on to so
-Original Message-
From: P Witte [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 10:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
>> I then got a huge black hole on the screen for my troubles, which
swallowed
>> my mouse any time it vent
-Original Message-
From: Marcel Kilgus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 9:45 PM
To: ql-users
Subject: Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
>> Normally you don't notice the difference. When the priority is
>> set to "lowest", the emulation
On 2 Feb 2001, at 8:21, Norman Dunbar wrote:
>
> It could also have been a contradiction in terms, especially if I said
> 'working PC' !!
Well yes, but nobody would have believed it, anyway
Wolfgang
On 1 Feb 2001, at 5:41, Phoebus Dokos wrote:
> Indeed we are a Broad Church (and thank you for bringing back the old
> meaning of Church) nevertheless, IMHO people that do not need new software
> or hardware do not contribute at all in the evolution of our platform.
> Change is a product of i
On 1 Feb 2001, at 21:04, Peter Graf wrote:
> Wolfgang wrote:
>
> There are a lot of reasons why a M$ Windows PC is not a QL system. One of
> them you have given yourself: It would have to behave like a QL! When I
> need minutes to boot the machine and my emulator crashes because of a
> Windows
On 1 Feb 2001, at 20:06, Geoff Wicks wrote:
> The point I wanted to make is that we are a "Broad Church" in the QL
> Community. That is, we embrace a wide range of people and opinions. To
> survive we have to have a high degree of tolerance. We need both QPC and the
> Q40 as well as those peopl
-Original Message-
From: Marcel Kilgus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 9:10 PM
To: ql-users
Subject: Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
>> A source level debugger is the least I expect nowadays.
Oooh, yes please !!!
-Original Message-
From: Wolfgang Lenerz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 4:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
>> "work PC" - Isn't that an oxymoron (or a simple moron???)
:o) :o) :o)
It could also have be
At 04:52 ìì 1/2/2001, you wrote:
>QPC does have all that, too. Isn't that amazing?
>
Well I don't really know what you meant here Marcel but if you think any of
us is "attacking" or "blaming" your work, well I don't think that this is
the case.
It is well established and I believe nobody here
re:
> > .. The windowing
> > facility is not one I'll use much (it also crashes on my machine
> > when changing between windowed and full-screen).
>
> Hmm, that's not really supposed to happen. What graphics card do you
> use? Latest drivers? Complete crash or just
At 03:06 ìì 1/2/2001, you wrote:
>- Original Message -
>From: Phoebus Dokos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Subject: Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
>
>Hehe I kind of anticipated this email Geoff (although I don't know you
>personally I do admire your work).
>It
Peter Graf wrote:
> There are a lot of reasons why a M$ Windows PC is not a QL system. One of
> them you have given yourself: It would have to behave like a QL! When I
> need minutes to boot the machine and my emulator crashes because of a
> Windows graphic driver problem I really don't have the
Norman Dunbar wrote:
> On my (work) NT box, an 'idle' QPC session uses 98% of the processor time -
> at least that's what task mangler tells me.
Yes, it just does use all processor time that's available.
> This is what makes the Windows portion of my QL :o) sluggish.
Really? Normally you don't
Phoebus Dokos wrote:
> Emulators are supposed to completely "simulate" the native hardware.
That's your definition.
> However QPC doesn't do that with the latest QL hardware (which is
> the Q40).
Of course not. QPC is a platform all by itself. It does not need to
imitate anything.
> My belief
Peter Graf wrote:
> For me a Windows PC is never a QL system!!!
Point of view. I see it this way: if it smells like tea, tastes like
tea and looks like tea, it probably is tea.
>>The mentioned PC runs Linux with 100 times (or
>>whatever) the speed.
> I have a 300 MHz PC where I think factor 5 i
I also want to mention another aspect of Emulation as well.
Emulators are supposed to completely "simulate" the native hardware.
However QPC doesn't do that with the latest QL hardware (which is the Q40).
In this aspect we are driven towards a complete separation. My belief is
that QPC should com
- Original Message -
From: Phoebus Dokos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
Hehe I kind of anticipated this email Geoff (although I don't know you
personally I do admire your work).
It wasn't directed to you directly but yours was the first name to
Wolfgang wrote:
>I disagree. If it runs Ql software, looks like a QL (on the monitor)
>and baves like one, then it is a QL. Never mind whether it is an
>elulator or a Q40 (or a "real" Ql, for that matter).
There are a lot of reasons why a M$ Windows PC is not a QL system. One of
them you have
On 31 Jan 2001, at 16:41, Marcel Kilgus wrote:
> It also crashes more easily, like "JMON 0" crashes straight out back
> > into Windoze.
>
> Couldn't say so. Works just fine.
Same here : no problem!
Wolfgang
Wolfgang
On 31 Jan 2001, at 23:24, Peter Graf wrote:
> Yes with QPC+PC (+ necessarily M$ Windows!) you get a PC! But when you say
> "also" a PC you imply that you get a QL system when you buy such a PC.
>
> I feel that real QL style hardware users seem to become a minority on this
> list, but at this po
On 1 Feb 2001, at 8:37, Norman Dunbar wrote:
>
> Hey, it's only a work PC after all !!
-
"work PC" - Isn't that an oxymoron (or a simple moron???)
Wolfgang
Per,
>> Ok, so its probably a local issue. I can use eg JMON 24 to debug another
>> job, but it crashes in the same way as JMON 0 soon as it hits a
breakpoint. Makes
>> finding out whats going on rather awkward :(
I'm ok with JMON 0 or JMON 12 and breakpoints work fine - I was doing some
breakpoi
Per Witte wrote :
>> When Windoze is running, QPC just about stops whatever it is doing. With
QPC
>> in the background, my Windoze pointer behaves strangely (sluggish,
>> disappears intermittently,..) in some programs. Changing the fore- and
>> background settings in the startup menu does not pro
Norman Dunbar writes:
> I've had QPC2v2 for a few days now and I am not having problems when I do
a
> JMON 0 as you are.
Ok, so its probably a local issue. I can use eg JMON 24 to debug another
job, but it
crashes in the same way as JMON 0 soon as it hits a breakpoint. Makes
finding out whats go
Marcel Kilgus writes:
> > up our own file system's much-lamented inadequacy. The windowing
> > facility is not one I'll use much (it also crashes on my machine
> > when changing between windowed and full-screen).
>
> Hmm, that's not really supposed to happen. What graphics card do you
> use? Late
Thanks for pointing that out Marcel, in that case, I have the following :
Config = QPC Configuration v2 final
Taskbar = QPC II v2 Final
QPC_VER$ = 2.00
I have discovered a small (?) problem as follows :
QPC running on an Compaq 400 Mhz 128M memory running NT 4.
QPC configured for window mode.
W
At 03:19 ìì 31/1/2001, you wrote:
>Phoebus Dokos wrote:
> > Correct but then again, buying a PC doesn't mean you get a name brand (with
> > bundled softare you are right).
> > Many people (including myself) want to buy things that will accomodate
> > their needs.
>
>Me too. But most people buy com
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
