Re: [ql-users] Screen Resolution changing .....
Neil Riley wrote: I currently run SMSQ/E 3.12 on my Aurora and I'm more than happy with it although Id like to use it more than time allows however one thing id love to be able to control is the screen resolution which for smsq/e via menuconfig is currently set to 1024*512. This of course is fine for pointer env programs as i can move windows around etc but i would love to be able to toggle back to the QL's native resolution on the fly for certain programs. DISP_SIZE 512,256 should probably do the trick. But beware that all jobs outside of the new screen area will be mercilessly killed. Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] New here....
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Marcel Kilgus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Tobias Fröschle wrote: Did I say already that QPC2 is the most enjoyable piece of software I bought in the last couple of years, already? Thanks a lot :-) For the people wondering where the new release is, there are multiple problems currently that have attacked me at once. First my new job, which leaves me with much less time (and even less inclination to continue programming after 8 hours of software development every day), then my main development laptop died some weeks ago and while I wanted to transfer the work to my new company laptop I've been waiting for my Visual Studio licence for that one for 6 weeks now... so everything has stalled a bit, but I'll try to somehow get out a Beta soon. Nice to hear that you are now working for a living ... :-) While I'm writing anyway, some comments to another topic: of course QXL.WIN files can fragment like pretty much all other file systems (some more, some less, but basically all have the problem). But QXL.WIN files are virtual anyway, so even if the data within the drives is not fragmented, the Windows file still can be. Interesting ... And it's all not that much of a problem because a typical QXL.WIN file can usually fit into the whole RAM of a PC nowadays and thus the buffering prevents any bigger performance impact. The only problem there really is if the directories themselves get fragmented. In this case a defragmenting can make sense. As mentioned the only way to defragment a drive is by formating a new one and copying everything over. The easiest way I know for that is using the CueShell application, which can copy entire discs including all sub-directories with two clicks. I guess then that such a feature could be a part of a future version of SMSQ/E ? Yet, arranged in such a way, like the formatting command for a WIN drive, that it is not easy to do inadvertently. This, I suppose, starts to become more relevant as the size of hard drives increases in GB's of storage, and therefore more likely to fragment over a period of time. Windows Vista will no doubt accelerate this trend ... By the way, how large are people creating their WIN drives ? -- Malcolm Cadman ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Last week I was pestering you all with questions about formatting a new Hitachi Deskstar 250GB hard disk I was having problems with. I sent it back, the company quickly sent me a replacement and it worked first time when set up today, exactly how all the helpful replies suggested it ought to. Thank you all, I've given Windoze 40GB to do with as it pleases (since the second hard drive has enough space to do a full backup of the C: drive), and the other 200GB partition will hold my music and QL files. Hopefully Windoze will do less damage to it than the couriers did! Incidentally, my first impressions of this hard disk are excellent. About £45 including VAT and carriage for the 250GB IDE133 T7K250, and it's pretty fast and quiet. Thank you everyone for your kind help. Yes, I am toying with getting a 400GB hard drive ... I guess we just can't get enough of it ... :-) I wonder how many QL microdrives that is the equivalent of ? -- Malcolm Cadman ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
According to my calculations and assuming a modest 210 sectors on a microdrive it works out at nearly 4 million microdrives. That's even more than Quanta has in stock for resale!! Regards to all, John Gilpin. - Original Message - From: Malcolm Cadman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 9:32 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] new hard disk In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Last week I was pestering you all with questions about formatting a new Hitachi Deskstar 250GB hard disk I was having problems with. I sent it back, the company quickly sent me a replacement and it worked first time when set up today, exactly how all the helpful replies suggested it ought to. Thank you all, I've given Windoze 40GB to do with as it pleases (since the second hard drive has enough space to do a full backup of the C: drive), and the other 200GB partition will hold my music and QL files. Hopefully Windoze will do less damage to it than the couriers did! Incidentally, my first impressions of this hard disk are excellent. About £45 including VAT and carriage for the 250GB IDE133 T7K250, and it's pretty fast and quiet. Thank you everyone for your kind help. Yes, I am toying with getting a 400GB hard drive ... I guess we just can't get enough of it ... :-) I wonder how many QL microdrives that is the equivalent of ? -- Malcolm Cadman ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] New here....
- Original Message - From: Malcolm Cadman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 9:43 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] New here In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Marcel Kilgus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Tobias Fröschle wrote: Did I say already that QPC2 is the most enjoyable piece of software I bought in the last couple of years, already? Thanks a lot :-) For the people wondering where the new release is, there are multiple problems currently that have attacked me at once. First my new job, which leaves me with much less time (and even less inclination to continue programming after 8 hours of software development every day), then my main development laptop died some weeks ago and while I wanted to transfer the work to my new company laptop I've been waiting for my Visual Studio licence for that one for 6 weeks now... so everything has stalled a bit, but I'll try to somehow get out a Beta soon. Nice to hear that you are now working for a living ... :-) While I'm writing anyway, some comments to another topic: of course QXL.WIN files can fragment like pretty much all other file systems (some more, some less, but basically all have the problem). But QXL.WIN files are virtual anyway, so even if the data within the drives is not fragmented, the Windows file still can be. Interesting ... And it's all not that much of a problem because a typical QXL.WIN file can usually fit into the whole RAM of a PC nowadays and thus the buffering prevents any bigger performance impact. The only problem there really is if the directories themselves get fragmented. In this case a defragmenting can make sense. As mentioned the only way to defragment a drive is by formating a new one and copying everything over. The easiest way I know for that is using the CueShell application, which can copy entire discs including all sub-directories with two clicks. I guess then that such a feature could be a part of a future version of SMSQ/E ? Yet, arranged in such a way, like the formatting command for a WIN drive, that it is not easy to do inadvertently. This, I suppose, starts to become more relevant as the size of hard drives increases in GB's of storage, and therefore more likely to fragment over a period of time. Windows Vista will no doubt accelerate this trend ... By the way, how large are people creating their WIN drives ? -- Malcolm Cadman _ When I first started using QXL.win files, I merely reproduced what I had been using on my MASSIVE (then) 1.8 Mb hard drive partitions. That was 7 X 256 Kb + the balance which worked out at about 128 Kb. To make things easy (for me) I stuck them all in one folder (wins) on the PC and named them abc.win, def.win, ghi.win.etc and configured QPC2 such that abc.win is win1_, def.win is win2_ etc. I also have a 6 Kb win file specifically for QWORD dictionaries etc. called (guess what?) qword.win ( isn't that original?) I have never had any problems from these files, fragmented or not and never had need to reformat the space as has been suggested here. I have, however defragged the hard drive that they are on about every three months as a matter of routine. Cheers, John Gilpin. __ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] New here....
The only problem that I have had with qxl.win was when I had a drive (IE: win1_, win2_) space that was nearly full. If I added, deleted or modified too many files it could get very fragmented and suddenly run out of 'room' even though it showed enough left. To solve that I normally would do a copy command (the C68 copy), tell it to include subdirectories, and copy to a different win drive and then copy it back. That would clean it up 100%. I never noticed much top level fragmentation speed impact. I found that if I reserved enough empty space on a drive, I totally avoid the fragmentation issue. Don't know if this has been improved with the SMSQE updates but I haven't hit it for a few years now. jim On Apr 25, 2007, at 7:12 PM, P Witte wrote: Marcel Kilgus writes: While I'm writing anyway, some comments to another topic: of course QXL.WIN files can fragment like pretty much all other file systems (some more, some less, but basically all have the problem). But QXL.WIN files are virtual anyway, so even if the data within the drives is not fragmented, the Windows file still can be. I can understand that a qxl.win container file could get fragmented during creation. But do you mean that the container file can get fragmenbted on the Windoze side by file operations on the QL side too? On the QXL the container files were attributed as system files and, if I understand correctly, were therefore left alone by the defragger. Presumably they didnt fragment Windoze side either as according to the pretty graphs in Defrag, they remain a solid block and in place. Per ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] Screen Resolution changing .....
In a message dated 25/04/2007 11:45:34 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: as i can move windows around etc but i would love to be able to toggle back to the QL's native resolution on the fly for certain programs. I suspect this is not possible on the fly Hi Neil, Yes it is possible I wrote a pointer driven button that produced a drop down menu to select the desired screen resolution some years ago when I had a functioning Aurora. The one thing that had to be done before switching screen resolution was to ensure that SBASIC was asleep on a button before changing. Over the years I have migrated the program to a Q60 and QPC2 so I am not now certain that it would run on Aurora. At the time Aurora only had mode 4 colours. I still use the program on the Q60 switching on the fly from 1025x256 high colour to 512x256 high colour and then down to mode 4 colour if desired. I could dig out the sources if you are interested. I might even have an old Aurora version on one of the old floppy disks. If you are interested. Duncan ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
