On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Geoff Wicks wrote:
>
>
> --
> From: "Dilwyn Jones"
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 8:16 PM
>
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
>
> If Dave ca
--
From: "Dilwyn Jones"
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 8:16 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
If Dave can keep his survey deadline going, I'd be happy to write
something for the next Quanta mag (to
Don't lurk, its been quite entertaining, more please :)
Lee
- Back to the QL-
- Original Oops, sorry, just catching up. I'll go away and lurk now...
Dilwyn Jones
___
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
__
- Original Message -
From: "Lee Privett"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
Dilwyn, this is quite funny, its like we are having a final summary
of the last two weeks
Lee
Oops, sorry, just catching up. I&
Dilwyn, this is quite funny, its like we are having a final summary of the last
two weeks
Lee
- Back to the QL-
- Original Message -
From: Dilwyn Jones
To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
I will close the survey on February 28th and release the full
results on
March 1st.
I'll be sharing preliminary results with a few people before then,
as the
trends are fairly well defined at this point, so we can put some
interesting
commentary and interpretations in before that time.
I d
On 17/02/2011 12:49, Geoff Wicks wrote:
--
From: "QL-MyLink (f/fh)"
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 9:58 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
I've followed this thread... or so I though, but Dave (Plas
--
From: "Tony Firshman"
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 12:53 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
On 17 Feb 2011, at 12:49, "Geoff Wicks" wrote:
On 17 Feb 2011, at 12:49, "Geoff Wicks" wrote:
>
>
> --
> From: "QL-MyLink (f/fh)"
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 9:58 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
>
&g
--
From: "QL-MyLink (f/fh)"
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 9:58 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
I've followed this thread... or so I though, but Dave (Plastic)
what does this mean please? -
On 16 Feb 2011, at 21:58, QL-MyLink (f/fh) wrote:
> I've followed this thread... or so I though, but Dave (Plastic)
>
> what does this mean please? -
>
> "strong characters"
I thought it was obviously upper case. Or perhaps bold type?
George
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Lee Privett wrote:
> Are you saying I have a forceful character with a strong personality? if so
> you need to speak to my other half so that she is more informed... oh...
> wait... sorry have been told to get off the my computer and stop playing
> oh ! appare
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 3:58 PM, QL-MyLink (f/fh)
wrote:
> I've followed this thread... or so I though, but Dave (Plastic)
>
> what does this mean please? -
>
> "strong characters"
&g
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 3:58 PM, QL-MyLink (f/fh)
wrote:
> I've followed this thread... or so I though, but Dave (Plastic)
>
> what does this mean please? -
>
> "strong characters"
>
Forceful characters, strong personalities.
___
QL-Users Mailin
I've followed this thread... or so I though, but Dave (Plastic)
what does this mean please? -
"strong characters"
John in Wales
___
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Lee Privett wrote:
> Can I suggest that for any survey done in the future that the QL community
> are notified through as many channels as possible well in advance so that
> timing of other such initiatives can be self-regulated or coordinate. For
> example if two
Can I suggest that for any survey done in the future that the QL community are
notified through as many channels as possible well in advance so that timing of
other such initiatives can be self-regulated or coordinate. For example if two
or three main surveys a year are planned, then even if you
1 10:08 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
Hi all!
I now have 55 respondents. The results so far have definitely upset a
few
of
my pre-existing views. Fascinating.
I will close the survey on February 28th and release the full results on
March 1st.
I'll be shar
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 10:08 AM
>>>
>>> To:
>>> Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
>>>
>>> Hi all!
>>>
>>>> I now have 55 respondents. The results so far have definitely upset a
>>>> f
On 16/02/2011 17:13, Plastic wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Geoff Wickswrote:
--
From: "Plastic"
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 10:08 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
Hi all!
I now have 55 r
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Geoff Wicks wrote:
>
>
> --
> From: "Plastic"
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 10:08 AM
>
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
>
> Hi all!
>>
--
From: "Plastic"
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 10:08 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
Hi all!
I now have 55 respondents. The results so far have definitely upset a few
of
my pre-existing views. F
Hi all!
I now have 55 respondents. The results so far have definitely upset a few of
my pre-existing views. Fascinating.
I will close the survey on February 28th and release the full results on
March 1st.
I'll be sharing preliminary results with a few people before then, as the
trends are fairly
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Rich Mellor wrote:
> And here, Peter, I have to apologise, in that as a trader I have not
> completed the survey, as I feel my answers would be pointless (eg. how many
> QLs do you have? Answer - over 30 but only 2 or 3 which I regularly use,
> depending on what I
On 14/02/2011 09:07, Anton Preinsack wrote:
Hi Peter,
as you know I share most (if not all) of your thoughts about "real" hardware.
I think the speed-argument isn´t so important these days. It´s more about
retro-fun and to have a special piece of hardware to play with. Emulation and
virtual p
Hi Peter,
as you know I share most (if not all) of your thoughts about "real" hardware.
I think the speed-argument isn´t so important these days. It´s more about
retro-fun and to have a special piece of hardware to play with. Emulation and
virtual platforms are fine (I bought also QPCII and Q-E
On 14/02/2011 16:27, Peter wrote:
Marcel Kilgus wrote:
You have mentioned this stuff numerous time, which is what triggered
this response, not just this one mail. But I accept that you don't
care anymore, okay.
Not about the SMSQ/E license. I still care about QL hardware of course,
and keep th
Marcel Kilgus wrote:
> You have mentioned this stuff numerous time, which is what triggered
> this response, not just this one mail. But I accept that you don't
> care anymore, okay.
Not about the SMSQ/E license. I still care about QL hardware of course,
and keep the viewpoint about what happene
On 14 Feb 2011, at 09:26, Lee Privett wrote:
> You know there is something about typing away on the black box that is
> frustrating especially when you come back to the QL after so many years, not
> all the keys are in the same place as the keyboard at work I am used to, some
> of the basic ke
Peter wrote:
> come on... my point was the lost speed race for hardware, where I actually
> _agreed_ to you. Makes really no sense you pull a minor mention of history
> out of context and construct another debate about SMSQ/E licensing. I just
> don't care anymore.
You have mentioned this stuff nu
Marcel,
come on... my point was the lost speed race for hardware, where I actually
_agreed_ to you. Makes really no sense you pull a minor mention of history
out of context and construct another debate about SMSQ/E licensing. I just
don't care anymore.
Your insights about licensing come too la
Peter wrote:
> [snip]
The license didn't turn out as you wished, but I'm still of the
opinion that you could have worked with/under it regardless. It's also
not "Wolfang's license", the wishes of many, including Tony Tebby's,
were incorporated. If you asked me, SMSQ/E should have been available
fr
Hi Marcel,
>> It depends on the definition again :-) I can hold my QL hardware in my
>> hand, tinker with it, extend it.
>
> If "I can hold it in my hands" is a feature for you, then, yes, QPC2
> cannot provide this. I was however talking about speed, TCP/IP or the
> simple fact that I can use any
Good morning all,
I currently have 38 responses. For some questions with fewer answer choices,
the answers are now statistically significant with a margin of less than +/-
5% but those with more answer choices are still not there yet (+/- 12% or
so.)
I am very surprised by some of the early resul
gdgqler wrote:
>> In fact it's now the other way round, there is no native hardware that
>> can match QPC in speed or features. That's why I was a bit mystified
>> by your choices. Just saying.
> One interesting, and useful, thing about QPC2 is that it emulates a
> better 68000 series Motorola chip
On 13 Feb 2011, at 20:48, Marcel Kilgus wrote:
>> All the emulators can be reconfigured to cover most of the hardware
>> out there.
>
> Well, you seem to have the notion that there is QL hardware, and there
> are emulators that emulate said hardware. That's probably true for
> most form of emula
On 13 Feb 2011, at 18:56, Ralf Reköndt wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.kwiksurveys.com/online-survey.php?surveyID=IIMDML_e8265930
>> Hmm, somewhat hardware biased for my taste. Given that QPC was in
>> recent years probably the most widely used QL platforms of all, it
>> seems a bit strange to have it
my Laptop running XP
but emulating the QL using QPC2
¦¦
- Original Message -
From: Tony Firshman
To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
Peter Graf wrote, on 13/Feb/11 23:10 | Feb13:
Hi Marcel,
In fact it's now the other way round, there is no native hardware that
can match QPC in speed or features. That's why I was a bit mystified
by your choices. Just saying.
no offense intended at all, but are you not counting the now much
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 3:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
Once again we are on the eternal debate about what makes one computer
different than the other. It is the hardware or it is the OS?
With an Intel system I can run a number of OS's; Wi
Once again we are on the eternal debate about what makes one computer
different than the other. It is the hardware or it is the OS?
With an Intel system I can run a number of OS's; Windows, Linux, MacOS,
BSD, etc. With an OS like Linux or BSD, I can run them on different
CPU's; Intel, MIPS,
Plastic wrote:
> It IS a logical fallacy if you consider an emulator that doesn't emulate
> something pre-existing but does something original to still be an "emulator"
> for the literal meaning of the word.
Well, what else could you call a hybrid that emulates the CPU but
nothing else? A "platfor
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Marcel Kilgus wrote:
> Plastic wrote:
> > I think the point here is that emulators have to emulate something. If
> > there's nothing innovative to emulate, even the emulator cannot move
> forward
> > - it can just go faster at the same old stuff.
>
> I think this i
Plastic wrote:
> I think the point here is that emulators have to emulate something. If
> there's nothing innovative to emulate, even the emulator cannot move forward
> - it can just go faster at the same old stuff.
I think this is a logical fallacy here. Why should an emulator be
restricted to th
Peter Graf wrote:
>>> It is really really hard to make new QL hardware possible... I find
>>> public statement that QL hardware "can not match" in features
>>> somewhat depressing...
>>
>> It's not that it can't match it. It's that, at this time, it doesn't
>> match it.
> It depends on the definiti
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Marcel Kilgus wrote:
> Peter Graf wrote:
> > no offense intended at all, but are you not counting the now much faster
> > PC hardware (which you didn't design) and the Windows features (which
> > you didn't write, e.g. TCP/IP) as QPC achievements?
>
> So? Does this
Hi Marcel,
>> It is really really hard to make new QL hardware possible... I find
>> public statement that QL hardware "can not match" in features
>> somewhat depressing...
>
> It's not that it can't match it. It's that, at this time, it doesn't
> match it.
It depends on the definition again :-)
Peter Graf wrote:
> no offense intended at all, but are you not counting the now much faster
> PC hardware (which you didn't design) and the Windows features (which
> you didn't write, e.g. TCP/IP) as QPC achievements?
So? Does this change the reality in any way? No. I've never taken
credits for m
Hi Marcel,
> In fact it's now the other way round, there is no native hardware that
> can match QPC in speed or features. That's why I was a bit mystified
> by your choices. Just saying.
no offense intended at all, but are you not counting the now much faster
PC hardware (which you didn't design)
Plastic wrote:
> Software is simple to duplicate, and it does not wear out.
Not entirely correct, software often has to be updated when new
operating systems (i.e. Windows) are released, but okay, I get your
point ;)
> That said, QPC runs all the same software as all the other options. When
> ask
What you say is entirely correct.
When I wrote the questions, I was considering answers that would help people
focus their developments on something that is in demand.
Hardware is in relatively short supply and is getting older - replacements
have the dual benefits of being faster and more reliab
Dave Park wrote:
> All the emulators can be reconfigured to cover most of the hardware
> out there.
Well, you seem to have the notion that there is QL hardware, and there
are emulators that emulate said hardware. That's probably true for
most form of emulators but not for QPC. QPC does NOT emulate
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 2:26 PM, QL-MyLink (f/fh)
wrote:
> As Ralph said -
>
> "Quite right. It [QPC2] is *the* QL software emulator."
>
> John in Wales __
I'm using Q-Emulator for Mac 1.0 which is very good. The broken membrane
emulation isn't qu
As Ralph said -
"Quite right. It [QPC2] is *the* QL software emulator."
John in Wales
___
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
All the emulators can be reconfigured to cover most of the hardware out there.
Therefore I treated emulators ad two product lines: free, and commercial.
Actual al hardware is by definition less configurable so it's definition is
more fixed. It pays to tunnel deeper there, as people will be incli
Marcel Kilgus wrote:
http://www.kwiksurveys.com/online-survey.php?surveyID=IIMDML_e8265930
Hmm, somewhat hardware biased for my taste. Given that QPC was in
recent years probably the most widely used QL platforms of all, it
seems a bit strange to have it simply referred to as just "A
commercia
> http://www.kwiksurveys.com/online-survey.php?surveyID=IIMDML_e8265930
Hmm, somewhat hardware biased for my taste. Given that QPC was in
recent years probably the most widely used QL platforms of all, it
seems a bit strange to have it simply referred to as just "A
commercial software emulator".
57 matches
Mail list logo
