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
who is
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, the
P Witte wrote:
Help! I just discovered I cant print from QPC2v2!
Please wait for QPCv2.02.
Marcel
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
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
130,544Mb
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
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 same case for a Q60.
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 will
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, but I
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
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 use
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'ing now more than I
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 of 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 has not yet
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 :-(
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
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
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
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Marcel Kilgus
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote:
colorparam0100,0100,0100/param
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
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
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, and
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
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
predict when
At 03:50 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 applications.
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 a
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
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 think it
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
At 10:11 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
Presently I
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 related
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 have
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
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
QPC
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 when
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 of my money
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 SMSQ
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
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.
only one
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 missing from
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 is a
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 USB from
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 completely
-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 been a con
-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 !!!
Norman
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 people
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 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
-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 ventured near it. More
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
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 some
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
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
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
out !
Try this
- 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
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
Of
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 other
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 my
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, I
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
At 03:13 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 to
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 produce
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 point
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
- 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 come in
my mind
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
At 04:52 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
Per,
I've had QPC2v2 for a few days now and I am not having problems when I do a
JMON 0 as you are.
My version is 2.0.0.0 (right click the exe and select properties, then the
version tab.)
The version of SMSQ that came with it is 2.98.
I haven't played around much with the colour drivers yet,
P Witte wrote:
Ive had QPC2v2 a couple of weeks now. Considering the major changes both to
the emulator and to the OS, its amazing that it all still works ;)
Just too true ;-)
On the emulator side, the DOS device is a blessing, though it shows
up our own file system's much-lamented
At 05:09 29/1/2001, you wrote:
I
All in all, QPC2v2 + SMSQ/E really rock! (Might be worth buying a PC just to
run a copy ;)
They do work rather nice I have to admit. Buy a PC for it? I don't think
so. In order to ever remotely catch up the speed of a Q40 (not to mention
Q60). PCs must run at
At 01:47 31/1/2001, But anyway, I am NOT suggesting that buying a PC
just for QPC is a
better solution than buying a Q40 or anything (or did I write that
anywhere? I don't think so). At
No you didn't but others did ;-)
least not if you don't use the other
features a PC can which a Q40
Ive had QPC2v2 a couple of weeks now. Considering the major changes both to
the emulator and to the OS, its amazing that it all still works ;) On the
emulator side, the DOS device is a blessing, though it shows up our own file
system's much-lamented inadequacy. The windowing facility is not one
74 matches
Mail list logo
