Duncan Neithercut wrote:
My advice is to get both but as a human you might not notice major
differences in performance between your two systems. The benchmarks
also show that for running QDOS/SMSQ/E the Q60 is up there head to
head with state of the art PC hardware. The question is how can
- Original Message -
From: Derek Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 10:36 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] One box or two
Hi Bill,
Why not have both boxes ??
I have both a Q60 and QPC2 v3 (recently updated at the London Show),
which just
URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com
-
-Original Message-
From: Tony Firshman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 2:15 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: sH and PS/2 (was: [ql-users] One box or two)
I wonder how it is done on a high
To use ProWess, you need speed .
Yes but not that much. It ran fine on my Q40 (when the writeback cache
was turned off that is) . On my laptop (800MHz celeron), BlaqBox (667MHz
Via) and main PC (1.6GHz P4) it is a bit faster but I could use it OK on
the Q 40. Most of the speed loss is in
??? 22/11/2002 7:31:14 ??, ?/? Joachim Van der Auwera [EMAIL PROTECTED]
??:
To use ProWess, you need speed .
Yes but not that much. It ran fine on my Q40 (when the writeback cache
was turned off that is) . On my laptop (800MHz celeron), BlaqBox (667MHz
Via) and main PC (1.6GHz P4) it
I haven't (yet) installed ProWesS on the Q40 (So many things, so little
time...) but I was
wondering if it uses any FPU code... ie will the FPU on the Q40 do
anything to it? (Or will
it need a recompile maybe?)
ProWesS uses integer (fixpoint) arithmetic only. At that time, floating
point was
Hi Bill,
Why not have both boxes ??
I have both a Q60 and QPC2 v3 (recently updated at the London Show), which just does
to show you can have both systems running.
OK, I am part of the firm making the Q60, but I do not see why, I can not support all
the software writers and other hardware
??? 21/11/2002 8:36:59 ??, ?/? Tony Firshman [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 at 21:15:12, Phoebus Dokos wrote:
(ref: 05TO1TN2164XRWUFD65OM1ZZX07DZX.3ddc41b0@quantumcentral)
??? 20/11/2002 7:15:52 ??, ?/? Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??:
The mouse is a different kettle of
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 at 09:42:09, Phoebus Dokos wrote:
(ref: LKYTVUNMKI963X1Z96FBPLTNTQCBPLD0.3ddcf0c1@quantumcentral)
Mitchel can make a PS/2 mouse work with a superHermes Lite but that is a
direct wiring. Most converters just do not work.
I am not sure what you meant exactly by that... If
??? 21/11/2002 11:52:37 ??, ?/? Tony Firshman [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??:
It should be - but it would be easy to fit an external oscillator as
there is a spare line. I must look up the specs.
Mind you the I/O line is TTL so surely that is OK if the clock can be
software derived. Can it work
In message 76D9F06BB0F9D411B65500B0D079D90A15F3C7@NTSRV01, Claude
Mourier 00 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
To use ProWess, you need speed .
Yes but not that much. It ran fine on my Q40 (when the writeback cache
was turned off that is) . On my laptop (800MHz celeron), BlaqBox (667MHz
Via) and main
Now... take a look at:
http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,1895_1555_23,00.html
To see what V5 currently supports (First devices available in early 2003)
Phoebus
From this it is very difficult to understand if it would be capable
to run existing 68000 code without
??? 20/11/2002 3:28:44 ??, ?/? Arnould Nazarian [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??:
Now... take a look at:
http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,1895_1555_23,00.html
To see what V5 currently supports (First devices available in early 2003)
Phoebus
From this it is very
??? 20/11/2002 7:15:52 ??, ?/? Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??:
The keyboard is fairly easy in that regard because all converters work
in the same way.
Exactly PS/2 keyboards don't need a signal converter... just a different connector.
The mouse is a different kettle of herring. Keith
down
cheers
Colin
- Original Message -
From: Phoebus Dokos [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two
??? 18/11/2002 9:27:41 ??, ?/? Colin Parsons
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
??:
What about a 3.1 Ghz PC
If we're aiming that high, do we have Java RT (or better) on the wishlist? Might as
well put X on there too...
Steve Oliver
From: Phoebus Dokos [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2002/11/19 Tue AM 12:57:05 EST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two
??? 18/11/2002 6
that AFTER I finish installation of Q40 Linux :-) As for X... already running
on QL
style hardware :-)
Phoebus
Steve Oliver
From: Phoebus Dokos [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2002/11/19 Tue AM 12:57:05 EST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RE: [ql-users] One box or two
??? 18/11/2002 6:33:43
-users] One box or two
??? 19/11/2002 10:35:14 ??, ?/? Steve Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??:
If we're aiming that high, do we have Java RT (or better) on the wishlist? Might as
well
put X on there too...
Java isn't that unreasonable... I believe it already runs on Q60 (under Linux
??? 19/11/2002 6:22:56 ??, ?/? Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??:
In message KJ1XQPLGSRHDD0IG1XPO1XRPGCZ1XZU.3dd98f57@michelle, Phoebus
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Hi Roy,
You misunderstood Dave, he talked about AN ACTUAL Serial to PS/2
converter not a device dependent one... The one he
Conclusion : it's sad Motorola never released fasters 68k processors.
80Mhz is 1/20 compared with 1,6Ghz.
Claude
-Message d'origine-
De : Duncan Neithercut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Envoyé : dimanche 17 novembre 2002 20:57
À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : RE: [ql-users] One box or two
Hi,
I think that the average user is not too worried about the fact that one
system may be a bit faster than the other one on number crunching or
Benchmarks. The daily work is not benchmark, it is usually a lot of
everything, including I/O (I think that's what Roy said some time ago).
Printing
On 18/11/02 at 14:27 Colin Parsons wrote:
What about a 3.1 Ghz PC
Considering that it would still just barely beat the Q60 I think you would
be better off with a Q60 since the whole thing costs less than the 3.1GHz
CPU alone - assuming you find one that will actually run at that speed.
Nasta
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tony Firshman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
I/O is the key in many other aspects. Have you ever tried an optical
mouse? If so, would ever want to go back to a ball mouse? I don't
think so. Without a PS/2 connector or USB on the Qx0's it will
be hard to find a mouse for
18/11/2002 6:49:29 ìì, Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tony Firshman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
I/O is the key in many other aspects. Have you ever tried an optical
mouse? If so, would ever want to go back to a ball mouse? I don't
think so. Without a PS/2
??? 18/11/2002 6:33:43 ??, ?/? Dave P [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??:
What makes the QL not relevant is that people are WILLIGN to pay an arm
and a leg to get something that will use up the resources of a 3GHz
machine. Scary!
Yep and they end up losing the other two as well when they repeatedly
??? 17/11/2002 1:24:05 ??, ?/? Marcel Kilgus [EMAIL PROTECTED] ??:
Bill Waugh wrote:
1. speed of Q60/60 in bogomips
2. speed of QPC2 v3 on a 1.8 gh celeron based PC in bogomips
I probably would have stayed quiet on the subject (because of the
famous wars), but as you asked for BogoMIPS
Hi all
I would appreciate some help ( with out starting a QPC/Qxx discuss )
Having sold my Q40 to help fund a Q60 I now have thoughts about QPC.
I know the arguments for and against both and I have QPC2 v3 demo.
The unknown ( to me ) factor is speed, sure the Q60/80 is advertised as
160 bogomips
27 matches
Mail list logo
