Re: [ql-users] QXL: SMSQ

2004-09-25 Thread John Sadler
Yes but none of the emulate the higher instructions!! - Original Message - From: Malcolm Cadman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 6:42 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] QXL: SMSQ In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Roy wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes In

[ql-users] Procedures (unknown)

2004-09-25 Thread Franois Van Emelen
Hi all, Could someone help me with the following procedures? CURSPRON CURSPROFF CURSPRLOAD SYSSPRLOAD What do these stand for? What do they do? What about the syntax? Many thanks, François Van Emelen ___ QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [ql-users] QXL: SMSQ

2004-09-25 Thread P Witte
David Tubbs writes: As a matter of interest I think the economical and time-saving approach is to let QXL format a file create a dummy file of sufficient length. In PC mode use a hex editor to overwrite with required data ! qxltool does pretty much just that - saving you the trouble of

Re: [ql-users] QXL: SMSQ

2004-09-25 Thread Phoebus R. Dokos
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 16:19:26 +0100, P Witte [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Tubbs writes: As a matter of interest I think the economical and time-saving approach is to let QXL format a file create a dummy file of sufficient length. In PC mode use a hex editor to overwrite with required data !

Re: [ql-users] QXL: SMSQ

2004-09-25 Thread David Tubbs
At 16:19 25/09/2004 +0100, you wrote: David Tubbs writes: As a matter of interest I think the economical and time-saving approach is to let QXL format a file create a dummy file of sufficient length. In PC mode use a hex editor to overwrite with required data ! qxltool does pretty much just

Re: [ql-users] QXL: SMSQ

2004-09-25 Thread Roy wood
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Sadler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Yes but none of the emulate the higher instructions!! And you need these for ? -- Roy Wood Q Branch. 20 Locks Hill, Portslade, Sussex.BN41 2LB Tel: +44 (0) 1273 386030fax: +44 (0) 1273 430501 web :

Re: [ql-users] QXL: SMSQ

2004-09-25 Thread Phoebus R. Dokos
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 00:36:08 +0100, Roy wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Sadler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Yes but none of the emulate the higher instructions!! And you need these for ? Many, many, many, many things :-) SMSQ/e for example could be 20-30%

Re: [ql-users] QXL: SMSQ

2004-09-25 Thread Marcel Kilgus
Phoebus R. Dokos wrote: SMSQ/e for example could be 20-30% faster by using 68020+ instructions on the SGC/Qx0/QXL machines :-) This assumption is based on what exactly? Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.quanta.org.uk/mailing.htm

Re: [ql-users] QXL: SMSQ

2004-09-25 Thread Phoebus R. Dokos
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 02:33:33 +0200, Marcel Kilgus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Phoebus R. Dokos wrote: SMSQ/e for example could be 20-30% faster by using 68020+ instructions on the SGC/Qx0/QXL machines :-) This assumption is based on what exactly? On how much faster 68020+ instructions work

Re: [ql-users] QXL: SMSQ

2004-09-25 Thread Phoebus R. Dokos
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 04:22:05 +0200, Marcel Kilgus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Phoebus R. Dokos wrote: This assumption is based on what exactly? On how much faster 68020+ instructions work performing tasks that need a series of 68000 instructions to normally perform. So this assumes that all or