--
From: Dilwyn Jones dil...@evans1511.fsnet.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 8:16 PM
To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
If Dave can keep his survey deadline going, I'd be happy to write
something
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Geoff Wicks gtwi...@btinternet.com wrote:
--
From: Dilwyn Jones dil...@evans1511.fsnet.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 8:16 PM
To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL
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
- Original Message -
From: Lee Privett lee.priv...@gmail.com
To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com
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
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
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
___
--
From: QL-MyLink (f/fh) q...@mylink.adsl24.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 9:58 PM
To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
I've followed this thread... or so I though, but Dave (Plastic)
what does
On 17 Feb 2011, at 12:49, Geoff Wicks gtwi...@btinternet.com wrote:
--
From: QL-MyLink (f/fh) q...@mylink.adsl24.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 9:58 PM
To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
--
From: Tony Firshman t...@firshman.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 12:53 PM
To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
On 17 Feb 2011, at 12:49, Geoff Wicks gtwi...@btinternet.com wrote
On 17/02/2011 12:49, Geoff Wicks wrote:
--
From: QL-MyLink (f/fh) q...@mylink.adsl24.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 9:58 PM
To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
I've followed this thread... or so I
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
--
From: Plastic plasticu...@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 10:08 AM
To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com
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
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Geoff Wicks gtwi...@btinternet.comwrote:
--
From: Plastic plasticu...@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 10:08 AM
To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
Hi all
] 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 sharing preliminary results with a few people before
, February 16, 2011 10:08 AM
To:ql-us...@q-v-d.com
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
: Plasticplasticu...@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 10:08 AM
To:ql-us...@q-v-d.com
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
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
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Lee Privett lee.priv...@gmail.com 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.
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 3:58 PM, QL-MyLink (f/fh)
q...@mylink.adsl24.co.ukwrote:
I've followed this thread... or so I though, but Dave (Plastic)
what does this mean please? -
strong characters
Forceful characters, strong personalities.
Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 3:58 PM, QL-MyLink (f/fh)
q...@mylink.adsl24.co.ukwrote:
I've followed this thread... or so I though, but Dave (Plastic)
what does this mean please? -
strong characters
Forceful characters
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Lee Privett lee.priv...@gmail.com 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
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; Windows
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
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
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 simply
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 emulators
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 than
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
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 damn LCD
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
free
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
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
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 keys
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 happened
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
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
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
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Rich Mellor r...@rwapservices.co.ukwrote:
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,
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.
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
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
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
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 2:26 PM, QL-MyLink (f/fh)
q...@mylink.adsl24.co.ukwrote:
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
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
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
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)
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
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 :-) I can hold
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Marcel Kilgus ql-us...@mail.kilgus.netwrote:
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?
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 definition again :-) 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 the
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Marcel Kilgus ql-us...@mail.kilgus.netwrote:
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.
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 platform
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,
55 matches
Mail list logo
