Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
-- 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 for the next Quanta mag (too late for this one) to invite members who ain't on this list to complete the survey. I don't think we should worry about this survey closing on 28th February. Dave has indicated there will be more surveys and that he has learnt a lot from this one. We need to co-ordinate the next survey better. Rich has already indicated we can use his customer list to contact people outside this list. The only problem is that we don't repeat the mistake Quanta made when they had their first survey. About 40% of respondents were non-Quanta members, but Quanta made no effort to publish the results to them. (The other mistake Quanta made was not doing anything with the survey. No one on the committee saw this as being important other than John Mason and myself. John gave me a lot of encouragement in my efforts to do something about it.) I am doubtful of the role the magazines can have in a survey because of the lengthy periods between publication. (On another issue, for example, QL Today missed out on news of the QL Forum which came in just as we were about to go to press. Jochen managed to squeeze in just one sentence.) I suspect we will only be able to conduct any survey online, Best Wishes, Geoff ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 Survery If Dave can keep his survey deadline going, I'd be happy to write something for the next Quanta mag (too late for this one) to invite members who ain't on this list to complete the survey. I don't think we should worry about this survey closing on 28th February. Dave has indicated there will be more surveys and that he has learnt a lot from this one. We need to co-ordinate the next survey better. Rich has already indicated we can use his customer list to contact people outside this list. The only problem is that we don't repeat the mistake Quanta made when they had their first survey. About 40% of respondents were non-Quanta members, but Quanta made no effort to publish the results to them. (The other mistake Quanta made was not doing anything with the survey. No one on the committee saw this as being important other than John Mason and myself. John gave me a lot of encouragement in my efforts to do something about it.) I am doubtful of the role the magazines can have in a survey because of the lengthy periods between publication. (On another issue, for example, QL Today missed out on news of the QL Forum which came in just as we were about to go to press. Jochen managed to squeeze in just one sentence.) I suspect we will only be able to conduct any survey online, I knew when I started designing the survey that it would answer *my* questions and be important to me. I thought the answers would be interesting to the community as a whole, but I never expected there to be strong feelings or any controversy. There was a little of that - people on both sides of issues that I didn't even realise were issues ;) I knew when I wrote it that I would do a follow-up survey to dig deeper into the answers I got in some areas, and also to listen to feedback about missed opportunities. I've got a lot of feedback, and in a week, I'll start working with many people to make the next survey far more detailed yet concise. I will create the template for the survey at that point and send it to Quanta and Rich, so the link and survey date range can be set up to coincide with the most people being able to see it. I'll probably create a shortened bit.ly address or similar to make it easier to type from the printed page, and even include a QR code. I think the next survey will be completed by twice as many people so I may repeat a couple of the basic questions for demographic purposes (so I can relate general groups of users from that survey with groups from this survey, eg: by OS and h/w or s/w platform. I just wanted to add that I have been blown away by the detail and honesty of peoples' responses. I expected 25 results, and right now I have 72, which is a meaningful result for me :) Thanks everyone! I am heading to Houston for a few days, and will be back on Saturday or Sunday. I might be a bit quieter on list if it's busy. Have a great weekend, everyone! Dave ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
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 - 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 don't want to pour cold water on what was a commendable initiative, but just a word of caution. Most respondents, perhaps all, are subscribers to this list. We are not typical of the QL Community. This has been Quanta's big mistake. Everyone, committee and members, assumed Quanta was the definitive voice of the UK QL community. Quanta's surveys were (I think) developed by John Southern, husband of Quanta secretary Alison Southern. It might be very interesting indeed to see how results compare and a comparison of the results might help shape future surveys. I tend to agree with Geoff about respondents from this list not being typical of the QL community as a whole - something to think about when designing future surveys. If Dave can keep his survey deadline going, I'd be happy to write something for the next Quanta mag (too late for this one) to invite members who ain't on this list to complete the survey. I did complete the survey myself, I was the one who said he used Launchpad every day! We now know that there are twice as many non-Quanta UK QL-ers than there are Quanta UK QL-ers. Interesting fact, this, and one to be borne in mind when shaping future policies and surveys. Dilwyn Jones ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
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, 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
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
-- 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 this mean please? - strong characters Come, Come! The QL community is full of egoistical, eccentric, idiosyncratic, independently minded, maverick, outre oddballs. Without them it would be dead boring, Best Wishes, Geoff PS What a brilliant program QL Thesaurus is! ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 I've followed this thread... or so I though, but Dave (Plastic) what does this mean please? - strong characters Come, Come! The QL community is full of egoistical, eccentric, idiosyncratic, independently minded, maverick, outre oddballs. Without them it would be dead boring, Best Wishes, Geoff PS What a brilliant program QL Thesaurus is! Which of these do you match (8-)# Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:257/67) +44(1442)-828255 t...@firshman.co.uk http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, Tring, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
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: -- 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 Come, Come! The QL community is full of egoistical, eccentric, idiosyncratic, independently minded, maverick, outre oddballs. Without them it would be dead boring, Best Wishes, Geoff PS What a brilliant program QL Thesaurus is! Which of these do you match (8-)# Tony I knew someone would ask that. One thing I am certainly not is pedantic, but a question should always have a question mark. :-) ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 though, but Dave (Plastic) what does this mean please? - strong characters Come, Come! The QL community is full of egoistical, eccentric, idiosyncratic, independently minded, maverick, outre oddballs. Without them it would be dead boring, Best Wishes, Geoff PS What a brilliant program QL Thesaurus is! Hardly full, but seems to have a useful level; there must be hundreds in the QL community who don't fit any of these criteria. Bryan ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
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 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. Dave ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
-- 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 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 well defined at this point, so we can put some interesting commentary and interpretations in before that time. I don't want to pour cold water on what was a commendable initiative, but just a word of caution. Most respondents, perhaps all, are subscribers to this list. We are not typical of the QL Community. This has been Quanta's big mistake. Everyone, committee and members, assumed Quanta was the definitive voice of the UK QL community. We now know that there are twice as many non-Quanta UK QL-ers than there are Quanta UK QL-ers. All the same I shall look forward to seeing the results, Best Wishes, Geoff ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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! 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 well defined at this point, so we can put some interesting commentary and interpretations in before that time. I don't want to pour cold water on what was a commendable initiative, but just a word of caution. Most respondents, perhaps all, are subscribers to this list. We are not typical of the QL Community. This has been Quanta's big mistake. Everyone, committee and members, assumed Quanta was the definitive voice of the UK QL community. We now know that there are twice as many non-Quanta UK QL-ers than there are Quanta UK QL-ers. All the same I shall look forward to seeing the results, As I discussed with others off-list, yes, I fully acknowledge the limitations of polling a single community. I will just publish the results and invite the list to draw their own conclusions publicly. I think there are some interesting trends that are so strong they would not necessarily be THAT different if polling a different community. So, yes, pinch of salt. Not completely dismissed either. Next time, I will try to co-ordinate with the Quanta magazine so the poll will be open in time for QL users and Quanta members to both access the poll. If Quanta would be interested in that... Next poll will focus on software, OS choices, and emulators. Dave (who can hear the accusations of anti-hardware bias in that poll coming over the horizon now!) ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
On 16/02/2011 17:13, Plastic wrote: On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Geoff Wicksgtwi...@btinternet.comwrote: -- From: 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 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 don't want to pour cold water on what was a commendable initiative, but just a word of caution. Most respondents, perhaps all, are subscribers to this list. We are not typical of the QL Community. This has been Quanta's big mistake. Everyone, committee and members, assumed Quanta was the definitive voice of the UK QL community. We now know that there are twice as many non-Quanta UK QL-ers than there are Quanta UK QL-ers. All the same I shall look forward to seeing the results, As I discussed with others off-list, yes, I fully acknowledge the limitations of polling a single community. I will just publish the results and invite the list to draw their own conclusions publicly. I think there are some interesting trends that are so strong they would not necessarily be THAT different if polling a different community. So, yes, pinch of salt. Not completely dismissed either. Next time, I will try to co-ordinate with the Quanta magazine so the poll will be open in time for QL users and Quanta members to both access the poll. If Quanta would be interested in that... Next poll will focus on software, OS choices, and emulators. Dave (who can hear the accusations of anti-hardware bias in that poll coming over the horizon now!) ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm The other main way of publicising the poll is through my database of QL users and customers. Unfortunately, the timing was poor for this survey, as I had only just sent out a mailshot !! -- Rich Mellor RWAP Services http://www.rwapsoftware.co.uk http://www.rwapservices.co.uk -- Try out our new site: http://sellmyretro.com ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Rich Mellor r...@rwapservices.co.ukwrote: On 16/02/2011 17:13, Plastic wrote: On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Geoff Wicksgtwi...@btinternet.com wrote: -- From: 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 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 don't want to pour cold water on what was a commendable initiative, but just a word of caution. Most respondents, perhaps all, are subscribers to this list. We are not typical of the QL Community. This has been Quanta's big mistake. Everyone, committee and members, assumed Quanta was the definitive voice of the UK QL community. We now know that there are twice as many non-Quanta UK QL-ers than there are Quanta UK QL-ers. All the same I shall look forward to seeing the results, As I discussed with others off-list, yes, I fully acknowledge the limitations of polling a single community. I will just publish the results and invite the list to draw their own conclusions publicly. I think there are some interesting trends that are so strong they would not necessarily be THAT different if polling a different community. So, yes, pinch of salt. Not completely dismissed either. Next time, I will try to co-ordinate with the Quanta magazine so the poll will be open in time for QL users and Quanta members to both access the poll. If Quanta would be interested in that... Next poll will focus on software, OS choices, and emulators. Dave (who can hear the accusations of anti-hardware bias in that poll coming over the horizon now!) ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm The other main way of publicising the poll is through my database of QL users and customers. Unfortunately, the timing was poor for this survey, as I had only just sent out a mailshot !! The poll is open until February 28th. :) Next time, I will co-ordinate with you and Quanta if they so desire, and hopefully we'll get over 100 responses. The next poll, I'll also invite submitted questions. I will ask what is it you're trying to find out and try to structure the questions so they get answers that answer what they want to know - instead of answers to a question that doesn't really provide them the data they need. (I have decided a couple of my current questions are flawed in this way...) Dave ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
On 16/02/2011 17:46, Plastic wrote: On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Rich Mellorr...@rwapservices.co.ukwrote: On 16/02/2011 17:13, Plastic wrote: On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Geoff Wicksgtwi...@btinternet.com wrote: -- From: 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 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 don't want to pour cold water on what was a commendable initiative, but just a word of caution. Most respondents, perhaps all, are subscribers to this list. We are not typical of the QL Community. This has been Quanta's big mistake. Everyone, committee and members, assumed Quanta was the definitive voice of the UK QL community. We now know that there are twice as many non-Quanta UK QL-ers than there are Quanta UK QL-ers. All the same I shall look forward to seeing the results, As I discussed with others off-list, yes, I fully acknowledge the limitations of polling a single community. I will just publish the results and invite the list to draw their own conclusions publicly. I think there are some interesting trends that are so strong they would not necessarily be THAT different if polling a different community. So, yes, pinch of salt. Not completely dismissed either. Next time, I will try to co-ordinate with the Quanta magazine so the poll will be open in time for QL users and Quanta members to both access the poll. If Quanta would be interested in that... Next poll will focus on software, OS choices, and emulators. Dave (who can hear the accusations of anti-hardware bias in that poll coming over the horizon now!) ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm The other main way of publicising the poll is through my database of QL users and customers. Unfortunately, the timing was poor for this survey, as I had only just sent out a mailshot !! The poll is open until February 28th. :) Next time, I will co-ordinate with you and Quanta if they so desire, and hopefully we'll get over 100 responses. The next poll, I'll also invite submitted questions. I will ask what is it you're trying to find out and try to structure the questions so they get answers that answer what they want to know - instead of answers to a question that doesn't really provide them the data they need. (I have decided a couple of my current questions are flawed in this way...) Dave ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm It would probably also be useful to include a printed survey (with responses through normal post) in the Quanta and QL Today magazines. I am willing to co-ordinate the responses for that. -- Rich Mellor RWAP Services http://www.rwapsoftware.co.uk http://www.rwapservices.co.uk -- Try out our new site: http://sellmyretro.com ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 don't know the exact date you know they are going to fall within a set timeframe e.g. the Christmas survey, the Easter survey, the Halloween survey, the guy fawkes survey these are just obvious suggestions but you get the idea and others would know that around such an such dates there will be a survey in whatever form. Lee Tony, funny coincidence but I was also born in the very same room that my mother was staying in also... ¦¦ Sent from my Laptop running XP but emulating the QL using QPC2 ¦¦ ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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. For example if two or three main surveys a year are planned, then even if you don't know the exact date you know they are going to fall within a set timeframe e.g. the Christmas survey, the Easter survey, the Halloween survey, the guy fawkes survey these are just obvious suggestions but you get the idea and others would know that around such an such dates there will be a survey in whatever form. Lee Tony, funny coincidence but I was also born in the very same room that my mother was staying in also... This was the first survey so it has been a learning experience. I forgot the strong characters while I was away for seven years. ;) The next survey will be announced in advance. I will coordinate with Quanta and Rich Mellor's mailing list timing. Dave ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
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? - strong characters John in Wales ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
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, strong personalities. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 ! apparently its not my computer...anymore... Lee ¦¦ Sent from my Laptop running XP but emulating the QL using QPC2 ¦¦ - Original Message - From: Plastic To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 10:04 PM 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, strong personalities. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 playing oh ! apparently its not my computer...anymore... I wasn't specifically referring to you. :) But yeah... Some people are forceful with their convictions... Dave ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
beep beep Lee Privett ¦¦ Sent from my Laptop running XP but emulating the QL using QPC2 ¦¦ - Original Message - From: Timothy Swenson To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com 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, Linux, MacOS, BSD, etc. With an OS like Linux or BSD, I can run them on different CPU's; Intel, MIPS, ARM, Sparc, etc. The QL still harks back to the days when the OS and the hardware were very tied together. I'm a software guy, so me, the platform is the OS. To a hardware person, the platform might be the hardware. In these days of virtualization, it can all get a little confused. I see no purpose for these long arguments, other than to create traffic on the mailing list. Tim Swenson ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
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 faster PC hardware (which you didn't design) and the Windows features (which you didn't write, e.g. TCP/IP) as QPC achievements? If the speed and features were part of your system, written in a QL compatible form, I would sort of agree. But the sorry fact that Freescale (former Motorola) makes no new 68k chips, is really not a QPC achievement. There has been about a decade without new QL hardware, and maybe even you might have noticed that this has not really vitalized the QL. Even your own emulator will finally become pointless if nobody cares about the original(s) anymore. So why not allow a little bias toward QL hardware once in a while? 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... Wouldn't a new and cool device in a QL's microdrive slot be a feature as well? To see and feel something is a feature for me - we humans are not fully virtualized... I can not somehow beam QPC into my QL and match this ;-) Not everyone is biased toward emulating SMSQ/E under Windows - which is what QPC is restricted to. Qemulator(Fast) is very fast emulator as well. Unlike QPC it allows to run a choice of operating systems which is a big feature and major point when it comes to define a platform. Just saying. Live and let live :-) ... and we should welcome *both*. I too (of course) prefer to use *real* hardware. It is good to be able to window another system inside a laptop . well inside an XP emulation inside my macbook (8-)# However I don't get the same feel, like Peter. Of course one could then start a debate about black box vs Aurora and Qn0 (8-)# Live and let *ALL* live. Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:257/67) +44(0)1442-828255 t...@firshman.co.uk http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 are missing especially delete, to which you have to combination press to get the equivalent. But, the QL keys feel nicer to the touch go figure. I am also reminded of If it looks like a sausage, feels like a sausage, tastes and smells like a sausage then... Lee Privett ¦¦ Sent from 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 faster PC hardware (which you didn't design) and the Windows features (which you didn't write, e.g. TCP/IP) as QPC achievements? If the speed and features were part of your system, written in a QL compatible form, I would sort of agree. But the sorry fact that Freescale (former Motorola) makes no new 68k chips, is really not a QPC achievement. There has been about a decade without new QL hardware, and maybe even you might have noticed that this has not really vitalized the QL. Even your own emulator will finally become pointless if nobody cares about the original(s) anymore. So why not allow a little bias toward QL hardware once in a while? 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... Wouldn't a new and cool device in a QL's microdrive slot be a feature as well? To see and feel something is a feature for me - we humans are not fully virtualized... I can not somehow beam QPC into my QL and match this ;-) Not everyone is biased toward emulating SMSQ/E under Windows - which is what QPC is restricted to. Qemulator(Fast) is very fast emulator as well. Unlike QPC it allows to run a choice of operating systems which is a big feature and major point when it comes to define a platform. Just saying. Live and let live :-) ... and we should welcome *both*. I too (of course) prefer to use *real* hardware. It is good to be able to window another system inside a laptop . well inside an XP emulation inside my macbook (8-)# However I don't get the same feel, like Peter. Of course one could then start a debate about black box vs Aurora and Qn0 (8-)# Live and let *ALL* live. Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:257/67) +44(0)1442-828255 t...@firshman.co.uk http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
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 referred to as just A commercial software emulator. Quite right. It is *the* QL software emulator. I couldn't agree more. George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 but not for QPC. QPC does NOT emulate any native hardware (CPU and strange screen layouts not withstanding), it is a QL compatible platform of its own, including specially written OS and all. 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 actually exists. It combines features of several. George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 actually exists. It combines features of several. Not least thanks to you :-) Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 results, which overturn some of *my* preconceptions :) Ideally, it would be good to get the number of people responding up to around 75 or so. Dave ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 monitor I want. Agreed, QL hardware is outdated! Especially better LCD monitor support is long overdue. Hardware for TCP/IP is there though. Even native SMSQ/E support almost was - I was close to add it almost a decade ago, when Wolfgangs license made it impractical for me. (Have it for QDOS Classic, may release with Minerva someday if I've not forgotten too much...) I also agree the speed race is lost for QL hardware. With an open source SMSQ/E license, I still think I'd have risked to launch my 266 MHz V4e back then - I had hardware support to overcome the instruction incompatibility problems. So I might have held the speed advantage for QL hardware for a longer period of time than the Q60. But even with 3 times Q60 speed, the race would be lost today. Besides the material electronics and retro aspects of QL hardware, which are indeed features for me (and probably also for others given the massive response to the QL-SD idea) I like that I can simply switch on my QL hardware, and it is a QL - no boot time for host OS, no updating host, virus scannes, service packs etc. Not that I want to exaggerate this, but such independence features still have some positive aspects now and then. You see the platform from the eyes of a hardware designer, which is fine. I see it from the eyes of a (QL) software developer, Which is also fine :-) Just a pity that your big ones like PS2 printer emulation and TCP/IP are not QL software. I'd have been your customer :-) and in that sense QPC simply is a platform to reckon with. Maybe not quite the point here. You had complained QPC didn't appear like a separate QL hardware platform in Dave's list. I tried to say, if you wanted to fit such a scheme, the minimum common ground with all other mentioned platforms would be a stable and defined interface for a QL OS. I don't criticize QPC therefore in any way. QPC covers the need of other users, that's fine. I just think you could be very relaxed and allow a little bias toward QL hardware once in a while - seldom enough in the history of this mailinglist ;-) All the best Peter ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 of charge, but apart from that many provisions like a centralized source code manager were a good thing (which was incidentally one of the things TT heartily approved of IIRC). Once again, times have changed in any case. I'm willing to support changes to the license to suite you and your development or even putting a completely different license in place. And I'm probably willing to integrate any QDOS software you might release into an official SMSQ/E release. Really, if I can spare the time, I'm willing to help, regardless if it's native hardware or not. Even back then I was asked and agreed to port SMSQ/E to Nasta's new hardware base, which unfortunately never materialized (so much for the fact that I have anything against hardware). But to keep saying I could have released that 10 years ago if the license had turned out differently is not helping anybody. Give it a rest, please. You see the platform from the eyes of a hardware designer, which is fine. I see it from the eyes of a (QL) software developer, Which is also fine :-) Just a pity that your big ones like PS2 printer emulation and TCP/IP are not QL software. I'd have been your customer :-) Okay, but neither was really out of choice. QPCPrint is only that easy and universal to use because it employs the Windows printing system (besides that it's mostly sold to non-QL-users anyway. And there I could sell it for easily double the price, but I wanted to keep it low so QL owners can still afford it). By the way, using a Windows machine as a sort of printer server, native hardware could also benefit from QPCPrint. Certainly not as elegant or desirable as a native solution, but at least a solution at all. A native TCP/IP implementation for QPC would not only be harder to implement, but have a much worse user experience, too (needing special kernel drivers to even be able to send/receive the raw packages, for example). Native hardware would have it actually easier in this case. On all the other improvements I made to SMSQ/E over the years I (along with Wolfgang) usually made sure that all platforms, including Qx0, could profit from them. All the best, Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 late to help me. At this point, returning to SMSQ/E would only add work for me. But you should certainly make it open source for others. Peter ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 numerous time, which is what triggered this response, not just this one mail. But I accept that you don't care anymore, okay. Your insights about licensing come too late to help me. At this point, returning to SMSQ/E would only add work for me. But you should certainly make it open source for others. Then, as I said, simply release the stuff for QDOS and let other's worry about SMSQ/E. That should work fine, too, I guess. Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 are missing especially delete, to which you have to combination press to get the equivalent. But, the QL keys feel nicer to the touch go figure. I am also reminded of If it looks like a sausage, feels like a sausage, tastes and smells like a sausage then... I have got used to getting a QL # by typing the MAC | key, the QL @ by typing the MAC key and so on. Also I can never remember which of my machines allows _ by typing the numeric key -, which I set to save finger stretching. Perhaps I'll remember that in time. It's all a matter of practice. George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 - not that you get me wrong. Then, as I said, simply release the stuff for QDOS and let other's worry about SMSQ/E. That should work fine, too, I guess. As I said, I can not simply release unfinished software I didn't touch for years. Currently I'd have to offer a new release of QDOS Classic which would sort of make me OS maintainer - no thanks. Other QL work has priority now, and only if that can be finished, I might have time to dig native TCP/IP out again - I hope Minerva based then. Peter ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 the viewpoint about what happened - not that you get me wrong. Then, as I said, simply release the stuff for QDOS and let other's worry about SMSQ/E. That should work fine, too, I guess. As I said, I can not simply release unfinished software I didn't touch for years. Currently I'd have to offer a new release of QDOS Classic which would sort of make me OS maintainer - no thanks. Other QL work has priority now, and only if that can be finished, I might have time to dig native TCP/IP out again - I hope Minerva based then. Peter ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm I thought I would just offer my take on this discussion before it gets out of hand. For those relatively new to the QL users list, you may be surprised by some of the comments here, but there is a lot of history about the SMSQ/e license which is a sort of mis-match between a public domain license and a commercial license. No-one wants to go back over that old history, the license was borne out of Tony Tebby's wishes at the time that he released SMSQ/e sources, and several years down the line, his views will no doubt have changed - although this may be too late for people to want to dig up old projects and start on them afresh if the license was changed. As it stands, SMSQ/e has been developed since Tony Tebby released the sources, but development has been slow - to some extent because various people felt that they could not work with the license as it stands, but also because of the lack of developers providing input into the project. Let's move on - we all want to see new projects and more development of the operating system, but basically we need new hardware and drivers to be able to find a reason to develop SMSQ/e (how many QL users would love to run it on their machines, but lack the Gold Card or Super Gold Card which are needed)? The debate over QPC2 and whether it is an emulator or a new QL platform is neither here nor there in my mind. To the end user, it is just a means of being able to accomplish everyday tasks in a familiar QL environment, much the same as Q-emulator, QLAY, QL2K, uQLx, a Q40, Q60 or even a standard QL. 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 need to do!) More importantly is maybe how I look at emulators, QPC2 and hardware choices. I think this may be helpful for other users and maybe the debate. Much of the comment has shown that a lot of people still prefer the original hardware - and so do I for certain tasks. As to whether QPC2 offers the best upgrade, just depends on what you need QDOS / SMSQ/e for For me, if I want to promote the QL and its software to attract a wider audience, then actually q-emulator is the better solution - as it can run more of the older software (especially games) on Windows based PCs, which is what the large majority of people without a QL have access to. However, if I want to test things and be able to access devices directly, then the original QL remains much better than any PC based solution (where, let's face it, the number of ports accessible to software running on the PC is becoming less and less every day). For my business which still uses QL based databases and accounts, software development, and testing things out in different resolutions, colour depths etc, then QPC2 remains a favourite with the speed of the PC, ability to move files to and from the PC easily and to use QPCPrint to print out information as I no longer have a QL compatible printer (don't get me on that subject... I get about 2 phone calls a week from people looking for DOS or QL compatible printers...). Whilst the QL suffers with the ability to connect to modern printers easily, QPC2 and Q-emuLator now suffer from inability to easily read/write disks on a USB disk drive under Windows 7 because it is reliant on the drivers in Windows. The most infuriating bit of this is that if I format a DD disk from within DOS, I can then use the drive successfully from QPC2 or q-emulator - but this takes much longer than firing up the QL to make a couple of disks. The Windows drivers are just not stable enough - if my PC goes to sleep for too long, the USB disk drive, even a USB camera or USB card reader, or USB printer are not recognised / available until maybe 10-15 minutes after I first try to use them! That is why the QL remains useful, but also why an SD card device is so
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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-Emulator) but you have always to deal with a host-OS (and all the needs and problems of this host-OS). I also think (or at least hope) that new real QL-hardware will motivate developers to write programs for it. Speed-wise I am fine with my Q40 (although I really would like to own one of these Q60s;-)) for my QL-needs. and it still boots faster than any Windows-box with QPC or Q-Emulator (Sorry, Marcel, no offense;-)) What I try to say is: Go on with your projects, I really hope that we will see (and will be able to buy) a new QL-system soon!;-) All the best, Anton ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 platforms are fine (I bought also QPCII and Q-Emulator) but you have always to deal with a host-OS (and all the needs and problems of this host-OS). I also think (or at least hope) that new real QL-hardware will motivate developers to write programs for it. Speed-wise I am fine with my Q40 (although I really would like to own one of these Q60s;-)) for my QL-needs. and it still boots faster than any Windows-box with QPC or Q-Emulator (Sorry, Marcel, no offense;-)) What I try to say is: Go on with your projects, I really hope that we will see (and will be able to buy) a new QL-system soon!;-) All the best, Anton Thinking about the simplicity of the QL, I warched a virus check on my laptop. It was checking the registry, and clocked up 1.5 million entries! No wonder it gets the odd one wrong sometimes. Bryan ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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, depending on what I need to do!) Rich, That is actually one of the most interesting questions of all. Not because of the question but because of the answer. It seems there is a little hoarding going on, and most QLers have 3 or more QLs that they don't use (or don't use regularly!) This leads me towards wanting to make a considered and well formed appeal to people to release some of these machines back into the wild. Do you know a teenager who has an interest in old computers? Give them a QL and take them under your wing and show them the fun of the platform. Tell them if they don't fall in love with it, they can return it to you and it's all good. If everyone with an extra QL (beyond the necessary spare, of course) found one person to pass our passion on to, two things would happen: First, there would be HUNDREDS of new QL users, filled with enthusiasm, writing new software and making us feel old. Second, these people would want to buy software, add-ons, and new hardware, or if they're taken in by speed, they'll happily buy QPC2. This is good for everyone, all round. Dave ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 commercial software emulator. Quite right. It is *the* QL software emulator. Cheers...Ralf ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 inclined to emulate their ideal sytdm and we need to know what that is in practice. Hope this clears up why I structured it the way I did. As I said in a previous post, the next survey will be much more focused on who uses the system and how they use them - ANC that survey will obviously appear to have an emulator and software bias. Dave Sent from my Verizon iPhone. On Feb 13, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Marcel Kilgus ql-us...@mail.kilgus.net 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 commercial software emulator. Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 emulation isn't quite there yet thought - still can type perfectly. I wonder what the shipping time is for a membrane from England to Texas - can't wait for it to get here. 26 responses and it's starting to get statistically significant now :) Dave ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 any native hardware (CPU and strange screen layouts not withstanding), it is a QL compatible platform of its own, including specially written OS and all. 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. Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 asking what software people want, you have to first know what hardware people want to run it on. But isn't this my point? QPC *is* a hardware (or rather target) platform in this sense. And there is often a *huge* difference, software wise, if my software has to run on QPC, QL2K, uQLx or QemuLator. Once you're looking at an emulator, any emulator, that part of the question answers itself. No, not really. There are emulators running QDOS and there are emulators running SMSQ/E. And that's only where the differences start. But I don't want to drag this argument out any further, I hope I made my point and that's okay then. There will be some specific questions about QPC in the next survey, but I am confident they won't tell the QPC devs anything new The QPC dev team consists of one person, namely me, just FYI ;-) Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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) and the Windows features (which you didn't write, e.g. TCP/IP) as QPC achievements? If the speed and features were part of your system, written in a QL compatible form, I would sort of agree. But the sorry fact that Freescale (former Motorola) makes no new 68k chips, is really not a QPC achievement. There has been about a decade without new QL hardware, and maybe even you might have noticed that this has not really vitalized the QL. Even your own emulator will finally become pointless if nobody cares about the original(s) anymore. So why not allow a little bias toward QL hardware once in a while? 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... Wouldn't a new and cool device in a QL's microdrive slot be a feature as well? To see and feel something is a feature for me - we humans are not fully virtualized... I can not somehow beam QPC into my QL and match this ;-) Not everyone is biased toward emulating SMSQ/E under Windows - which is what QPC is restricted to. Qemulator(Fast) is very fast emulator as well. Unlike QPC it allows to run a choice of operating systems which is a big feature and major point when it comes to define a platform. Just saying. Live and let live :-) All the best Peter ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 making PCs faster. But it's a simple fact that a current PC can emulate 68k code faster than any native 68k chip on the market. QemuLators experimental JIT core is probably even faster, but we're talking of such huge speeds here that this doesn't even matter anymore! 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. This is purely an assessment of the current situation, one with which you can hardly argue. If there is to be new hardware, great, be my guest! I could even imagine helping a bit on the driver side, if I can find the time. My point was simply that brushing QPC aside as just an emulator is wrong. Not more, not less. I have not and will never argue against native hardware. Wouldn't a new and cool device in a QL's microdrive slot be a feature as well? Actually, that sounds neat, yes. I whish you every luck you can get with your project. Not everyone is biased toward emulating SMSQ/E under Windows - which is what QPC is restricted to. Qemulator(Fast) is very fast emulator as well. Unlike QPC it allows to run a choice of operating systems which is a big feature and major point when it comes to define a platform. Just saying. Live and let live :-) We probably just define platform differently. QemuLator is without a doubt a great product. But it mostly emulates other computers. Be it a standard QL, a Gold Card QL, more recently probably even an Aurora. And when it does that, it's a standard QL, a Gold Card QL... you get my drift. QPC is never any of those. QPC is QPC, and that's that. In your eyes this might be a bad thing, but this is the reason I call it a platform on its own. Cheers, Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 my QL hardware in my hand, tinker with it, extend it. I can run the operating system of my choice and interest on it, change the OS and it still runs, because the interfaces are defined. QPC does not give me those features, so even now, QL hardware clearly wins in terms of features for me. We probably just define platform differently. Certainly :-) QemuLator is without a doubt a great product. But it mostly emulates other computers. Be it a standard QL, a Gold Card QL, more recently probably even an Aurora. And when it does that, it's a standard QL, a Gold Card QL... you get my drift. Which is in my eyes not a weaker, but a stronger feature compared to QPC. Because there is at least _some_ definition which allows to change/write/run an operating system. QPC's definitions are all buried, secret, unfixed and therefore not offering what a system platform has to provide in common sense of computer business. QPC is never any of those. QPC is QPC, and that's that. No dispute here... your baby, you define it :-) In your eyes this might be a bad thing Not at all :-) but this is the reason I call it a platform on its own. I do not think your definition of a system platform would match the one that's commonly used. If you want your own system platform, I'd say define and fix your interfaces! I still can not follow you, but it's okay... All the best Peter ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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? So? Does this change the reality in any way? No. I'm inclined to agree with both of you here. The speed of QPC is not an achievement but it is an accomplishment of the platform - it runs on the fastest hardware available. 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. 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. If there are to be new developments, they NEED to come from native hardware, then be emulated. Emulators introducing new features is a hurdle because it is then harder to implement that in original hardware in a practical and efficient way. My point was simply that brushing QPC aside as just an emulator is wrong. Not more, not less. I have not and will never argue against native hardware. Marcel, it is not my intent to brush QPC aside. In fact, the opposite is true. However, for the purposes of the initial survey, I am simply finding out the proportions of people using paid vs free emulators vs original hardware and replacement hardware. Obviously emulation is far more popular and far more practical, and also obviously, QPC is the premiere emulator - nobody is questioning that or challenging QPC's position. Dave ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 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 monitor I want. QPC does not give me those features, so even now, QL hardware clearly wins in terms of features for me. I grant you the thing about having clear interfaces et al. Could be seen as a feature, but mostly from a developer position really. I was however arguing from a user point of view. Still, I can appreciate your point. QemuLator is without a doubt a great product. But it mostly emulates other computers. Be it a standard QL, a Gold Card QL, more recently probably even an Aurora. And when it does that, it's a standard QL, a Gold Card QL... you get my drift. Which is in my eyes not a weaker, but a stronger feature compared to QPC. I can see why you see it this way, and I beg to differ, but I guess we can simply agree to disagree here ;) but this is the reason I call it a platform on its own. I do not think your definition of a system platform would match the one that's commonly used. If you want your own system platform, I'd say define and fix your interfaces! I still can not follow you, but it's okay... You see the platform from the eyes of a hardware designer, which is fine. I see it from the eyes of a (QL) software developer, and in that sense QPC simply is a platform to reckon with. Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 things actual hardware can do? Emulators had TCP/IP on QDOS for years now. *Of course* this is because it's magnitudes easier to implement when the host OS already provides this functionality, but that's hardly the emulator's fault. Should the emulators have waited for the hardware platforms to first have TCP/IP? Marcel, it is not my intent to brush QPC aside. In fact, the opposite is true. However, for the purposes of the initial survey, I am simply finding out the proportions of people using paid vs free emulators vs original hardware and replacement hardware. Point taken. I still somewhat think simply including the 4 or 5 emulators would already have given you a complete and detailed overview of what people use, without the need for a second survey to drill into the details... in any case, I didn't want this here to be such a huge thing. Sorry. Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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. I think this is a logical fallacy here. Why should an emulator be restricted to the things actual hardware can do? Emulators had TCP/IP on QDOS for years now. *Of course* this is because it's magnitudes easier to implement when the host OS already provides this functionality, but that's hardly the emulator's fault. Should the emulators have waited for the hardware platforms to first have TCP/IP? 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. It's plain reality that emulators were a necessary response to a lack of progress in clock speeds and availability of the M68K architecture. It's true that introducing new features in an emulator does introduce greater hardships for people producing original hardware, as the first good implementation usually becomes the predominant standard. However, that is not the emulator's problem - it's just unfortunate that it is the hardware designer's problem to overcome when an emulator beats him to market and he has a choice of being compatible or 'true to the platform'. That's reality. Marcel, it is not my intent to brush QPC aside. In fact, the opposite is true. However, for the purposes of the initial survey, I am simply finding out the proportions of people using paid vs free emulators vs original hardware and replacement hardware. Point taken. I still somewhat think simply including the 4 or 5 emulators would already have given you a complete and detailed overview of what people use, without the need for a second survey to drill into the details... in any case, I didn't want this here to be such a huge thing. Sorry. I decided not to because it's not that simple. There are emulators that run on only one OS, and emulators that exist in many versions across many OS (like uQLx). All emulators are not equal, but even the same emulator is not equal across version numbers (people sometimes do not upgrade) or operating systems (people sometimes do not upgrade) or hardware specifications (people sometimes do not upgrade, or choose to utilise older hardware) For this reason, I just wanted an indication of how the usage was split across platforms and host OS to give me perspective to write the right questions. The survey is well designed to find out what it is designed to find out - it isn't designed to find out everything - there's plenty of room for that in the Summer, Fall and Winter surveys ;) Let's see what this survey says, and discuss it and see how it informs us about the community and the assorted ecosystems interrelate - remembering always that at the end of the day, all the segments are - equally or unequally - dependent on each other. Think of it as peeking under the skirt instead of ripping all the clothes off ;) The early indications are that there's going to be some interesting surprises, and I have some very good questions forming in my mind already for the next survey. I hope everyone had a great and productive weekend. I did :) Dave ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] The Spring 2011 QL Survery
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 perhaps? :-D (Mostly) kidding... It's true that introducing new features in an emulator does introduce greater hardships for people producing original hardware, as the first good implementation usually becomes the predominant standard. Nah, I beg to differ here, too. A clean API can usually be implemented without much trouble both for native hardware and for emulators. On the contrary, most trouble usually starts when the API is designed to suite one particular hardware implementation, as for example was the case with the SMSQ/E sound system. It was a MAYOR pain to implement for QPC and took ages to get it to work without any clicking and other irritating sounds. I hope everyone had a great and productive weekend. I did :) I made second place in a pool tournament, but I don't know if that counts as productive :-) Cheers, Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
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, Linux, MacOS, BSD, etc. With an OS like Linux or BSD, I can run them on different CPU's; Intel, MIPS, ARM, Sparc, etc. The QL still harks back to the days when the OS and the hardware were very tied together. I'm a software guy, so me, the platform is the OS. To a hardware person, the platform might be the hardware. In these days of virtualization, it can all get a little confused. I see no purpose for these long arguments, other than to create traffic on the mailing list. Tim Swenson ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
