Re: Faster/wider CPU...
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:21 pm
I would not want to put a downer on what has been a lively discussion (even though most of it has been beyond me).
Please correct me if I am wrong.
I guess the issue boils down to Dave wanting to get the maximum out of the existing QL hardware and software - it has to be remembered that a lot of QL users have invested a lot of time and money into their QLs, learning the intricacies of the operating system and its software/hardware and there remains a fondness for the original machines.
On the other hand, Brane appears to want to keep the spirit of the QL, but design a single chip computer to replace much of the hardware. His comments may sometimes be seen as off-hand and curt, but to some extent that probably reflects 'lost in translation' and his nature, without him meaning any harm. Re-designing the QL from scratch could well be a good thing, but if we take out the QL software and operating system, we then have a new computer entirely and QL users would be left with a machine that is largely incompatible with their existing hardware and software.
Personally, I would prefer Dave's solution as an upgrade path for existing QLs.
That said, I would also support a new QL replacement which could be based on entirely new hardware, provided that a QDOS or SMSQ/e operating system were available - I continue to like the simplicity of programming in SuperBASIC, coupled with the ability to program easily in machine code (to get the maximum speed and flexibility) and the half-way house of them compiling the finished program.
That is certainly what I used to bring QWord to the market.
Yes, QWord could have been written in Visual BASIC to run on PCs without needing machine code, but then where is the challenge in that and how does that further my knowledge of the QL and SMSQ/e.
So, yes, I would like to support both Brane and Dave in what they can do and achieve - as new hardware and different approaches are needed to help keep the QL scene alive and remain attractive to a whole range of users
Please correct me if I am wrong.
I guess the issue boils down to Dave wanting to get the maximum out of the existing QL hardware and software - it has to be remembered that a lot of QL users have invested a lot of time and money into their QLs, learning the intricacies of the operating system and its software/hardware and there remains a fondness for the original machines.
On the other hand, Brane appears to want to keep the spirit of the QL, but design a single chip computer to replace much of the hardware. His comments may sometimes be seen as off-hand and curt, but to some extent that probably reflects 'lost in translation' and his nature, without him meaning any harm. Re-designing the QL from scratch could well be a good thing, but if we take out the QL software and operating system, we then have a new computer entirely and QL users would be left with a machine that is largely incompatible with their existing hardware and software.
Personally, I would prefer Dave's solution as an upgrade path for existing QLs.
That said, I would also support a new QL replacement which could be based on entirely new hardware, provided that a QDOS or SMSQ/e operating system were available - I continue to like the simplicity of programming in SuperBASIC, coupled with the ability to program easily in machine code (to get the maximum speed and flexibility) and the half-way house of them compiling the finished program.
That is certainly what I used to bring QWord to the market.
Yes, QWord could have been written in Visual BASIC to run on PCs without needing machine code, but then where is the challenge in that and how does that further my knowledge of the QL and SMSQ/e.
So, yes, I would like to support both Brane and Dave in what they can do and achieve - as new hardware and different approaches are needed to help keep the QL scene alive and remain attractive to a whole range of users