QL upgrade versus Q68

Nagging hardware related question? Post here!
User avatar
QLvsJAGUAR
Gold Card
Posts: 455
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:42 am
Location: Lucerne, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: QL upgrade versus Q68

Post by QLvsJAGUAR »

Glad to see that there’s still a chance for the Q68 to become available. Keep on going Peter.

I prefer the standalone edition, not the QL expansion.

A nice option would if the board could also be used as a kind of swap-kit (remove the QL’s pcb and insert the Q68 into the QL case, connect it to the QL keyboard, use the then empty MDV slots as SD slots similar to QL-SD). There are empty QL cases on ebay every now and then.


QL forever!
https://www.sinclairql.net/ - Go and get THE DISTRIBUTION & QL/E!
https://www.youtube.com/QLvsJAGUAR/community - Blog
https://www.youtube.com/QLvsJAGUAR - Dedicated QL videos
Sinclair, QL, ATARI, JAGUAR, NUON, APPLE, NeXT, MiST & much more...
Videos, pictures & information
User avatar
Peter
QL Wafer Drive
Posts: 1953
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:47 am

Re: QL upgrade versus Q68

Post by Peter »

QLvsJAGUAR wrote:A nice option would if the board could also be used as a kind of swap-kit (remove the QL’s pcb and insert the Q68 into the QL case, connect it to the QL keyboard, use the then empty MDV slots as SD slots similar to QL-SD). There are empty QL cases on ebay every now and then.
Sounds like a good idea, and my hope would be that I do not have to design the swap kit myself.

A real dream would be a kit that somehow also makes use of the other holes in the QL case, power conncetor, reset button etc. But that would require a realtively large PCB, and the differences between British and German case calling for two different variants :(


User avatar
1024MAK
Super Gold Card
Posts: 592
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 1:16 am
Location: Looking forward to summer in Somerset, UK...

Re: QL upgrade versus Q68

Post by 1024MAK »

My preference is for a stand alone system. I'm happy with PS/2 ports and VGA video.
Yes to a I²C bus. Then a QL keyboard and LED adapter can be made. Indeed, the designer of the Tynemouth Software keyboard interface would probably be happy to adapt his design if asked.

Mark


:!: Standby alert :!:
“There are four lights!”
Step up to red alert. Sir, are you absolutely sure? It does mean changing the bulb :!:
Looking forward to summer in Somerset later in the year :)

QL, Falcon, Atari 520STFM, Atari 1040STE, more PC's than I care to count and an assortment of 8 bit micros (Sinclair and Acorn)(nearly forgot the Psion's)
User avatar
genetika
Over Heated PSU
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 5:38 pm
Location: Rome, ITALY
Contact:

Re: QL upgrade versus Q68

Post by genetika »

EXPANSION SYSTEM !
In order to use the original QL Case ... :-)

M.


ergonql
ROM Dongle
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 11:00 am
Contact:

Re: QL upgrade versus Q68

Post by ergonql »

Hi Peter,

The original QL case is still a very nice box which I think would deserve to be kept somehow. I.e. I would vote for a standalone board which would fit in the QL case with SD card instead of one of the MDV for instance. But I also would not completely disregard the idea of a SGC-like approach as long as the board would completely fit inside the original QL case.

regards

Davide


User avatar
Cristian
Aurora
Posts: 960
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:40 pm
Location: Veneto

Re: QL upgrade versus Q68

Post by Cristian »

I perfectly agree with Davide


FrancoisLanciault
Trump Card
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 11:08 pm

Re: QL upgrade versus Q68

Post by FrancoisLanciault »

I would buy either model but I prefer the QL expansion version for simplicity.

An idea: why don't you create just one model that can plug into the QL for keyboard access or can be plugged into a small and simple daughter board that take care of the keyboard interface for those who wants an all in one solution ? The daughter board would have the same edge connector as the QL.

François


User avatar
Peter
QL Wafer Drive
Posts: 1953
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:47 am

Re: QL upgrade versus Q68

Post by Peter »

FrancoisLanciault wrote:An idea: why don't you create just one model that can plug into the QL for keyboard access or can be plugged into a small and simple daughter board that take care of the keyboard interface for those who wants an all in one solution ? The daughter board would have the same edge connector as the QL.
Yes this is a solution I would also like. The daughter board could be designed by someone else, so it does not depend on my spare time.

At the moment, the efforts to make the Q68 publicly available are "on hold" again, but I'm not giving up. For myself, Q68 is already a really nice machine.

Slightly off topic: For the Q68 I'd like a graphical tool, which allows filetransfer to/from QXL.WIN containers under Windows or Linux.

There is wxqt2, but reliable operation seems limited to a container size of 8 MB or so. Is there any other solution?

What is the maximum size of QXL.WIN containers?


User avatar
pjw
QL Wafer Drive
Posts: 1286
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 8:44 am
Location: Norway
Contact:

Re: QL upgrade versus Q68

Post by pjw »

Peter wrote:What is the maximum size of QXL.WIN containers?
Thats a good question. SMSQ/E on QPC2 allows max 2048 Mb with a 33Kb Allocation block size. Format fails if you try anything larger. But information elsewhere suggests 4096 Mb. Id love to know the answer..


Per
dont be happy. worry
- ?
Nasta
Gold Card
Posts: 443
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:02 am
Location: Zapresic, Croatia

Re: QL upgrade versus Q68

Post by Nasta »

I would definitely vote for a stand-alone version. Also, regarding HDMI, there are still HDMI transmitter chips available that do not require royalty for the data encription/protection, IIRC Ti makes them.
I have had a look at the board and something like an unpopulated set of pads for a header direct from the digital video pins on the FPGA would enable the addition of a HDMI port. OF course, along with the digital RGB bits, a dot clock, display active signal and horizontal and vertical synch signals are needed along with a power supply, all of this is present nearby.
HDMI has one big advantage, and this is absence of odd timing issues and incompatibility with some display modes. This is because the timing is explicit in the signals, whereas for VGA the dot clock has to be regenerated from the RGB outputs, with a lot of assumptions made which usually end up screwing things up like picture position and size not being right etc.


Post Reply