QL upgrade versus Q68

Nagging hardware related question? Post here!
User avatar
QLvsJAGUAR
Gold Card
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:42 am
Location: Lucerne, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: QL upgrade versus Q68

Postby QLvsJAGUAR » Thu Dec 01, 2016 7:31 pm

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.


http://www.sinclairql.net/ - Go and get THE DISTRIBUTION & QL/E!
http://www.youtube.com/QLvsJAGUAR
https://plus.google.com/+QLvsJAGUAR
Sinclair, QL, ATARI, JAGUAR, NUON, APPLE & more
Videos, pictures & information
User avatar
Peter
Gold Card
Posts: 428
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:47 am

Re: QL upgrade versus Q68

Postby Peter » Fri Dec 02, 2016 8:42 am

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
Gold Card
Posts: 459
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 1:16 am
Location: Looking forward to summer in Somerset, UK...

Re: QL upgrade versus Q68

Postby 1024MAK » Sun Dec 04, 2016 5:04 pm

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


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
Chuggy Microdrive
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 5:38 pm
Location: Rome, ITALY
Contact:

Re: QL upgrade versus Q68

Postby genetika » Wed Dec 21, 2016 12:54 pm

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

M.


ergonql
ROM Dongle
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 11:00 am
Contact:

Re: QL upgrade versus Q68

Postby ergonql » Sat Dec 24, 2016 2:52 pm

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
Gold Card
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:40 pm

Re: QL upgrade versus Q68

Postby Cristian » Mon Dec 26, 2016 8:00 pm

I perfectly agree with Davide


FrancoisLanciault
ROM Dongle
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 11:08 pm

Re: QL upgrade versus Q68

Postby FrancoisLanciault » Thu Dec 29, 2016 5:06 pm

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
Gold Card
Posts: 428
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:47 am

Re: QL upgrade versus Q68

Postby Peter » Fri Jan 06, 2017 1:46 pm

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
Trump Card
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 8:44 am
Location: Norway

Re: QL upgrade versus Q68

Postby pjw » Fri Jan 06, 2017 2:42 pm

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
Assumptions should only be a first resort when the cost of being wrong is less than the trouble of finding out the facts! - pjw, 2016
Nasta
Trump Card
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:02 am
Location: Zapresic, Croatia

Re: QL upgrade versus Q68

Postby Nasta » Mon Mar 13, 2017 4:34 pm

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.



Return to “Hardware”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexa [Bot] and 3 guests