QL CP/M

[tofro]

My opinion:

Putting manpower and time (which is scarce in the QL wold, anyways) into soft- and hardware that makes the QL "not a QL" is quite a futile exercise. While computers that could do CP/M 68k (or 2.2/3.0, for that matter) were pretty scarce and hard to come by in 1984, it's easy to get to a machine that can do that today (like an MBC/MBC68k), and is even specifically built to do that. I used to have one, and it was really disappointing what incredible small amount of usable software really is available for that OS. Compared to CP/M 68k, QDOS really can be considered a "mainstream operating system" (and, technically much more advanced).

[Derek_Stewart]

Hi,

I totally agree with these points, I stopped using CP/M when the CP/M Users group stopped.

Moving to the QL was alot better in 1984, but not good, but replacing the Microdrives with Disk Drives and a Trump Card, transformed the QL from a not bad computer to a excellent machine with builtin features like Networking only available on high end machine costing hundreds of pounds.

I would also say, QDOS is OK, Minerva is better, SMSQ/E is the only worth wil#e operating system to use, SBASIC, in my opinion, is a vwery structured language and not really a BASIC implementation.

Maybe more new software should be written rather than dwelling on the bad programming of the past.

[RWAP]

Hi Rich,

Yes I have made backup copies of the 5.25" and microdrive cartridge.

I will consider submitting the disk images to the QL Hompage, but I do not see what good it will do, as the hardware is not available and CP/M software is very out of date and very crude by todays standard.

It is just that the software will be preserved - someone may someday come across the hardware without any software and want to run it!