23 Mar
2002
23 Mar
'02
3:34 p.m.
From: John Chris Wren <jcwren(a)jcwren.com>
Assuming I wanted to get a ZX-81, what would I want?
Take a stable ZX81 or TS1000 and pull off the composite video to feed a
monitor. Add a decent keyboard and bump the RAM to 64KB. You'll want a
printer and a good cassette recorder, too.
If you don't plan to add any hardware which requires a ROM, then you might
want to add NVRAM to the unoccupied 8-16K address space. A Hunter board is
perfect for this, if you can find one.
If you require hardware which could benefit from having code in ROM, then
the 8-16K space can be used by an add-on ROM.
And are there any
really good 'net resources for the ZX-81?
Yes! The ZX-TEAM home page is a good place to start:
http://home.t-online.de/home/p.liebert/zx-team.htm
Kai Fischer's ZX96 page shows an example of how far you can take this
machine:
http://home.freiepresse.de/befis/zx96_e.htm
Zebra Systems in NYC still sells unbuilt kits, but they are expensive:
http://www.zebrasystems.com/zebrasystems/zx81/index.html
For software, visit the University of Trondheim archive:
ftp://ftp.nvg.unit.no/pub/sinclair/zx81/
You can download the software and transfer it from a DOS-based PC to the
ZX81 using ZXTAPE and a modified PC-type parallel printer cable.
One program which is indispensable if FASTLOAD, which allows 4800 baud
cassette I/O, as opposed to the native 300 baud. This means you can LOAD a
16 KB program from cassette in < 40 seconds instead of 5 minutes.
The possibilities really are endless. My main ZX81 has an 80 MB hard drive
hung off it, which I will never come close to outgrowing. Let me know if
you have more questions . . .
Glen
0/0
25 Mar
25 Mar
12:55 a.m.
> Assuming I wanted to get a ZX-81, what would I
want?
Take a stable ZX81 or TS1000 and pull off the
composite video to feed a
monitor. Add a decent keyboard and bump the RAM to 64KB. You'll want a
printer and a good cassette recorder, too.
If you don't plan to add any hardware which
requires a ROM, then you might
want to add NVRAM to the unoccupied 8-16K address space. A Hunter board is
perfect for this, if you can find one.
If you require hardware which could benefit from
having code in ROM, then
the 8-16K space can be used by an add-on ROM.
Well, this would be a neat professional ZX81 setup - just you miss the
whole fun of getting the real minimalistic ZX81. One _can_ do usefull
stuff with just one or two KBytes of RAM. one has a real lot of fun
by just playing around with this little plasic box in front of an old
TV set.
I'd suggest an out of the box ZX81 (or Timex 1000) to start with, and
realy trying to play with only one K ... next step could be the internal
expansion to whooping TWO K - and oh boy, programmers dreams will come
thru. A 16K expansion is already semiprofessional (and needed if you
want to run most of the software (still, there are a lot of amazing
programms for just one K - inclunding books with several such programms.
I still think tha'ts the most fun, haggling with tight resources).
Eventualy over time a PIO/Joystick Interface is also a nice add on.
If you'd like to have a little more luxury, a TS1500 is your choice.
A 'real' keyboard (rubber keys) and 16 K (?) of memory !
A professional system, like Glen tells is quite nice, but you need
also some more knowledge about the pitfalls of a ZX. Start of with
the fun of a simple system, and if you're a late victim of the ZX
infection, then you'll soon expand into the ZX96 dimension.
Gruss
H.
(Not a ZX fan, but I realy like to dig out a ZX80 or 81 from time to
time just to play around with the most minimalistic _full_ system ever)
--
VCF Europa 3.0 am 27./28. April 2002 in Muenchen
http://www.vcfe.org/
3:31 a.m.
Hans Franke wrote:
A professional system, like Glen tells is quite nice,
but you need
also some more knowledge about the pitfalls of a ZX. Start of with
the fun of a simple system, and if you're a late victim of the ZX
infection, then you'll soon expand into the ZX96 dimension.
Back then I was
kind of waiting for a better low cost machine than a
ZX-80
when mine died ie: Real keyboard, real memory , floppy disk even .
I was hoping for 68000 something but it never happened.
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
3:59 a.m.
A professional
system, like Glen tells is quite nice, but you need
also some more knowledge about the pitfalls of a ZX. Start of with
the fun of a simple system, and if you're a late victim of the ZX
infection, then you'll soon expand into the ZX96 dimension.
Back then I was
kind of waiting for a better low cost machine than a
ZX-80 when mine died ie: Real keyboard, real memory , floppy disk even .
I was hoping for 68000 something but it never happened.
4:39 a.m.
Hans Franke wrote:
Well, Sinclair sold it and called it QL.
A 68008, running at 8 (?) MHz, (almost) Real Keyboard (at least as
good as most PC keyboards in the $10 range), Reak Memory (128K, as
much as the first Mac, but expandable to 640 or 900) and two tape
drives with ~100K each.
Furthermore: Serial Interface, Joystick Ports and a full figured
Network. As cream ontop of the cake a complete application suite
with Word Processing, Spreadsheet, Database and Business Graphics.
And all together at about 900 Mark (back than ~250 GBP). Lower
than all other comparable systems (in fact even lower than the
C64 in some shops)
First I live in CANADA so we get more US stuff than from the UK in
computers.This and that is still was a BASIC machine with no real disks.
I found out that it cost APPLE $100 ??? to make the $500 ??? floppy
system for their computer reading the history of the apple from a web
site.
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
5:08 a.m.
New subject: QL (was: ZX-81 Question)
> Well, Sinclair sold it and called it QL.
> A 68008, running at 8 (?) MHz, (almost) Real
Keyboard (at least as
> good as most PC keyboards in the $10 range), Reak Memory (128K, as
> much as the first Mac, but expandable to 640 or 900) and two tape
> drives with ~100K each.
> Furthermore: Serial Interface, Joystick Ports and
a full figured
> Network. As cream ontop of the cake a complete application suite
> with Word Processing, Spreadsheet, Database and Business Graphics.
> And all together at about 900 Mark (back than
~250 GBP). Lower
> than all other comparable systems (in fact even lower than the
> C64 in some shops)
First I live in CANADA so we get more US stuff than
from the UK in
computers.
AFAIK there are still copyright issues for the ROMs in the US and CA.
While Amstrad allows the distribution of ROM images for emulators/new
machines, it is restricted to Europe, since there are still valid deals
with some US companies holding the QL rights in North america.
This and that is still was a BASIC machine with no
real disks.
Come on, first of all, a basic like the QL Super Sasic is quite
different from everything else you know ... QDOS is a multitasking
OS, and the Basic incooperates all features to use the windowing
and taskingsystem from within. it is jut not comperable to all the
MS-Basic crap found on 90% of all old homecomputers.
And second, yes, no disks, but for what ? the microdrives where (in
the 1983 timeframe) quite comperable to any SOHO System - 100k per
media and an access time comperable to most small systems, including
the Apple (of course quite faster than unmodigfied C64s :).
And adding a disc controler wasn't that expansive (720K 3.5"), if
your need did ourtgrow the microdrives.
I found out that it cost APPLE $100 ??? to make the
$500 ??? floppy
system for their computer reading the history of the apple from a web
site.
That's called best bussines practice :))
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa 3.0 am 27./28. April 2002 in Muenchen
http://www.vcfe.org/
5:45 a.m.
New subject: QL (was: ZX-81 Question)
Rumor has it that Hans Franke may have mentioned these words:
[[and the original poster said before that...]]
Not all Basic's are created equal -- I'd still give my left <ahem> to be
able to run a Basic09-like package [for OS-9] on my other machines... That
was another very powerful Basic.
How much do you think it costs Micro$haft to make a new version of windows,
compared to the number of copies they jam down our throats?
As as been said many times before, they only charge what the market will bear.
If Apple got a lot of people to buy them, and folks didn't complain about
the price, <M$Rant> and Apple didn't stifle competition so they could jack
up the prices even more </M$Rant> does it really matter what they charged
vs. what it cost them to build?
<going OT> Most car chargers for cell phones cost between $20 - $35 USD
each retail - they cost the dealers between $1.95 - $2.95 each, quantity
10.</going OT>
The beauty of capitalism. <g>
Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger --- sysadmin, Iceberg Computers
Recycling is good, right??? Ok, so I'll recycle an old .sig.
If at first you don't succeed, nuclear warhead
disarmament should *not* be your first career choice.
This and that
is still was a BASIC machine with no real disks.
Come on, first of all, a basic like the QL Super Sasic is quite
different from everything else you know ... QDOS is a multitasking
OS, and the Basic incooperates all features to use the windowing
and taskingsystem from within. it is jut not comperable to all the
MS-Basic crap found on 90% of all old homecomputers. I found out
that it cost APPLE $100 ??? to make the $500 ??? floppy
system for their computer reading the history of the apple from a web
site.
That's called best bussines practice :))
12:09 p.m.
New subject: QL (was: ZX-81 Question)
Roger Merchberger wrote:
Not all Basic's are created equal -- I'd still
give my left <ahem> to be
able to run a Basic09-like package [for OS-9] on my other machines... That
was another very powerful Basic.
That was more Pascal like than BASIC. That was one of the few languages
I liked. OS-9 pascal was nice too but the 64k process space really
limited what one could do with any language.
BTW The C compiler for 6089 OS/9 can only have a simple variable in a
switch statement otherwise you get bad code.
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
26 Mar
26 Mar
12:22 p.m.
New subject: QL (was: ZX-81 Question)
At 19:08 25/03/2002, you wrote:
Hmm...
It *was* revolutionary for 1984, this is true. However, QDos is not a
/true/ multitasking OS; it relied on co-operative time-slicing. So, one
badly written task could hog the whole machine (not uncommon...).
SuperBASIC was - still is - fantastic. It far outstripped ALL versions of
BASIC available at the time, and (IMNSHO) was not really superceded until
Visual Basic 2 or 3 - and even then, VB's main improvement was the forms
designer. OTOH, the "window" facility was vastly over-rated. Unfortunately,
however, it wasn't possible to harness the tasking system from within
SuperBASIC - that required machine code.
Capitalism: Charge what the market will stand - no more, no less.
--
Cheers, Ade.
Be where it's at, B-Racing!
http://b-racing.com
This and that
is still was a BASIC machine with no real disks.
Come on, first of all, a basic like the QL Super Sasic is quite
different from everything else you know ... QDOS is a multitasking
OS, and the Basic incooperates all features to use the windowing
and taskingsystem from within. it is jut not comperable to all the
MS-Basic crap found on 90% of all old homecomputers. And second, yes, no disks, but for what ? the
microdrives where (in
the 1983 timeframe) quite comperable to any SOHO System - 100k per
media and an access time comperable to most small systems, including
the Apple (of course quite faster than unmodigfied C64s :).
Agreed. Oddly enough, I had nearly no problems with microdrives; the
biggest trouble is when one of the padded backing springs goes awol
(meaning nothing to hold the tape against the read/write heads, meaning no
read/write). I have 1984 vintage microdrive carts here which still
read/write like they were brand new. OK, I've not used them hard in 8
years, but they got plenty bashed in the 10 years before that. I used my QL
almost continuously from June '84 (when I got it) to sometime in '94, when
I left University (and got a job using PCs).
And adding a disc controler wasn't that expansive
(720K 3.5"), if
your need did ourtgrow the microdrives.
Erm, it did back then... A basic single-disc system (3.5", 720K) +
interface cost circa GBP400. The first Winchester disc systems (5MB) cost
over GBP1000 when first available.
I found out
that it cost APPLE $100 ??? to make the $500 ??? floppy
system for their computer reading the history of the apple from a web
site.
That's called best bussines practice :))
9:17 p.m.
New subject: QL (was: ZX-81 Question)
> > This and that is still was a BASIC machine
with no real disks.
>Come on, first of all, a basic like the QL Super Sasic is quite
>different from everything else you know ... QDOS is a multitasking
>OS, and the Basic incooperates all features to use the windowing
>and taskingsystem from within. it is jut not comperable to all the
>MS-Basic crap found on 90% of all old homecomputers.
Hmm...
It *was* revolutionary for 1984, this is true.
And is still one of the best Basic around.
However, QDos is not a
/true/ multitasking OS; it relied on co-operative time-slicing. So, one
badly written task could hog the whole machine (not uncommon...).
Well, true multitasking is as soon as one can have severale
tasks running quasi parallel. Cooperative or not doesn't matter.
In fact I'm a big fan of cooperative system - way less OS overhead
in terms of CPU usage.
SuperBASIC was - still is - fantastic. It far
outstripped ALL versions of
BASIC available at the time, and (IMNSHO) was not really superceded until
Visual Basic 2 or 3 - and even then, VB's main improvement was the forms
designer. OTOH, the "window" facility was vastly over-rated. Unfortunately,
however, it wasn't possible to harness the tasking system from within
SuperBASIC - that required machine code.
With the 'Pointer Environment' (?) the QL was way ahead.
>And adding a disc controler wasn't that
expansive (720K 3.5"), if
>your need did ourtgrow the microdrives.
Erm, it did back then... A basic single-disc system
(3.5", 720K) +
interface cost circa GBP400. The first Winchester disc systems (5MB) cost
over GBP1000 when first available.
Which was a total rip of in both cases. Building a FDC for the
QL bus was straight foreward aut of the design handbook.
> > I found out that it cost APPLE $100 ??? to
make the $500 ??? floppy
> > system for their computer reading the history of the apple from a web
> > site.
>That's called best bussines practice :))
Capitalism: Charge what the market will stand - no
more, no less.
Always charge a little bit more, otherwise you don't know
if you're not too cheap.
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa 3.0 am 27./28. April 2002 in Muenchen
http://www.vcfe.org/
27 Mar
27 Mar
7:09 a.m.
New subject: QL (was: ZX-81 Question)
At 11:17 27/03/2002, you wrote:
Not really. It's LOCal handling is (always was) pants, it doesn't have
enough variable types, it won't do objects, and it needs line numbers. All
of which, I believe, are fixable with add-ons, none of which I have.
It was also a shame it was impossible to run multiple interpreters,
although that shortcoming was (partially) fixed by the legendary Simon
Goodwin with MultiBASIC.
Point taken. I forget, did one have to do anything with the registers, or
was it a simple case of calling the appropriate TRAP?
Good point. I never had PE (or ICE); still haven't. I must get around to
getting it one day, just to see what all the fuss was about...
Don't forget, the drives themselves were very expensive, especially the
Winchesters.
--
Cheers, Ade.
Be where it's at, B-Racing!
http://b-racing.com
> > This
and that is still was a BASIC machine with no real disks.
>Come on, first of all, a basic like the QL Super Sasic is quite
>different from everything else you know ... QDOS is a multitasking
>OS, and the Basic incooperates all features to use the windowing
>and taskingsystem from within. it is jut not comperable to all the
>MS-Basic crap found on 90% of all old homecomputers.
Hmm...
It *was* revolutionary for 1984, this is true.
And is still one of the best Basic around. However, QDos
is not a
/true/ multitasking OS; it relied on co-operative time-slicing. So, one
badly written task could hog the whole machine (not uncommon...).
Well, true multitasking is as soon as one can have severale
tasks running quasi parallel. Cooperative or not doesn't matter.
In fact I'm a big fan of cooperative system - way less OS overhead
in terms of CPU usage. SuperBASIC was
- still is - fantastic. It far outstripped ALL versions of
BASIC available at the time, and (IMNSHO) was not really superceded until
Visual Basic 2 or 3 - and even then, VB's main improvement was the forms
designer. OTOH, the "window" facility was vastly over-rated.
Unfortunately,
however, it wasn't possible to harness the
tasking system from within
SuperBASIC - that required machine code.
With the 'Pointer Environment' (?) the QL was way ahead. >And adding
a disc controler wasn't that expansive (720K 3.5"), if
>your need did ourtgrow the microdrives.
Erm, it did back then... A basic single-disc
system (3.5", 720K) +
interface cost circa GBP400. The first Winchester disc systems (5MB) cost
over GBP1000 when first available.
Which was a total rip of in both cases. Building a FDC for the
QL bus was straight foreward aut of the design handbook.
7:44 p.m.
New subject: QL (was: ZX-81 Question)
> > > > This and that is still was a BASIC
machine with no real disks.
> > >Come on, first of all, a basic like the QL Super Sasic is quite
> > >different from everything else you know ... QDOS is a multitasking
> > >OS, and the Basic incooperates all features to use the windowing
> > >and taskingsystem from within. it is jut not comperable to all the
> > >MS-Basic crap found on 90% of all old homecomputers.
> > Hmm...
> > It *was* revolutionary for 1984, this is true.
>And is still one of the best Basic around.
Not really. It's LOCal handling is (always was)
pants, it doesn't have
enough variable types, it won't do objects, and it needs line numbers. All
of which, I believe, are fixable with add-ons, none of which I have.
Now, as a remaining of the time when you had to punch a card
number in the first 8 columns of your source, I realy can't
see why line numbers are bad :) (ok, point taken). And things
like local storage and object and combined data types are maybe
a nice thing in visual bastic ... just, if you take away line
numbers and add all the other stuff, is it still basic ? Or
a new language wich inherits some features ? Back in the 70s
new Languages where created with way less differences.
It was also a shame it was impossible to run multiple
interpreters,
although that shortcoming was (partially) fixed by the legendary Simon
Goodwin with MultiBASIC.
Jep. here the integration of QDOS and SuperBasic was just weak.
I'd have whished way more handles to use all the nice stuff.
> > However, QDos is not a
> > /true/ multitasking OS; it relied on co-operative time-slicing. So, one
> > badly written task could hog the whole machine (not uncommon...).
>Well, true multitasking is as soon as one can have severale
>tasks running quasi parallel. Cooperative or not doesn't matter.
>In fact I'm a big fan of cooperative system - way less OS overhead
>in terms of CPU usage.
Point taken. I forget, did one have to do anything
with the registers, or
was it a simple case of calling the appropriate TRAP?
Wasnit it both ? You always need machine code to do it.
> > SuperBASIC was - still is - fantastic. It
far outstripped ALL versions of
> > BASIC available at the time, and (IMNSHO) was not really superceded until
> > Visual Basic 2 or 3 - and even then, VB's main improvement was the forms
> > designer. OTOH, the "window" facility was vastly over-rated.
> > Unfortunately,
> > however, it wasn't possible to harness the tasking system from within
> > SuperBASIC - that required machine code.
>With the 'Pointer Environment' (?) the QL was way ahead.
Good point. I never had PE (or ICE); still
haven't. I must get around to
getting it one day, just to see what all the fuss was about...
From todays point it may look only like a cheap, never
finished
graphic shell, but in the mid 80s it was just great. Especialy
for a machine which still followed the ready made computer scheme
(read OS and Basic in ROM, in contrast to bare bone systems where
one has to load OS, Shell and interpreters).
The QL comes, of all production machines, closest to my whishes
and ideas of a computer in the early/mid 80s
> > >And adding a disc controler wasn't
that expansive (720K 3.5"), if
> > >your need did ourtgrow the microdrives.
> > Erm, it did back then... A basic single-disc system (3.5", 720K) +
> > interface cost circa GBP400. The first Winchester disc systems (5MB) cost
> > over GBP1000 when first available.
>Which was a total rip of in both cases. Building a FDC for the
>QL bus was straight foreward aut of the design handbook.
Don't forget, the drives themselves were very
expensive, especially the
Winchesters.
Shure, I was only talking about the FDs - and still, 400 GBP is
a rip off (ok, I'm not in a position to tell you - I bought my
first Apple disks at 2000 Mark (~600GBP) in 1979 - _used_!
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa 3.0 am 27./28. April 2002 in Muenchen
http://www.vcfe.org/
28 Mar
28 Mar
2:07 a.m.
New subject: QL (was: ZX-81 Question)
Hans Franke wrote:
Now, as a remaining of the time when you had to punch
a card
number in the first 8 columns of your source, I realy can't
see why line numbers are bad :) (ok, point taken). And things
like local storage and object and combined data types are maybe
a nice thing in visual bastic ... just, if you take away line
numbers and add all the other stuff, is it still basic ? Or
a new language wich inherits some features ? Back in the 70s
new Languages where created with way less differences.
Line numbers are more do to the fact that most people had hard copy i/o
devices for terminals and simple text editors. The minimum BASIC had
only a few commands LET, IF, PRINT , READ?? ,LIST , DEL,NEW, STOP ,
GOSUB , RETURN , RUN, GOTO. A new line often was re-entered rather
edited as it was easier than editing a line on a TTY.
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
25 Mar
25 Mar
10:44 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1701 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020326/2b706947/at…
10:31 p.m.
New subject: QL-Quality (Was: ZX-81 Question)
> Well, Sinclair sold it and called it QL.
> A 68008, running at 8 (?) MHz, (almost) Real Keyboard (at least as
> good as most PC keyboards in the $10 range), Reak Memory (128K, as
That does not make it a 'real keyboard'. In
fact the QL keyboard I used
was pretty unpleasant. My QL was obtained surplus as the bottom half only
(no keyboard), so I kludged on a matrix of switches from my junk box.
It's one of the few QLs with useable keys IMHO...
maybe, still you could work quite well.
> much as the first Mac, but expandable to 640 or
900) and two tape
> drives with ~100K each.
> Furthermore: Serial Interface, Joystick Ports and
a full figured
> Network. As cream ontop of the cake a complete application suite
You forgot to mention that the tape drives were very
unreliable if used
continuousely (those endless loop tapes would stretch and/or jam).
Right, but you could manufacture your own - using regular music
cassette tape of acceptrable quality did work quite well.
The
serial ports were broken as designed (I've looked at the schematics. The
RxD lines from the 2 ports are just ORed together -- the external devices
_must_ observe the handshake lines!), and
Which every _real_ device should do. That's what the handshake
lines are for. Always going for the least common ground isn't
the way to do.
that the network was similar to the kludge used on the
Spectrum.
Jep, but it worked. it is always easy to say XYZ is crap, not
as good as something else at 100 times the price. Remember, in
1983 Networkcable, for a 'real' networ allone cost you more than
a QL
The QL was, alas, as typical Sinclair design. Built to
a price, and it
shows. It may have been reasonable to do that for a home computer where
people couldn't/wouldn't afford anything better, but not for something
that claimed to be a business computer.
At this scale, a Mac of the same time would also not qualify as
a business system ... not even cursor keys nor a numpad nor any
kind of interfase ... etc. pp.
> with Word Processing, Spreadsheet, Database and
Business Graphics.
> And all together at about 900 Mark (back than ~250 GBP). Lower
It sold for \pounds 399 in the UK.
At the beginning ? I'm just asking, because I don't remember the
price on the island.
My view is that had it sold for \pounds 600 or so and
had a real disk
drive, real serial ports, and a useable keyboard then it might have sold
rather better in the UK.
Maybe they should have had a 'professional' version with an
external keyboard and disk drives, to satisfy both markets.
Anyway, history.
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa 3.0 am 27./28. April 2002 in Muenchen
http://www.vcfe.org/
26 Mar
26 Mar
10:13 a.m.
New subject: QL-Quality (Was: ZX-81 Question)
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 4247 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020327/aaf5fb26/at…
12:42 p.m.
New subject: QL-Quality (Was: ZX-81 Question)
At 00:13 27/03/2002, you wrote:
Well, I found the QL keyboard to be very unpleasant to
use...
Quirky, not "unpleasant". Definitely quirky...
Err, a serious business computer (which is what the QL
was sold as in the
UK, at least initially) does not require you to make your own media.
The trouble was the price. Sinclair would have had to approximately double
the machine's price - and quite possibly size & weight - to get a disk
drive in (forget the Amstrad 3" wreckages, they're about as reliable as
microdrives).
Granted, the QL would possibly have enjoyed more success that way, but
Sinclair is Sinclair.
In any case, unreliability was still a problem. And I,
for one, am not
going to use a computer where I can't be certain of being able to read my
files back again.
I'll happily relieve you of any old QL stuff you still have...
--
Cheers, Ade.
Be where it's at, B-Racing!
http://b-racing.com
9:17 p.m.
New subject: QL-Quality (Was: ZX-81 Question)
>In any case, unreliability was still a problem.
And I, for one, am not
>going to use a computer where I can't be certain of being able to read my
>files back again.
I'll happily relieve you of any old QL stuff you
still have...
I guess we're all happy to help.
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa 3.0 am 27./28. April 2002 in Muenchen
http://www.vcfe.org/
27 Mar
27 Mar
7:18 a.m.
New subject: QL-Quality (Was: ZX-81 Question)
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1158 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020327/7e20920c/at…
10:59 a.m.
New subject: QL-Quality (Was: ZX-81 Question)
At 21:18 27/03/2002, you wrote:
Why is size/weight important for a machine that's not designed as a portable?
Smaller is Better? Wasn't that always Sinclair's design philosophy?
Anyway, size was a secondary issue...
I'm not totally sure whether the Amstrad drive = Hitachi, but I've had
nothing but bad luck with the Amstrad things. The S/W house I did "work
experience" at (whilst still an ankle-biter) had nothing but rude words to
say about the CPC6128 and it's disk drive.
Probably. Sir Clive is an innovator and corner-cutter. No way is he a
business man.
--
Cheers, Ade.
Be where it's at, B-Racing!
http://b-racing.com
Err, a serious business computer (which is what the QL
was sold as in the
UK, at least initially) does not require you to make your own media.
The trouble was the price. Sinclair would have had to approximately double
the machine's price - and quite possibly size & weight - to get a disk And as regards price, I (and virtually everone else I
know) would rather
pay enough and get something that's useable and reliable rather than pay
too little and get something that's useless.
Perhaps. Back when they were new, it was the only "decent" computer my
family could afford. As such, I'm prepared to forgive Sir Clive an awful
lot; since I got a very handy machine.
I know this is an
unconventional idea these days, though :-(
So true. OTOH, the QL was mostly reliable. Certainly more reliable than any
single one of my PCs here (all of which have, at some time or another, had
something fail in them). What makes the PC forgivable is that it's
generally a plug-in plug-out component, rather than some integral part of
the only circuit board in the thing. Although, come to think of it, I have
had 3 motherboard failures :(
drive in
(forget the Amstrad 3" wreckages, they're about as reliable as
microdrives).
Odd... I've not used the Amstrad drives, but I've used the Hitachi 3"
drives with 'Amsoft' disks (who really made those? Maxell?) and never
lost a single byte. The disk mechanical construction is much better than
the 3.5" one as well... Granted, the
QL would possibly have enjoyed more success that way, but
Sinclair is Sinclair.
Unfortunately, he's ruined just about all of his products in this way :-(
28 Mar
28 Mar
5:36 a.m.
New subject: QL-Quality (Was: ZX-81 Question)
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 2631 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020328/38a2339b/at…
12:04 p.m.
New subject: QL-Quality (Was: ZX-81 Question)
At 19:36 28/03/2002, you wrote:
To Sinclair, that probably *was* a real reason. Don't forget, he's a huge
(pardon the pun) fan of miniaturisation.
Like I said, it was mostly reliable. If you got a duff one, you were in for
a world of pain. But that's true of everything.
Taking a soldering iron to your only computer, when unable to afford a
replacement, is *not* clever.
>Why is
size/weight important for a machine that's not designed as a
portable?
Smaller is Better? Wasn't that always Sinclair's design philosophy?
I was looking for a real reason.... In my view larger is better, since
it's a lot easier to work on when it needs repair...
Mostly agreed. Things can get *too* big (ain't no way I'm going to fit a
VAX8800 in my "machine room" (aka the spare bedroom)). OTOH, bigger tends
to mean more modular, which tends to make repairs easier as well.
So true. OTOH,
the QL was mostly reliable. Certainly more reliable than
any
I know people who had a lot of trouble with them... single one of
my PCs here (all of which have, at some time or another, had
something fail in them). What makes the PC forgivable is that it's
generally a plug-in plug-out component, rather than some integral part of
the only circuit board in the thing. Although, come to think of it, I have
What's that got to do with it? Anyway, I repair my PCs to component level as well..
Doesn't everybody???
No.
--
Cheers, Ade.
Be where it's at, B-Racing!
http://b-racing.com
29 Mar
29 Mar
7:06 a.m.
New subject: QL-Quality (Was: ZX-81 Question)
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 2279 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020329/4948262b/at…
4:26 p.m.
New subject: QL-Quality (Was: ZX-81 Question)
On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Tony Duell wrote:
OK, does _anybody_ (else)?
Yes, me, if I can ID the problem and have the tools to do the job [1].
Though if I can easily replace the offending _board_ instead, I'd much
rather do that, I've never been afraid to risk breaking something that
has already failed to perform to my specs.
[1] I was at one time "certified" by Texas Instruments as a solder
operator, but I haven't kept up the skills and have never owned really
good electronic solder tools. So I have a pretty good grasp of what a
job involves, and whether I'm equipped to tackle it.
That said, given a torch with the right tips, which I have, and silver
or gold solder & flux, I can, in the words of Ron Streu, owner of Broken
Feather Jewelry, "solder a gnat's ass shut, without singeing his wings"
But that's really a completely unrelated skillset.
Doc
Anyway, I repair my PCs to component level as well..
Doesn't everybody???
No. 
30 Mar
30 Mar
1:23 a.m.
New subject: QL-Quality (Was: ZX-81 Question)
Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner wrote:
It was thus said that the Great Tony Duell once stated:
It is hard because the tools today don't bootstrap nicely. There are
still a few home grown os's out there but they seem all to be for the
6502 or the 6809.
http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve/omu.html unix like 6809
http://www.users.cloud9.net/~stark/ flex clone 6809 , 68000
http://www.rtmx.com/UniFLEX/ real flex 6809
http://www.geex.hpg.ig.com.br/index.html geex ( 8086 )
http://www.cpm.z80.de/index.html CP/M archive site
http://lng.sourceforge.net/ lunix 6502
http://elks.sourceforge.net/ embeded linux kernal 8086
Lets not forget LINUX,MINUX and FLEX (6800/6809) is still around and
lots PDP-8 software too. I am building a nice 12/24 bit cpu with a
wopping 256Kb , anybody care to write a OS for it.:)
> >Anyway, I repair my PCs to component level as well.. Doesn't everybody???
>
Doesn't everybody write their own operating system?
-spc (Or text editor for that matter? 8-)
5:38 a.m.
New subject: QL-Quality (Was: ZX-81 Question)
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 727 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020330/149c94d5/at…
29 Mar
29 Mar
10:16 p.m.
New subject: QL-Quality (Was: ZX-81 Question)
On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Tony Duell wrote:
OK, does _anybody_ (else)?
I do, when I have access to the parts I need. I don't yet have the proper
tools for soldering surface mount components, but I manage when I have to.
Speaking of repairs and parts, I just uncovered a box of mid to late 1970s
74/74LS TTL chips I got in an auction years ago. Most seem to be in good
shape, but some of them have their pins corroded due to the conductive
foam their previous owner stored them in. Anyone know of a good way to
clean the remaining crud and rust from the pins? Would an ultrasonic
cleaner be safe to use on chips this old? Some of those chips I'll likely
end up tossing since they lost pins to the corrosion.
-Toth
Anyway, I repair my PCs to component level as well..
Doesn't everybody???
No. 
27 Mar
27 Mar
7:13 p.m.
New subject: QL-Quality (Was: ZX-81 Question)
Hi,
ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) said:
I never had any problems with the Einstein 3-inch drives either, mostly
Maxell disks...I always thought they were a better design than the 3.5
inch disks as well.
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr stanb(a)dial.pipex.com
The future was never like this!
drive in (forget the Amstrad 3" wreckages,
they're about as reliable as
microdrives).
Odd... I've not used the Amstrad drives, but I've used the Hitachi 3"
drives with 'Amsoft' disks (who really made those? Maxell?) and never
lost a single byte. The disk mechanical construction is much better than
the 3.5" one as well...
12:12 a.m.
New subject: RS232 (was: QL-Quality (Was: ZX-81 Question))
> > > Well, Sinclair sold it and called it
QL.
> > > A 68008, running at 8 (?) MHz, (almost) Real Keyboard (at least as
> > > good as most PC keyboards in the $10 range), Reak Memory (128K, as
> > That does not make it a 'real keyboard'. In fact the QL keyboard I used
> > was pretty unpleasant. My QL was obtained surplus as the bottom half only
> > (no keyboard), so I kludged on a matrix of switches from my junk box.
> > It's one of the few QLs with useable keys IMHO...
> maybe, still you could work quite well.
Well, I found the QL keyboard to be very unpleasant to
use...
Well, let's agree on that it was not anything we would have payed
a lot of money for :=)
> > You forgot to mention that the tape drives
were very unreliable if used
> > continuousely (those endless loop tapes would stretch and/or jam).
> Right, but you could manufacture your own - using regular music
> cassette tape of acceptrable quality did work quite well.
Err, a serious business computer (which is what the QL
was sold as in the
UK, at least initially) does not require you to make your own media.
Over here it was ment as high class home computer, promising
to be even usefull for real applications.
In any case, unreliability was still a problem. And I,
for one, am not
going to use a computer where I can't be certain of being able to read my
files back again.
I wasn't the big QL geek, but as far as I used the machine, the
drives where reliable enough.
> > The
> > serial ports were broken as designed (I've looked at the schematics. The
> > RxD lines from the 2 ports are just ORed together -- the external devices
> > _must_ observe the handshake lines!), and
> Which every _real_ device should do. That's what the handshake
> lines are for. Always going for the least common ground isn't
Tony, as much as I apreciate your knowledge, now you
shoot yourself in the foot.
Absolutely WRONG! Have you read the RS232 standard?
Yes I did, and I couldn't find any Note that they are just
funky add ons to till the sepc document.
The handshake lines are _not_ there for flow control.
After all, the
RS232 interface was designed to link a terminal to a (dumb) modem. The 2
devices that need to perform flow control are the terminal and the
computer connected to the other modem. But the handshake lines are _not_
transmitted down the phone line and thus can't be used (officially) for
flow control.
Now you are talking about an end to end transmission, which
has NOTHING to do with RS232. RS232 defines the layout of
a serial line connection, and the behaviour of controll lines.
The interface is only defined for the connection between two
devices. And only between them. Whatever one of these devices,
like a modem, does with the data or not, is not part of it.
Of course the interface is especialy suited for communication
devices (modem) and got additional support therefor. Nonetheless
it's only about the communication between two pices of equippment.
The controllines are ment to tell the other sinde about states
like data can be accepted or not etc. Let's just take said modem
and terminal - flowcontroll here is to be made by using the hand
shake lines. As for example if the modem can't send the data fast
enough it needs a way to tell that the terminal has to wait.
Of course everyvbody uses them for that, at least on
local connections.
But no device should _require_ them. It's one thing to allow them to be
used to prevent data loss if too much data is sent too fast. It's quite
another to require them to be used in all circumstances to prevent data
ending up in the wrong place.
This sounds to me like asking car manufacturers to build their
wheels according to the request that the car should still work
fine if not all nuts are tightened.
An example. Suppose you have a 30cps printer with a
9600baud serial
interface. It's reasonable to use one of the handshake lines to indicate
the buffer is full and that the host should stop sending data. But
equally, it should be possible to ignore the handshake line and only send
10 characters per second (slowed down by software on the host, ignoring
all handshake lines, just leaving large gaps between characters), without
data loss. The handshake lines may (incorrectly) be used for flow
control, they should not be _required_ in all circumstances.
Flow controll in the sense of RS232 is only about the communication
between the two connected devices.
> the way to do.
> > that the network was similar to the kludge used on the Spectrum.
> Jep, but it worked. it is always easy to say XYZ is crap, not
> as good as something else at 100 times the price. Remember, in
Well, I would rather pay a little more money and get
something that's
useable. Spending money on something that doesn't do what I want is
called 'wasting money'.
Agreed - just the QL did what expected.
> > The QL was, alas, as typical Sinclair
design. Built to a price, and it
> > shows. It may have been reasonable to do that for a home computer where
> > people couldn't/wouldn't afford anything better, but not for something
> > that claimed to be a business computer.
> At this scale, a Mac of the same time would also not qualify as
> a business system ... not even cursor keys nor a numpad nor any
> kind of interfase ... etc. pp.
Hmm.. I regard the lack of reliable mass storage and
useable serial ports
(and no other I/O at all) to be rather more serious than the lack of a
number pad (which, IIRC, was available as an option for the Mac).
Still, no real Disk drive (only the real weired Mac Drive,
not compatible to anything else, no hard disk (at a price
where one could get a CP/M System with HD), no accessable
system buss, no nothing. Only one serial port, and that's
it. Na, I didn't like the Mac (from a hardware point) back
then, an it didn't change over the years - the original Macs
are cloesed black box crap.
with Word
Processing, Spreadsheet, Database and Business Graphics.
And all together at about 900 Mark (back than ~250 GBP). Lower
It sold for \pounds
399 in the UK.
8:05 a.m.
New subject: RS232 (was: QL-Quality (Was: ZX-81 Question))
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 5086 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020327/efb55023/at…
12:47 p.m.
New subject: RS232 (was: QL-Quality (Was: ZX-81 Question))
That's not part of the standard I remember, Tony. Though it's been a while
(1970-something) I remember a string of meetings regarding a feeble attempt at
IBM to ascertain what the "correct" way to use the RS232-C (then) standard
signals might be. There was no agreement. DEC did it one way, DG another, TI
yet another, and the EIA standard, while quite precise about signal names,
definitions of the roles of terminal equipment and communcation equipment,
pins, and voltage levels, baud rates over distance, etc, said nothing at all
about any sort of signalling protocol either in hardware or software. This
caused LOTS of trouble out in the field when one wanted mfg ABC's equipment to
talk to mfg XYZ's. Everybody seemed, simply, to have assumed what was
intended and gone with that. Later, they had to figure out how to work around
the resulting problems. The answer, of course, was to strap back all the
handshakes so the hardware would work, then use X-on/X-off protocol in
software to do the work.
One reason this standard was so limited was because of its rather narrow
assumptions about what the roles of terminal vs. communication equipment were.
If there were no equipment other than terminals and modems it would have been
a piece of cake.
If you've got a pointer to a recent version of the spec, perhaps you could
share it with us so we can all get on the same page.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Duell" <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: RS232 (was: QL-Quality (Was: ZX-81 Question))
I disagree, and so do many major manufacturers. Example : No DEC serial
port on any of my PDP8s or PDP11s (DL8, DL11, DZ11) uses RTS or CTS. Or,
indeed any other line for flow control. Mainly because they _should not_
be used for flow control.
This, of course, means you can't use a QL as a terminal to a PDP11 system
(!).
Eh? The RS232 spec I read made some interesting comments about the
correct use of the handshake lines. Things like one end had to change one
of them _before_ the other end could drop another line (I can't remember
the exact details, but it was something like it was forbidden for the DCE
(modem) to deassert CTS while the DTE (terminal) was still asserting RTS.
Which makes RTS/CTS flow control strictly illegal by the standard. It may
not have been that pair of lines, but it was certainly a commonly used pair).
The origianl use of RS232 was to link a terminal to a modem. Period. And
this modem does not have any internal character buffering (I am talking
about one of the old Bell or GPO modems, not some modern thing), so _it_
can't do flow control with the terminal. The 2 devices that need to do
flow control are the DTEs (terminal and computer), one at each end of the
link.
Now if you want to extend RS232 to link 2 local devices without
intermediate modems, fine. We all do that. But you should do it in a way
that is still compatible with the original usage. Not _require_ the
device to do hardware flow control when it may not be capable of it.
No, it's asking that devices should attempt to follow the standard. Add
extra features if you like (hardware flow control), but don't make them
madatory. Because there are a lot of devices out there, even quite modern
ones (I have one I bought _new_ in 2000) that don't support any form of
hardware flow control, and thus can't be used with a QL.
>
> > Hmm.. I regard the lack of reliable mass storage and useable serial
ports
I found the original Mac drive to be a lot more reliable than the QL
microdrives (which also were incompatible with everything else out there).
> > > > The
> > > > serial ports were broken as designed (I've looked at the
schematics.
The
> > > > RxD lines from the 2 ports are
just ORed together -- the external
devices
> > _must_ observe the handshake lines!), and
> Which every _real_ device should do. That's what the handshake
> lines are for. Always going for the least common ground isn't
Tony, as much as I apreciate your knowledge, now you
shoot yourself in the foot. Absolutely WRONG! Have you read the RS232
standard?
Yes I did, and I couldn't find any Note that they are just
funky add ons to till the sepc document. The handshake lines are _not_ there for flow
control. After all, the
RS232 interface was designed to link a terminal to a (dumb) modem. The 2
devices that need to perform flow control are the terminal and the
computer connected to the other modem. But the handshake lines are _not_
transmitted down the phone line and thus can't be used (officially) for
flow control.
Now you are talking about an end to end transmission, which
has NOTHING to do with RS232. RS232 defines the layout of The controllines are ment to tell the other sinde
about states
like data can be accepted or not etc. Let's just take said modem
and terminal - flowcontroll here is to be made by using the hand
shake lines. As for example if the modem can't send the data fast
enough it needs a way to tell that the terminal has to wait.
Perhaps you could tell me how a GPO Modem 2B (to quote one old modem I
know darn well) can do any form of flow control. The TxD input from the
terminal goes straight to the modulation input on a 2-frequency
oscillator. There is no intermediate data buffering. Period.
Of course everyvbody uses them for that, at least
on local connections.
But no device should _require_ them. It's one thing to allow them to be
used to prevent data loss if too much data is sent too fast. It's quite
another to require them to be used in all circumstances to prevent data
ending up in the wrong place.
This sounds to me like asking car manufacturers to build their
wheels according to the request that the car should still work
fine if not all nuts are tightened. (and no other I/O at all) to be rather more serious
than the lack of a
number pad (which, IIRC, was available as an option for the Mac).
Still, no real Disk drive (only the real weired Mac Drive,
not compatible to anything else, no hard disk (at a price where one could get a CP/M System with HD), no
accessable
system buss, no nothing. Only one serial port, and that's
Every Mac I've ever seen has 2 serial ports...
it. Na, I didn't like the Mac (from a
hardware point) back
then, an it didn't change over the years - the original Macs
are cloesed black box crap.
I don't like the Mac much either (particularly not the original ones). I
don't like closed systems. But that is not the point.
-tony
28 Mar
28 Mar
5:59 a.m.
New subject: RS232 (was: QL-Quality (Was: ZX-81 Question))
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 2722 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020328/78ff0033/at…
26 Mar
26 Mar
12:36 p.m.
New subject: QL-Quality (Was: ZX-81 Question)
At 12:31 26/03/2002, you wrote:
I learned to type on one.... Myabe thsi is wyh I cnat' tpye :)
They were fatally flawed, however: The underlying membrane was made of
biodegradable materials (duh!), and usually cracked where it was folded
(duh!) out of the keyboard enclosure down onto the mainboard. Not that it
wouldn't last for years, mind you. It was certainly leagues ahead of all
previous Sinclair keyboards.
The other problem involves the I/O hardware, which was unbuffered. This is
why switching peripherals on & off while the QL is switched on can fry the
QL...
Never tried that... OTOH, in 18 years of QL ownership, I've only ever had
one single cartridge jam.
I never did get a working QL network. Mind you, I didn't get a second QL
for 10 years, so I never really tried very hard. I've got 5 now, maybe I
should look into it again.
Don't forget, the QL didn't have a numpad either. It also had a
non-standard key layour (semi-American).
Yes, it went on sale in January 1984 for GBP399. First units shipped in
about March or April (FB rom version, rumoured to stand for "Full of Bugs"
- these were the kludged machines which effectively killed the QL before it
ever got going), reliable units shipped sometime after April (PM, AH, JM,
JS roms respectively, IIRC). After about 18 months/2 years, the price
dropped to GBP199.
Sinclair never aimed it at the high-end "pro" market; it was always aimed
at the SOHO market (which barely existed at the time). Unfortunately, in
doing so, he managed to alienate the games market (they stuck to Spectrums,
Commodore 64s & Amstrads), and miss the high-end market (who were going
with IBM & clones). By the time the QL's market came about, PC clones were
cheap enough to make them the better option.
> Well,
Sinclair sold it and called it QL.
> A 68008, running at 8 (?) MHz, (almost) Real Keyboard (at least as
> good as most PC keyboards in the $10 range), Reak Memory (128K, as
That does not make it a 'real keyboard'.
In fact the QL keyboard I used
was pretty unpleasant. My QL was obtained surplus as the bottom half only
(no keyboard), so I kludged on a matrix of switches from my junk box.
It's one of the few QLs with useable keys IMHO...
maybe, still you could work quite well. > much as
the first Mac, but expandable to 640 or 900) and two tape
> drives with ~100K each.
> Furthermore: Serial Interface, Joystick
Ports and a full figured
> Network. As cream ontop of the cake a complete application suite
You forgot to mention that the tape drives were
very unreliable if used
continuousely (those endless loop tapes would stretch and/or jam).
Right, but you could manufacture your own - using regular music
cassette tape of acceptrable quality did work quite well. that the
network was similar to the kludge used on the Spectrum.
Jep, but it worked. it is always easy to say XYZ is crap, not
as good as something else at 100 times the price. Remember, in
1983 Networkcable, for a 'real' networ allone cost you more than
a QL The QL was,
alas, as typical Sinclair design. Built to a price, and it
shows. It may have been reasonable to do that for a home computer where
people couldn't/wouldn't afford anything better, but not for something
that claimed to be a business computer.
At this scale, a Mac of the same time would also not qualify as
a business system ... not even cursor keys nor a numpad nor any
kind of interfase ... etc. pp. > with Word
Processing, Spreadsheet, Database and Business Graphics.
> And all together at about 900 Mark (back than ~250 GBP). Lower
It sold for \pounds 399 in the UK.
At the beginning ? I'm just asking, because I don't remember the
price on the island. My view is
that had it sold for \pounds 600 or so and had a real disk
drive, real serial ports, and a useable keyboard then it might have sold
rather better in the UK.
Maybe they should have had a 'professional' version with an
external keyboard and disk drives, to satisfy both markets. Anyway, history.
Yep. So much could have been different, but it wasn't to be.
--
Cheers, Ade.
Be where it's at, B-Racing!
http://b-racing.com
27 Mar
27 Mar
7:15 a.m.
New subject: QL-Quality (Was: ZX-81 Question)
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1109 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020327/713eb207/at…
11:01 a.m.
New subject: QL-Quality (Was: ZX-81 Question)
At 21:15 27/03/2002, you wrote:
You were very lucky. I had several jam in the first _month_. And no, I
wasn't doing stupid things with them, unless inserting them in
microdrives is considered stupid.
Conversely, perhaps you were very *unlucky*?
Like I say, I've got 5 QLs here (spanning a few years of production), over
200 mdv carts, and only one jam (and that was 14 years ago, or thereabouts).
--
Cheers, Ade.
Be where it's at, B-Racing!
http://b-racing.com
Right, but you could manufacture your own - using
regular music
cassette tape of acceptrable quality did work quite well.
Never tried that... OTOH, in 18 years of QL ownership, I've only ever had
one single cartridge jam.
8076
days inactive
8083
days old
35 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
acme_ent＠bellsouth.net -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
avickers＠solutionengineers.com -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
doc＠mdrconsult.com -
edick＠idcomm.com -
Hans.Franke＠mch20.sbs.de -
spc＠conman.org -
stanb＠dial.pipex.com -
tothwolf＠concentric.net -
zmerch＠30below.com