The Sinclair QL Forum

Hi,

SMS2 was a QL compatible operating system desined to run on an Atari ST computer, Atari emulator, or FPGA core using Atari ST system.

It is no shock that SMS2 and SMSQ/E can run the same appointments software, because, they were both written by the same person.

I used have an AtarI STE connected to a Mono VGA monitor with a special video cabld I made. This display Atari Mono mode and could run SMS2, from the disk system I had.

It looked very much like SMSQ/S on a Super Gold Card and Aurora, except thd Aurora system was in 4 colour mode with high resolution.

To me... SMS2 and SMSQ/E are the same, except SMSQ/E is open source and can bd developed. Wheras SMS2 there is no source code and I doubt there has been development in over 30 years.

Personally, the Q68 is a better option, which provide a 68000 based QL running at 40Mhz with 32Gb ram.

techy wrote: Mon Jun 09, 2025 2:12 pm as a conclusion smsq/e on a ql is not possible wothout severe work to the poor ql .

An expansion card with SMSQ/E in flash, some SRAM and a small CPLD to map the flash then SRAM at $0 would work without changing anything in the QL itself. I don't know if SMSQ/E at 7.5 MHz in a ~640K machine would be particularly enjoyable but it would be better than QDOS.

.

Dave wrote: Sun Jun 15, 2025 12:47 amI don't know if SMSQ/E at 7.5 MHz in a ~640K machine would be particularly enjoyable but it would be better than QDOS.

I'd be interested in that, too. So far, SMSQ/E is only known from significantly faster emulators.

RalfR wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 3:11 pm

Dave wrote: Sun Jun 15, 2025 12:47 amI don't know if SMSQ/E at 7.5 MHz in a ~640K machine would be particularly enjoyable but it would be better than QDOS.

I'd be interested in that, too.

Speed-wise, SMSQ/E would be more enjoyable than QDOS on the QL. Three main contras:

- Extra hardware needed
- Large memory footprint, not much left for programs even with largest possible QL RAM extension
- No person interested in doing the porting work

RalfR wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 3:11 pm So far, SMSQ/E is only known from significantly faster emulators.

What? SMSQ/E runs on Goldcard...

As for the extra hardware needed: In addition to the minimum required for SMSQ/E itself (4K RAM at $0 and 256K Flash) a Trumpcard-like RAM extension will also be required. Once a mass-storage interface is added too, the hardware is likely to sum up more than a QIMSI Gold without RTC. This bears the risk of almost nobody actually using it.

Peter wrote: Fri Jun 27, 2025 11:15 am

RalfR wrote: Tue Jun 24, 2025 3:11 pm

Dave wrote: Sun Jun 15, 2025 12:47 amI don't know if SMSQ/E at 7.5 MHz in a ~640K machine would be particularly enjoyable but it would be better than QDOS.

I'd be interested in that, too.

Speed-wise, SMSQ/E would be more enjoyable than QDOS on the QL. Three main contras:

I'm not with you on that. The concepts of the internal SMSQ/E mechanisms/drivers/scheduler are very similar to those of QDOS, many drivers are actually nearly identical. I wouldn't expect a user to actually feel much of a difference in responsiveness (of the OS core as such). Agreed, SBASIC is a lot faster than SuperBASIC, and I guess that would be the main advantage.

tofro wrote: Fri Jun 27, 2025 12:43 pm Agreed, SBASIC is a lot faster than SuperBASIC, and I guess that would be the main advantage.

Indeed I meant BASIC - which would be a massive speed advantage on a slow CPU!
Sorry for not being more specific. That SMSQ/E would not speed up drivers or binary executables appeared obvious to me.