|
Post by David Murray on Jul 5, 2005 19:22:45 GMT -5
I'm really at a loss to understand why people want to do this? OK. I admit, I've never used quantum link in my life. I remember I had about 10 disks with the program on it, but always reformatted them to use as extra storage. I mean, I was too young to afford the service and never knew anybody else who had it. So I never saw it in action.
But it seems to me that rather than wasting the time cracking the protocols, that it would be easier just to re-create an application that does something similar. No doubt it would be better than Qlink anyway with modern programming techniques. Or is it just for nastalagia?
|
|
|
Post by Keith Henrickson on Jul 5, 2005 19:54:28 GMT -5
Nostalgia. Why do people still use commie 64s? Cause they're better than the 3.06GHz Intel PC sitting right next to it? And again, you have to have used it to understand it. Have to remember the first time you heard your brand new expensive modem clackclacking out the number. Have to remember the first time the CD LED turned on. Have to remember trying to get through to Virginia on Christmas morning. Have to remember the first time you typed something, and some OTHER computer did something with it. And you have to be a GEEK. There's some guy that hangs out one one of the Yahoo Groups about Qlink and posts a new link to his Q-link server. It only stays up about a week at a time, so I haven't seen it lately. But each time it has been some web-based thing, that looks vaguely Q-linkish. Newer, sure. Anything CLOSE to the magic? Nah.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Ledger on Jul 5, 2005 21:01:54 GMT -5
In a word... "MAGIC"
So many of us lived through the 80s with these machines and service as our first experience with computers. The last message summed it up very well. For myself, Commodore retains the Magic of computing while my P4 has simply become an appliance for communication, just another type of phone.
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by David Murray on Jul 6, 2005 8:38:01 GMT -5
Okay.. I mean I can understand most everything said there, since I used to call BBSs from the days of 300 baud until the rise of the internet. But what made quantum link so much better than a BBS? Does anybody have a screenshot of what it looked like running? I mean, I remember seeing the startup screen that looked like skyscrapers and stuff, but never could get past that since I had no account.
|
|
|
Post by Leif Bloomquist on Jul 6, 2005 13:25:17 GMT -5
Does anybody have a screenshot of what it looked like running? I mean, I remember seeing the startup screen that looked like skyscrapers and stuff, but never could get past that since I had no account. Check out this site: www.qlinklives.org/I never used Qlink either as I was also too young, so I can't comment on the user experience personally. I'm guessing 1) the novelty of an early multiuser system, and 2) the fact that it was much bigger than a BBS but still small enough that quality was kept consistently high, were factors in how it's remembered.
|
|
|
Post by Wildstar on Jul 16, 2005 0:41:49 GMT -5
Okay.. I mean I can understand most everything said there, since I used to call BBSs from the days of 300 baud until the rise of the internet. But what made quantum link so much better than a BBS? Does anybody have a screenshot of what it looked like running? I mean, I remember seeing the startup screen that looked like skyscrapers and stuff, but never could get past that since I had no account. First thing to understand is Q-Link was not a BBS but a network. Hence you are comparing a network of servers/(BBSs if you want to think of a BBS as a individual server of a network). This is a BIG distinction. Q-Link is like the entire AOL's network. Not just the ISP but the network of all the content. On Q-Link, people all over the world (nation then world) can communicate to each other. Think of Q-Link like the 'Commodore Internet'. Once we can bring back Q-Link, modernizations can be made (for the faster modems and ethernet supports) can be made and individuals can literally become a network of one via the internet networking infrastructure. With individual nodes operated by a variety of people. Imagine a brand new Q-Link server running on the PC (use to be a Stratus minicomputer) or a SuperCPU equipped Commodore. This would be a neat setup in my humble opinion. Just a few ideas but the bottom line is a nice Q-Link 'web/network' server and you can use Q-Link disks to connect to. An updated disk can also be made with support for faster modems and ethernet.
|
|
|
Post by Keith Henrickson on Jul 17, 2005 1:03:59 GMT -5
Hmmm, interesting idea that...
Since the Qlink disk has it's own OS, and hence drivers......
It SHOULD be possible to make a patch that would use TFE or somesuch. Or a 6551, or something like that.
The area names are hard coded in several places.
And the client overall has a concept of sending commands to only one place.
But if you made a whole list of 'connection points' that all talk to each other, and someone administers the 8 root pages of the service....hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..............
|
|
|
Post by Jim Brain on Jul 17, 2005 17:26:40 GMT -5
The phases of my interest in QLink were:
determine protocol (started on, but got bogged down in the Q-OS) register domains (done) write modem emu software for WIn/Linux (done) write dummy server code (started) extend server code to map QLink rooms and so-on to modern equivalents (IRC, etc.) where possible and appropriate extend client code to hand 6551 carts (pretty easy to do)
Instead of bogging down the QLink client code with Ethernet, and to enable many more apps to run, my idea for Ethernet was to build an Ethernet cart that looked like a 6551 to the 64/128.
|
|
|
Post by Keith Henrickson on Jul 17, 2005 18:22:55 GMT -5
Very sexy idea! Offer a cable to the userport so that all apps can run. Tho, still, Qlink should be patched to use the 6551.
|
|
|
Post by Wildstar on Aug 1, 2005 0:06:11 GMT -5
Very sexy idea! Offer a cable to the userport so that all apps can run. Tho, still, Qlink should be patched to use the 6551. I'm hoping to have greater performance than 56Kbps and have some real speed performance found with ethernet BUT to have something that functions like a hyper fast 6551 (as far as the software sees it) would be interesting. Say, 230.4 Kbps or 256Kbps would be nice.
|
|
|
Post by taper on Aug 18, 2005 3:35:21 GMT -5
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 6551, but it would for sure be nice to get Q-Link client run with swiftlink/turbo232/Silversurfer, or TFE/RR-Net (I think RR-Net is more widespread than TFE, but perhaps there is no big difference between them?).
I won't hook up my c64 to the Pc using an ordinary oldfashioned RS232 interface anymore. I blew too many 6526 doing that... An UART like swiftlink/t232/silversurfer protects the 6526 chips and preventthat from happening.
|
|
d0c
Junior Member
Posts: 57
|
Post by d0c on Aug 18, 2005 8:14:39 GMT -5
will the rr-net and mmc64 be supported?
|
|
|
Post by Jim Brain on Aug 18, 2005 8:37:32 GMT -5
I think patching the QLink disk to use a SL/T232 (6551 cart) or the Silversurfer (16550) will be pretty easy (the RS232 code is trivial), but adding a TFE/RRNET would be a much bigger challenge, in my opinion (though nothing is impossible).
As for MM64 and RR-NET, see above for RR-NET. MMC64 wouldn;t be supported until it can be enhanced to access data after a program loads (QLink is like a mulit-load game)
Jim
|
|
d0c
Junior Member
Posts: 57
|
Post by d0c on Aug 18, 2005 9:10:38 GMT -5
i hope there will be possible to use the rr-net later and mm64 in the future, becouse both is a great piece of hardware. and no need for the pc in the middle to be connected, as i read it is with the rs232 connection. but first steps first of course, its great news to get q-link going again. i did never try it in the 80's since i was to young and it was to expensiv here in norway for anything called bbs, but i would love to try c-link and get one more reason to use my c64
|
|
|
Post by Jim Brain on Aug 18, 2005 22:51:55 GMT -5
As noted above, my idea is to make a 6551 SL/T232 cmopatible cart that talks directly to Ethernet. The advantage would be enabling all SL/T232 BBSes and such to run on the internet directly.
Jim
|
|